Well, I.T. hijacked and cheapened the 'Engineer' moniker a long time ago so why not 'Scientist'? Most of the I.T. "Engineers" I've worked in the past are no more engineers than I'm an astronaut. I've actually worked alongside real engineers in the nuclear energy field and they have this affection for methodology that is far too rarely seen anymore in I.T. and I doubt the newly minted "scientists" will raise the bar much.
The professional discipline and codes on conduct that real engineers have are applicable to software engineers too. I agree that the term "Engineer" has to some extent been hijacked by the IT industry and it's a great pity that many people call themselves "engineer" who have no engineering qualification at all and wouldn't recognise a formal code of conduct if it got up and bit them.
But I have worked with many software engineers who were genuine engineers, and I do myself have the formal qualifications of a professional engineer (both European and British qualification) as well as those of a professional mathematician, and I do have codes of conduct to abide by. I have also worked in environments where only a tiny proportion of the people had any concept of engineering or had any interest in the soundness or otherwise of their methodologies, yet eveyone claimed to be a software engineer.
But I've found the same sort of thing in other fields of engineering, it's not just IT that's hijacked the term. Even in things like traffic and road safety the term is misused - I had some disagreement once with the "chief traffic engineer" of a local government because he though that traffic flows could reasonably have nodes where the total flow out was different from the total flow in (ie the network had sources and sinks for vehicles), and another disagreement with someone claiming to be an electronics engineer (working in telecomms) who claimed that the signally capacity of a channel in bits/sec was inherently less than twice its bandwidth in cycles/second (based, I think, on a gross misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, unless of course he thought that the measure of amplitude has only two possible values or perhaps that all channels have a signal to noise power ratio of 3).