The Institute of Biomedical Science

Modernising Scientific Careers: the key points

This document was published to accompany the Institute's statement on Modernising Scientific Careers released in September 2008. Parts of it have since become out of date but is published here for information.

The following is based on a mix of feedback from oral presentations and the Darzi document. Although various flow diagrams are unofficially in the public domain, there is no formal consultation document available. It is understood that final documentation is scheduled for publication, without formal consultation, in late November this year.

There is virtually no evidence base provided to justify any of the changes proposed other than the traditional – 'the status quo is not an option'. What does appear to be correct is that there currently 45 ways in which healthcare scientists are educated and trained to date. However it must be borne in mind that one of those (biomedical scientists) covers almost half the workforce.

• MSC sees two levels of registration for those who have undergone the rotational registration training (described below).
• The initial level has been variously described as MSc level or masters level equivalent.
• The second level at higher specialist is seen as equivalent to the specialist medical register with an entry qualification of typically MRCPath. It is very doubtful if any other professional qualifications are seen by the Department of Health as equivalent.
• Science graduates from a range of degree courses (including biomedical science) will be able to apply for a place on a 3 year funded training programme. In Life Sciences this will be delivered within one of the three divisions: blood sciences, infection sciences or cellular sciences. The first two years will be rotational followed by a third year of training in the chosen discipline within the rotational specialism.
• The first stage 'master' level registration is achieved on completion of the rotational training programme.
• Post registration employment and advancement will not be automatic but would depend upon competitive selection for available posts in a particular discipline and/or location.
• Advancement is then via appointment to one of two routes. The majority will progress through a standard career route with promotion depending on service need and individual ability. For the minority there will be a fast track route to specialist register level to address specific needs or shortfalls in service.
• Graduates who are not successful in obtaining a place on the registration training programme will be eligible to apply for a vacancy in a laboratory and undergo one year basic training to become a Healthcare Science Practitioner – these individuals will be 'regulated'. Those from integrated vocational degree courses (such as biomedical science) may be exempt from all or part of this training (ie recognition of equivalence).
• It is not clear whether the regulation of this second group of individuals refers to statutory regulation as is currently provided by the HPC or some other 'local' arrangement.
• If the former, there is the question of whether there will be any automatic registration at honours level as currently applies to all biomedical scientists graduating from an HPC approved and/or IBMS accredited degree.
• Healthcare Science Practitioners will be eligible to apply for competitive selection onto the rotational Registration Training Programme. Those who are not accepted or who do not apply would not have the option of further career advancement in healthcare science.
• No numbers are attached to either level of registration, arising from the registration training programme but it is understood that the numbers progressing to the specialist register level will be small and probably comparable to the current levels of Consultant clinical scientist.
• There are several groups particularly within physiological science that are currently aspirant groups within HPC that, like the biomedical scientists, qualify on the back of a vocational BSc. These groups would not be able to register under the proposed scheme unless there is statutory regulation at honours level for graduates at healthcare science practitioner level.
• There is very little attention given to the current non-graduate members of the workforce such as our colleagues in the Anatomical Pathology Technology and Cytology Screener group. It is therefore difficult to see what potential there is in this scheme for this numerically large group.
• The net result is three levels of registration/regulation: regulation of the practitioner/technologist workforce, healthcare scientist registration, and higher specialist registration.

If it is possible to put the concept of Modernising Scientific Careers into a 'nut-shell', it divides the Healthcare Science sector into ‘Scientist’ (rotational training scheme and above) and 'Technologist' (below the rotational training scheme, which would also include the Healthcare Science Practitioners). The 'Scientists' will be registered and the 'Technologists', as is currently understood, will be regulated – the exact nature of this regulation is unclear. Clearly different terminology is used, i.e that of regulation and registration for the technologist/practitioner groups and the scientists respectively, but the reason for this differentiation is as yet unknown.

There is an awful lot of detail that is currently not known and perhaps this is best expressed through a series of questions:

• Why is there a need to fundamentally change the biomedical scientists qualifying system because there is so much diversity in the rest of the Healthcare Science workforce?
  Should not the emergent professions that have evolved as the result of scientific and technological advance be allowed time and support to develop mature and effective qualifying systems?
• Where is the evidence base that supports Modernising Scientific Careers as being the appropriate solution for the service?
• What proportion of 'Scientists' as opposed to 'Support staff and Technologists/practitioners' is envisaged? Is there any credence in the rumoured 30% scientist and 70% technologist/practitioner model, any evidence to show that such a skill mix is sustainable and meets the needs of the service?
• If as reported there is no more money in the system for training than currently exists, and taking into account that many biomedical scientists are 'free' at the point of arrival to the NHS, what proportion of the current biomedical scientist recruits would make it into the rotational training scheme?
• Is there any truth in the rumour that the Chief Scientific Officer has asked the HPC to close the Biomedical Scientist register?
• What happens, as far as registration is concerned, to those professions that are graduate (e.g. audiology) but do not have Masters programmes in place?
• Why is it necessary to insist that those graduates from profession specific vocational degrees have to experience the same length of pre-registration training as those with non-vocational science degrees?
• What has happened to the Healthcare Scientist Career Framework that gave equal professional opportunity to all and was supported by all professional bodies in the sector?
• Why at a time when both educationalists and professional bodies are embracing flexibility of approach is the DH proposing a restrictive one size fits all approach qualifying programme?
• How can a manpower plan be supported if there is no indication of the numbers of individuals concerned?

It is fair to say that the MSC proposals have been met with concern from the entire Healthcare Scientist sector and also the Higher Education Institutions. High amongst the expressed concerns is lack of consultation and lack of evidence to support the programme. Perhaps most significantly the Federation for Healthcare Science has issued a position statement and has written to the Chief Scientific Officer expressing the collective concerns of the entire Healthcare Scientist sector. This is reproduced below.

The Institute along with many of the individual professional bodies has written in very direct terms in support of the Federation’s response and has drawn particular attention to the many problems that it has with what appears to be an ill-thought out programme.