Is it correct to refer to a neurosurgeon with many scholarly publications as a "scientist"? This may be off-topic here; if so, I'd appreciate suggestions for where else to post it.

I recently got into a disagreement with someone regarding Ben Carson, the  neurosurgeon who has recently become a prominent figure in American politics, and is said to be considering a run for the Presidency.  The other person in this disagreement referred to Carson as a "scientist".  I thought that label seemed wrong.  Without question he is an accomplished neurosurgeon, perhaps one of the greatest living, and he definitely has many, many publications.  But somehow the "scientist" label felt off-key to me, and those publications don't seem to me to be "research" as much as they are clinical reports.

I know the words "scientist" and "research" don't have hard-and-fast definitions, and I certainly don't want to cast aspersions on the applied sciences. Nor do I want this thread to fixate solely on the individual that inspired it.  I'm really interested in the more general issue that is in the title of the question:  Is it correct to refer to a neurosurgeon with many scholarly publications as a "scientist"?
At the research company where I work, there are three parallel career tracks: scientist, engineer, and manager.  Manager is obviously quite different than the other two, and eventually ends up with the person doing little or no technical work.  The only distinction between the scientists and the engineers, however, is determined post hoc by observing what the person tends to do: scientists are the people who tend to publish a lot and lead research projects, and engineers are the people who don't do those things much.

Science is not a tribe, nor is it a credential, nor an award.  Science is a behavior: performing investigations that contribute to human knowledge.  Any person who does this in a consistent and sustained manner, I would call a scientist, in addition to whatever other labels may be appropriate.

In the case of your example, Ben Carson, a quick Google Scholar search shows he's got a lot of publications, many well-cited (easily 2000+ citations, H-index of around 35).  Even without reading any of it to see if his work is ultimately borne out or refuted, it is clear that this is a person who has made a significant intellectual mark on the scientific discussion of their field.  This is not surprising: careful and well-presented clinical reports are an important contribution to knowledge!  Complementarily, a non-scientifically inclined doctor might simply treat their patients and not write the cases up for publication, merely keeping their private records in accordance with normal medical practice.

In short: definitely a scientist, no matter what else he may or may not be as well.