Innovation is often confused and conflated with novelty and newness.  It is not these things.

Innovations might indeed be novel and new, but these are not necessary qualities – most innovations are simply the repurposing of old, tried and true methods into different contexts and applications. 

My professional operating definition for innovation is anything that:

• delivers results that explicitly outperform the status quo

So to innovate you have to intend for a verifiably better future to arise and then actually produce something that delivers it by performing better than what is currently accepted as the best results.  New and unique products aren't worth crap in the world until and unless they also outperform the status quo.

Science may at times appear to depend upon innovators to advance, but Science is not defined merely by innovations.  Science doesn't care about human biases towards a future of outperformance per se, it cares only about being accurate regarding how we understand and recognize our present.  Science is a discipline of:

• ongoing refinement in our status quo understanding until it fits actual replicable experience of current existence 

Science actually repudiates our biases about intending better (or worse) experiences to come.  For example, Science proves to us that humans are currently destroying the natural environment faster than we thought – this is not necessarily an innovation unless humans are striving to be suicidal idiots.

Science brings into practice our abilities for replicable accuracy in appraising and reporting all the current workings of the multiverse; Innovation brings into practice our abilities to intentionally outperform in our current experience of the multiverse. Each are good complements to helping the other advance: with science we find a continual emergence of greater human knowledge consuming our prior ignorance of the natural world; with innovation we find the continual emergence of better-performing human manufactured products consuming now obsolete ones.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-innovation-and-science

I think a science must have certain objective (1) criteria for success and failure, (2) methodologies, and (3) theories. It seems that an innovation borne out of science lacks one or more of these three features. 

Science is the study. It proves facts and helps us understand how things work. Innovation is the art. It uses knowledge gained to be applied in an out of character/unusual usage. One cannot exist without the other because innovation is part of the encouragement and excitement we get to make changes and further understand why something worked/did not work. Electricity for example is now a simple concept but it wasn't always. Now electricity is applied in future technologies and we are constantly adapting and learning how to use components and data. Same could be said about sustainability, medical advancements, or building materials.

When Science Had Nothing to Do with Innovation, and Vice-Versa!?

To scientists and their representatives, science and innovation go hand in hand: technological innovation depends on science, or basic research. Students of technological innovation have held the same view for decades, and some continue to do so. In contrast, more recent theories of technological innovation make a clear demarcation between science and innovation: the sources of innovation are many, of which science is only one, one that often plays no role at all.

This paper looks at what innovation means to scientists from an intellectual history perspective, and studies how the concept of innovation entered scientists’ discourses...

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/WorkingPaper16.pdf

Dear Barbara Sawicka,

I completely agree with your phrase "There are natural ("genetic") barriers in collaboration between science and business. The main causes of the "communication gap" between the world of science and business are: - mental and personality differences between researcher and entrepreneur; ... ".

Your "communication gap" coincides one-to-one with a huge gap between Research and Practice which was discussed on https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_developers_use_the_best_research_on_software_development .

My understanding about difference between science and innovation is the following:

Out of every 10,000 papers only 100 of them lead to developments and out of every 100 developments only one leads to innovation.

I agree with Prof. Mourad.

Innovation is also scientific.

–“Innovative” – is an “external” word. It can be measured . It generally describes that have been tested and work in the real world

•Science is the heart of Innovation , it put the foundation for innovation.It produce knowledge for translational research.

•Doing the things differently which Makes the difference - Innovation.