zlacker

> If we look at history of innovation and invention it’s very typical the original discovery and final productization are done by different people.

You don't really need to look at history, that's basically science vs engineering in a nutshell.

Maybe history could tell us if that's an accident or a division that arose out of 'natural' occurrence, but I suppose a question for an economist or psychologist or sociologist how natural that could really be anyway or if it's biased by e.g. academics not financially motivated because it happens that there isn't money there; so they don't care about productising; leaving it for others who are so motivated.

>>OJFord+(OP)
With abombs for weapons systems design they needed people who just got huge kicks out of explosions (not kidding here). I guess it’s partially about personal internal motivations, and it might be more of a chance wether the thing you are intrinsically motivated to do falls under engineering or science (in both cases you get the feeling the greats did stuff they wanted to do regardless of the categorizations applied to their discipline - you get more capital affinity in engineering ofc).

>>OJFord+(OP)
> that's basically science vs engineering in a nutshell

Right, because those are two very different things. Science is about figuring out truths of how reality works. Engineering is about taking those truths and using them to make useful things.

People often talk in a way that conflates the two, but they are completely different activities.