The great wall separating scientist and engineer (or, if you prefer, research and development, or the lab and the factory), is tumbling down. Not because scientists or engineers suddenly recognize each other's significance and importance. It's because business and industry simply demand it.

What is the difference between a scientist and an engineer? Many of us conjure up stereotypical images of a scientist holding a test tube and an engineer with a spanner in his hand. The laboratory is the den of a scientist while the factory is the engineer's nest. Conventionally, historically, traditionally, scientists and engineers distance themselves from each other because they do different things differently. At least, that's how it was in the past.

A scientist analyses. He works on a set of data, formulates a hypothesis, and attempts to prove or disprove it. On the other hand, an engineer synthesises. Given a set of existing data, facts and axioms, she tries to solve problems with this repository of knowledge. Each had their own significant impact on technology, science, individuals and society as a whole. A scientist's proposition is an intellectual urge to know the unknown. An engineer has both commercial and economic motivation to develop solutions and solve problems. An engineer's solution meets the business's current needs.

Organisations cannot sustain themselves without research. In an era where innovation is key, organisations should encourage research to serve their parochial interests, if nothing else. If they do not innovate, their competitors will leave them behind. In the survival of the fittest race, profit-oriented companies and organisations should spare some time for research as well, lest they be blown out of the race by a "killer discovery or killer invention." The writing is on the wall: Scientists also should think like engineers and engineers also should think like scientists.