While I understand where you are coming from, and entirely take your point that journalists are lazy about the use of the word 'scientist' I don't think its patronising to want to have a general term to describe what we do.

The problem that I face is that in my work, presenting science shows, I cover a range of disciplines, including physics, chemistry and engineering, as well as philosophy and the history of science. That's quite a mouthful, and gabbling that lot off every time someone asks what I do make me sound like a pretentious, pedantic twit.

So its better to say I do science shows, even if I'd agree with you that some of the stuff I talk about shouldn't really be called science. I also work with primary schools - they don't 'do' physics and chemistry, and ... They 'do' 'science', and they have 'science coordinators' who lead the teaching of 'science'.

The reason we need something like 'STEM' to cover the range of subjects we talk about is that there isn't really any existing collective term that covers 'the sciences' plus engineering and other technologies, and mathematics. By comparison painting and opera and sculpture and literature and dance not to mention music and (sometimes) cinema, arguably equally as diverse a group of subjects as those covered by 'STEM' are quite happy to be subsumed under the collective banner of 'the arts'.  

Perhaps because scientists (and the rest) are more given to demanding accuracy in the use of language all attempts to subsume mathematics and engineering  and technology within a grouping known as 'the sciences' meet with resistance, so that's why we need a term like 'STEM'.

Its interesting to ask why if the 'T' stands for technology, which surely subsumes engineering within it, the engineers get their own letter 'E' as well, and so get counted twice. I suspect the reason is that if you want make a pronounceable acronym it needs at least one vowel, and this is most conveniently obtained from the engineers!

So, yes we do need 'STEM' or something like it, unless you want to try and persuade engineers and mathematicians that they are really scientists 

(good luck!), and as acronyms go its not too bad, and I think that its now quite well understood here in the UK, even if the Americans get confused by it, poor dears.

Cheers

Richard Ellam