Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

Gijsbertus Verkerke, Eduard van der Houwen, Anton Broekhuis, Jiri Bursa, Gerado Capatano, Paul McCullagh, Khosrow Mottaghy, Peter Niederer, Richard Reilly, Vladimir Rogalewicz, Patrick Segers, Nico Verdonschot

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem.We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering.Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.
LanguageEnglish
Pages195-201
JournalJournal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Volume21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2013

Fingerprint

Biomedical engineering
Tunnels

Keywords

  • Engineering education
  • Specialisation
  • Multidisciplinarity
  • methodical design

Cite this

Verkerke, G., van der Houwen, E., Broekhuis, A., Bursa, J., Capatano, G., McCullagh, P., ... Verdonschot, N. (2013). Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive? Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 21, 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009
Verkerke, Gijsbertus ; van der Houwen, Eduard ; Broekhuis, Anton ; Bursa, Jiri ; Capatano, Gerado ; McCullagh, Paul ; Mottaghy, Khosrow ; Niederer, Peter ; Reilly, Richard ; Rogalewicz, Vladimir ; Segers, Patrick ; Verdonschot, Nico. / Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?. In: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2013 ; Vol. 21. pp. 195-201.
@article{9c3c88034bf64edf81abcac34495f24a,
title = "Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?",
abstract = "Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem.We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering.Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.",
keywords = "Engineering education, Specialisation, Multidisciplinarity, methodical design",
author = "Gijsbertus Verkerke and {van der Houwen}, Eduard and Anton Broekhuis and Jiri Bursa and Gerado Capatano and Paul McCullagh and Khosrow Mottaghy and Peter Niederer and Richard Reilly and Vladimir Rogalewicz and Patrick Segers and Nico Verdonschot",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "195--201",
journal = "Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials",
issn = "1751-6161",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Verkerke, G, van der Houwen, E, Broekhuis, A, Bursa, J, Capatano, G, McCullagh, P, Mottaghy, K, Niederer, P, Reilly, R, Rogalewicz, V, Segers, P & Verdonschot, N 2013, 'Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?', Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 21, pp. 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009

Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive? / Verkerke, Gijsbertus; van der Houwen, Eduard; Broekhuis, Anton; Bursa, Jiri; Capatano, Gerado; McCullagh, Paul; Mottaghy, Khosrow; Niederer, Peter; Reilly, Richard; Rogalewicz, Vladimir; Segers, Patrick; Verdonschot, Nico.

In: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, Vol. 21, 01.05.2013, p. 195-201.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

AU - Verkerke, Gijsbertus

AU - van der Houwen, Eduard

AU - Broekhuis, Anton

AU - Bursa, Jiri

AU - Capatano, Gerado

AU - McCullagh, Paul

AU - Mottaghy, Khosrow

AU - Niederer, Peter

AU - Reilly, Richard

AU - Rogalewicz, Vladimir

AU - Segers, Patrick

AU - Verdonschot, Nico

PY - 2013/5/1

Y1 - 2013/5/1

N2 - Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem.We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering.Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.

AB - Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem.We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering.Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.

KW - Engineering education

KW - Specialisation

KW - Multidisciplinarity

KW - methodical design

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 195

EP - 201

JO - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

T2 - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

JF - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

SN - 1751-6161

ER -