Science is commonly defined as usage of scientific method. So science is just trying to find truth with the best possible tools. Nothing more and nothing less. I think here is the common and problematic misconception. Scientists are saying "look, we used the best tools" and people are hearing "hey, we found the truth!". But science is not about the destination, it's all about the journey.

Engineering lacks such rigid definition. I've thought about it a lot, and I think deep down engineering is always optimization.

If you invent a new need for people and fill it with a toy, that would be marketing. But if you solve previously solved problem better, that's engineering. You got closer to the optimum, even though the way you solved might be described as "invention". So engineering inventions would be just leaps in optimization.

Now if you optimize economical or cultural stuff, that would not be engineering. So engineering is "optimization of technology".

I do not think "engineering" as a term should be expanded to the fields this article suggests. The term started off as "art of building of siege engines". And so far we don't have "sales-engineering". It's called marketing and it works pretty good considering there is big human factor everywhere. Medicine is good term too. These fields are just naturally more difficult to squeeze accurate data out.

I think the best model how to deal with the human factor comes from medicine. Rigorous meta-analysis is pretty solid. If we import the way tech or natural science is researched, that would be: "just use better instruments and measure more carefully". Which is pretty obvious dead. Because you will just get more expensive studies that still disagree with each other.