The difference, perhaps, is that designers seek to create something based on (or to adapt to) that understanding, while scientists often pass that sort of work on to others.

Now, defining “current” and “desired” states requires knowledge and that is pretty much where science might come into play. Most of the time, we do not need it; people have a good understanding of “what works” without defining it rigorously in scientific terms. However, sometimes the differences are more subtle or seemingly subjective; that is where science, in the form of usability research for example, should come into play.

Nevertheless, science is more about problems than solutions and I think that is where design is underrated in our society. Design helps people solve problems; whether it’s an interaction design problem or organizational hierarchy problem. Sometimes only with tools, skill sets and mind sets of designers some problems can be overcome.

I think one problem with the notion of design is it’s historically too much associated with visual design and “making things look pretty”. And I wholeheartedly agree, as a prospective scientist with a deep-rooted interest in design, a better theoretical backing of design processes can only benefit not only the area of design but everyone else.