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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)195-201
JournalJournal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Volume21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2013

Keywords

  • Engineering education
  • Specialisation
  • Multidisciplinarity
  • methodical design

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Science versus Design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    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, 21, 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009