I'm using technical in a broad sense. One effect of scientific research becoming bigger is that roles are becoming more specialized. Often the people leading the research have primarily spend time writing grants or papers, and less senior professors and post-docs will carry out the actual tasks. When I first started I was a bit shocked at how many of the big names knew basically nothing about the process of how their own research is carried out.

The effects are more pronounced depending on what field we're talking about. For example, in physics, I'd imagine most people have at least the fundamentals of programming down, even if software design may be lacking. In the field I work in (Neuroimaging), a lot of PI's are doctors or neuropsychologists, and might barely even know how to use a computer.

What an incredibly pointless thing to argue about. I think we all knew what he meant and, this being a specialist forum, we benefit from using shorthand in speech that is a lossy representation of ideas to those not initiated.

I hate to have to create this conversation fork but I really wish people wouldn't make comments like this. They're so low signal.

I disagree - I think reducing anyone who doesn’t happen to program to being ‘non-technical’, with the implication that they don't know what they're talking about, is insidious.

It's clear he means "Scientists who don't want too much input into the engineering decisions". You're reading an implication of competency where there is none.