Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

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.

[1]  Colin Divall.  Fundamental science versus design: Employers and engineering studies in British Universities, 1935–1976 , 1991 .

[2]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales , 2012, The Lancet.

[3]  István Szalai,et al.  An Experimental Design Method Leading to Chemical Turing Patterns , 2009, Science.

[4]  Henri Christiaans,et al.  Problem structuring and information access in design , 2004 .

[5]  Marc S. Lavine,et al.  Design for Living , 2005, Science.

[6]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[7]  Herbert Wittel,et al.  Konstruieren und Gestalten , 1987 .

[8]  W. Newstetter,et al.  Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education , 2001 .

[9]  Lawrence Butler,et al.  'History: Theory and Practice' , 1997 .

[10]  William McDonough,et al.  Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things , 2002 .

[11]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Numerical analysis of an osseointegrated prosthesis fixation with reduced bone failure risk and periprosthetic bone loss. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  Adrian Forty,et al.  Objects of desire : design and society since 1750 , 1995 .

[13]  Ranulph Glanville,et al.  Re-searching Design and Designing Research , 1999 .

[14]  Gijsbertus Jacob Verkerke,et al.  Simulated bone remodeling around two types of osseointegrated implants for direct fixation of upper-leg prostheses. , 2012, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[15]  J. R. Cann.  Design for living , 1987, Nature.

[16]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[17]  Daniel Fallman.  Why Research-Oriented Design Isn’t Design-Oriented Research: On the Tensions Between Design and Research in an Implicit Design Discipline , 2007 .

[18]  W Wim Zeiler.  Methodical Design 1972 – 2006: A Historical Overview about a Design Model , 2007 .

[19]  Søren Kiil,et al.  Design and Development of Biological, Chemical, Food and Pharmaceutical Products , 2007 .

[20]  A G Veldhuizen,et al.  A scoliosis correction device based on memory metal. , 1997, Medical engineering & physics.

[21]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Forty years of design research , 2007 .

[22]  Edward L Cussler,et al.  Chemical Product Design , 2003 .

[23]  Sydney A. Gregory,et al.  Design Method , 1965, Nature.

[24]  G. J. Verkerke,et al.  A Comparative Finite-Element Analysis of Bone Failure and Load Transfer of Osseointegrated Prostheses Fixations , 2010, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[25]  Altshuller.  Creativity As an Exact Science , 1984 .

[26]  Ken M. Wallace,et al.  The introduction of a design heuristics extraction method , 2002, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[27]  Edward L Cussler,et al.  Chemical product design , 2001 .

[28]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology , 2007 .