No, sorry, I firmly
believe in horses for courses.
Those of us that
work (or have worked) in laboratory medicine know only too well what can happen
to (say) a blood gas machine when junior medical staff get at it, even
after they have had appropriate training. They may be doing the testing,
but they do not have the background training in analytical science to appreciate
all the pitfalls. And why should they? They are employed to treat the patients
and we hope they have an appropriate understanding of what is involved in
that to do a good job. Scientists (all flavours) are there to do the
science, keep the service running and guide the clinicians in these specialist
areas. I have always felt a sense of unease in devolving testing to those
whose training is not in clinical/biomedical science. I have a far greater
sense of unease at the prospect of scientists trying to muscle in on clinical
work.
The training of a
clinical biochemist naturally concentrates on the science - there is enough
medicine covered to make for intelligent discussions with clinical colleagues.
It is never going to be a substitute for a medical training. Unfortunately,
there seems to be a trend with people thinking they are above doing more
traditional aspects of their jobs and seeking to cadge bits from other
people so as to appear more important and get
better paid.
Years ago at my
Grade A interview I was asked if I believed there was a place for clinical
scientists. I said that I did (obviously) because I felt there was a need for
people who understood the fundamental science and could guide the use of
laboratory testing. The comment of one of the interviewers was telling - "There
are too many clinical scientists who think they are
doctors."
You want to be a
scientist, you train as a scientist. You want to be a doctor, you go to
medical school. I wouldn't want to find the cardiology SHO trying to fix an
HPLC. I certainly don't want my medical conditions managed by someone who has
been on some sort of top-up course.
Dave