One of the debates going on in and around science careers at the moment is the difference between scientists and technicians. How is each 'profession' defined, what is the current labour market need, and what level of training does each require?
Certainly, to be a scientist requires more formal education than a technician but no one seems to know whether progression from technician to scientist is possible or even desirable. Let's look at these two groups more in depth.
I'll start with chartered scientist as The Science Council champions the work of professional scientists. (This is not without controversy as some argue that there is no such thing as the profession of scientist and that individuals refer to their job by their discipline: physicist, chemist, biologist, geneticist).
Chartered scientist is intended to join up all the different disciplines and emphasise the skills and ways of thinking that are common across all scientists. As well as joining up the disciplines, the Council aims to give status to the profession of scientist — encouraging people to be proud of this profession and young people to aspire to be a scientist as a career, with this umbrella term.
Something to remember is the world of science and its applications is multi-disciplinary, increasingly so. Having started a life in one science, many scientists find they have moved along to another field or discipline or are drawing on several disciplines simultaneously. For example, a 'water scientist' who started out with a chemistry degree said to me: "My whole approach has been so much wider than just chemistry. My work involves biology, process engineering, micro-biology… When people ask me what I do at a party, I pull all this together and tell them I'm a chartered scientist."
Pulling this together is beneficial because there is a greater recognition of 'scientist' than there would be of the individual disciplines. The public would probably accept a general definition of a scientist as being someone who studies or practices science at an advanced level whereas a physicist is a scientist trained in physics, almost certainly educated to Masters level or beyond.
But what do we call someone who is working in science but is not at the chartered scientist level? Are these individuals scientists? Should we have another word to describe these roles?
A debate is on about this and it coincides with increasing concern about the shortage of technicians in the workforce. Universities and schools claim that labs are in crisis because of a shortage of technicians and that those in these jobs are demoralised and perceived as second-class. The New Engineering Foundation claims that more than 240k technicians are needed — 66,500 in nanotechnology alone and 18k in renewable energy. I've written before about the vast numbers of STEM graduates not seeking careers within science and technology — 40% to be precise — so it is no surprise to find there is a skills shortage at technician level.
Why is this when there are obvious opportunities? Do graduates think they are trained beyond technician level? That isn't what employers are saying — they indicate that this is exactly the type of job that graduates should be going for if they aren't in the elite group (I think that probably means graduated from Russell Group Universities with a 2:1) and that most STEM graduates don't have the lab skills and experience yet to be chartered scientists making it necessary for them to do several more years training.
Could it be because there is a perception that there is no progression from technician to scientist? Is there something wrong with the perception of the role of technician?
The definition that I think most would recognise of a technician is being someone who has a practical understanding of the application of theoretical principles in a specific area of work — being more versed in a technique rather than the underlying science or knowledge. However, because of the way the term is used in the UK, there is a tendency to think of technicians as semi-skilled and it is usually attached to a specific, perhaps even narrow field, such as dental technician, stage technician, heating technician, so we don't come across physics technicians, biology technicians or chemistry technicians.
But in other countries, most notably perhaps in Germany, the term technician is more likely to imply someone with a very high level of skills, almost an elite 'technical' class.
So is it a status thing?
The recent Department of Business Innovation and Skills announced an ambition to develop a technician register across ICT and science. It suggested that one of the problems might be that often technicians have training and skills recognised only by one employer. That perception is almost certainly a disincentive for any STEM graduates looking for a first job that provides a good training platform for a future career — a stepping stone to being a scientist.
We don't have any clarity yet about what sort of people will aspire to be technicians, what type of training will be appropriate and what a lifelong career as or 'from' a technician will look like — and we need to tackle this now.