Does “Color Science” even matter?

TechTalk2 wrote:

Color science is a foundation encompassing everything required in understanding the: creation, control, reproduction, metrology (measurement), characteristics, properties, and perception of color and color stimuli. It's the growing body of knowledge which informs research and advances development of color technologies, systems, and applications in a variety of diverse fields. If you work in a field involving color— color science matters a great deal.

Color science is an interdisciplinary science which is not narrowly confined as a branch of one science, but is interwoven with many fields of science. Color science incorporates: physics, chemistry, physiology, and psychology and intersects with specialized scientific fields ranging from spectroscopy to neuroscience and numerous others. Fields of endeavor utilizing color science are very broad in art, industry, and scientific research.

Knowledge and application of color science is fundamental to the design and function of components and systems in your color digital camera, display, printer and other color imaging systems. It is at the core of devices and applications used to measure, manage, and control color production, reproduction, and recording.

As indicated earlier in this thread, as someone who was called a color scientist and drew a paycheck from IBM based on that, I find descriptions like the above overly broad.

Unfortunately, I think called color science a growing body of knowledge, while not actually technically wrong, gives a false impression of the field as it relates to photography. The pace of color engineering, which would fall under the description above, has slowed considerably in the last 20 years, and techniques invented in the 90s have yet to find their way into products that photographers can use.

Gamut mapping is a case in point.

We can’t even count on having properly color managed imaging pipelines, which in the early 1990s I thought would be universal long before now.