I think this is quite crude. Obviously scientists don't have to wait for philosophers to get the right definition before they can proceed but scientists often end up barking up the wrong trees because of bad philosophy. It's like Keynes said about economists, "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." The same is true of scientists who claim to have no interest in philosophy. (This is especially true in neuroscience where early practitioners had a very keen interest in philosophy and it shaped the whole field.)

There has always been interaction between scientists and philosophers. The current hostility to philosophy has more to do with trends in philosophy (naturalism) than trends in science.