The formal definitions represent ideals, not reality. Remember that this thread is about the intersection of politics and science, and the polity, by an overwhelming majority, is not made up of scientists.
Us non-scientists, even those so pro-science as to want to be called "amateur scientists", take a leap of faith every time we learn of a new scientific discovery. We give science the benefit of the doubt, we trust to peer-review systems, we trust that all scientists will be true to their creed and not falsify or cherry-pick evidence. Our faith is rewarded most of the time, but every once in a while a scientific scandal reminds us how much our trust in science is a matter of faith.
Science isn't about labels? Taxonomists might disagree. An evolutionary biologist might point out that 99.9% of the difference between homo sapiens sapiens and pan troglodyte is only the label. Getting the labels wrong on the chemical jars has blown up more than one lab. Digging down deeper, that talk about manipulating labels to manipulate existence is just a fancy way of acknowledging the centrality of language to all human thought. You can't think a thought without labels--words--for the concepts; and you can't plan to manipulate reality without being able to manipulate mental symbols first.
Grondine: There is no reason to posit apriori that scientific research will yield results, or that the results will be good for people, other than that it has worked the way in the past.
David: That is the ONLY way sane beings think. If you believe that the future will not resemble the past (in terms of Natural Law), you are nsane.
That's a complete misrepresentation of what Ed said. He referred to 1) value judgments of the benefit of applying scientific results; and 2) the expectation that any given course of research will produce results. It ain't science if you know ahead of time what the outcome will be.