Engineers and philosophers of science?
Isn't that kind of like trying to mix oil and water?
Don't forget, though, that modern science has its roots in philosophy and all the experimentation and musings of generations of philosophers is what established the logic and methodology of what is considered "good science" today. Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plato, Sophocles, the Arabs (yes, the Arabs... mathematics and algebra, an Arab word, and many branches of science were greatly advanced by what Arab philosophers and thinkers were doing... people throughout Europe flocked to the great Arab cities to study under the masters there. During the Middle Ages the Arabs were among the most scientifically advanced civilizations in the world), Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus and many others were all more philosopher (in the old sense, of someone who "loves knowledge") than just scientist.
And contradictorily, the Catholic Church was also one of the earliest proponents of science. Much early science was conducted by Catholic monks, who for centuries were among the only people in Europe who could read and write. In the 1800's Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, did the first important studies in genetics). Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were all patronized by the Church. It is easy to be lazy and simply reduce history to black and white, but the truth is quite a lot grayer. Here is an interesting discussion about the Church's role in science. (I am not Christian... I am agnostic, recently growing more and more toward atheism, or at least away from the concept of a single, fatherlike, omniscient, omnipotent disembodied entity).
Science in the West today follows a very specific, culturally-molded model that is very western in design and execution. It tends to be linear in thinking and bases its conclusion on the idea of cause and effect. Cybernetics as envisioned by Gregory Bateson has shown that the idea of linear cause and effect has problems. Bateson, in "The Ecology of Mind" explains how perception has as much influence upon the workings of the world, as physical initiation. Other theories and hypotheses also turn the idea of a linear logic universe on its head. The Chinese concept of science, often eschewed by the western scientific community, addresses different aspects of the world that are often circular or spiral in concept. Only recently have the two begun to consult and look at previously impenetrable questions.
I maintain that philosophy (which is emphatically not the same thing as religiosity and spirituality... I think people mix up the three) allows thinkers an added dimension to their inquiries which the scientific empirical method falls short of. I suspect there are new ways of thinking not yet discovered which will allow people to ask better questions and see answers they could not have envisioned with the methods we have now. It is also our inability to perceive aspects of the world (be it the limitations of our senses and instruments, the limitations of our intellectual acuity, the boundaries of our cultural mores, the specifics, character, and available vocabulary of our language, or the ignorance of the possibilities of the universe) that determines the questions we ask (for instance it could be the very attitude of wanting to ask questions that may limit our ability to perceive and understand).
I think too much of the science community has become entrenched in what is "within" science and "outside". Limitations have been imposed on what is supposed to be an open discussion of all knowledge. That in itself closes the inquiries and influences the results of the experiments.