I have come to realize that humans are formed of 2 subspecies, that are so different that it truly amazes me that we are still able to cross breed, namely the scientists and the engineers. If you were thinking as to whatever happened to art, business, medicine, humanities etc. BAH.. HUMBUG! Every person, even if their job is to knock doors and sell soap, eventually falls under one of the two categories. Take a look at the big picture**, there are 2 ways to lead life. One is to search for the truth. The other is to take the truth for granted and try to work out an optimal path towards it. There is a sense of neo-dwaitha about this whole thing.
Being the scientist that I am, repeated observations have led me to the conclusion that not only are the two absolutely incapable of understanding each other, but are also incapable of having a sane conversation together.
Experiment No. 244356.
Aim – To teach an engineer scientific principles.
Procedure - My friend of the other kind was working towards improving the lubrication efficiency of serum using gold nanoparticles***. Since I am a biochemist ( a sorry unsuccessful subdivision under "scientist"), engineers assume that I have absolute knowledge in anything remotely biological in nature all the way from cardiac surgery to agriculture. She had a very simple question for me. She wanted to know the chemical structure of serum. Engineers generally leave me lost for words, but this time I did have a comeback. "Rather simple question, which I will answer right after you tell me the chemical formula of coffee"****. She did not get the joke, alarm bells should have been screaming red alert in my head and this should have been the point when I should have prudently ended the conversation unless I had a sheer sense of vengeance over the few valuable strands of hair that research had been kind enough to spare. But, fate had it that, I took it my responsibility to spend 3 hours trying to beat in elementary biochemistry into her head. But proteins still decided to remain the 'body building nutrient' as the 2nd standard science book had emphatically proclaimed.
Result – I am unable to chose between disaster and failure.
Inference - A totally futile effort at teaching, precipitates the necessity to conduct further experiments.
Experiment No. 244357
Aim – To help an engineer think scientifically.
Procedure – based on the results of Expt No. 244356, I decided to instead try to solve her problem by using the scientists’ two favorite tools; logic and rationale. I was quite impressed with the level of detail she had to offer regarding her method and experimental set up. But however I asked the question that every engineer dreads, and none of them has the answer for. “What are you trying to find or prove?” Now I had no clue that this question was the play button for engineers, because every engineer ever faced with this question first tells what parameters they are measuring, and then they go about telling their entire method all over again. At this point a scientist has to understand that this can go on forever. The only way to jump out of this loop***** is when the engineer either admits that his boss is mad or that they really are not trying to find out anything at all. For me it was a “I really am not tiring to find out anything, infact I don’t care what I do, I just need to improve the efficiency.” For a scientist really this is not a helpful target, because that is where we get cranky and suggest they use some grease on the hinges. We tackle specific questions, prove specific hypothesis. Engineers try to get a positive result, but we don’t have a concept of negative result at all. An experiment either proves or disproves a fact, and we have learnt to embrace either with equal grace. Engineers do objective driven research, we do hypothesis driven research.
Result – Like an engineer would aver, “Negative result”.
Inference – Stick to scientific experiments, trying to improve or optimize anything is not your forte at any level
The two attempt above are what engineers call ‘Experiments’ and are just a standing example and warning for all scientists who plan on attempting to do anything that has to do with optimizing or improving a system (like teaching an engineer some science). We are just not made for that kind of work.
**I really am not qualified to use phrases like "the big picture", "keep me in the loop", "the wholistic point of view" because I dont have an MBA, but my limited vocabulary has left me wanting.
***At this juncture, if you dont understand that part. If you are a scientist, it is only because it is something stupid that them engineers are doing. If on the other hand if you are an engineer, it is only because a scientist is telling you this.
****False sitcom laughter from the scientists. Damn you geeks, come on!!!
*****Has no relation to the phrase “Keep me in the loop”. This is a different loop, a real loop.
