Surely this is a tautology - isn't that what technology is, 'the appliance of science?' Not necessarily. The relationship between science and technology is an interesting and complicated question in itself.
You don't need science to achieve a certain level of technology (the ancient Romans were great engineers): focused tinkering will get you quite a long way. In fact scientific work is dependent on technological innovation to some extent (how could quantitative chemistry have got going without decent glassware?). Conversely, there is good science which has no particular techno-potential: knowing about Darwinian evolution is valuable but you can't really derive any gadgets from it.
(When people bang on about "Science" in a way that is too abstract and unconsidered they are often equating it solely with physics-chemistry. Biologists often have a quite different perpective on things, and as for the social sciences...but here I'm drifting onto a different 'interesting and complicated question').Back