[anonmeow]

>In fact, there’s actually no such thing as big science; we should really be calling it big engineering.

This is so true. Engineering is undervalued in comparison to science. It's easier to sell multi-billion project to the general public if you label it as science. Scientists are much more publicly visible than engineers; they are Nobel winners, geniuses, brilliant men single-handedly unraveling mysteries of the universe (or so it seems to the layman). Engineers generally work in larger teams, don't seek individual fame, don't receive their Nobel prize.

And yet our lives depend upon the quality of engineers' work on a daily basis. Our largest global problems (climate, energy, pollution) are engineering problems. Shouldn't we praise engineers more?

[mathgenius]

I agree that the engineering involved in these big projects is astonishing and worthy of great praise, but I disagree with calling it "big engineering". Building a bridge is big engineering. Where would the engineers on these big science projects be without the physicists/scientists exact specifications?

[nightski]

Has there ever been an engineering project where the physicists/scientists give exact specifications? They are approximations at best, just enough insight that engineers can find a way to make them useful.