In secret session, the new Assembly will be asked to endorse a vote that the members approve allowing social scientists to become members of the RPS. This is planned for tomorrow (Thursday).
Its is outrageous and totally undemocratic that this is being discussed in confidential business at the Assembly's first meeting. I hope and expect that our elected representitives move this item to public business at the start of the meeting. They must challenge RPS staff and officers to explain why this item was placed for discussion in secret.
The motion being discussed in secret tomorrow asks for a vote to start later this month, why such an undemocratic rush ?
The entry standard for these new 'SRPharmS' members will be lower than the level a new Pharmacist achieves (Masters degree, pre-reg year, and exam). SRPharmS will need any degree in science or social science and employment in pharmacy for entry.
I expect grassroot members to reject such a motion. Why would our elected representitives spend our hard earned fees on this waste of money ? Why have the Lambeth staff cajoled the new RPS Assembly officers to discuss this in secret ? or was it their idea ?
Many questions that need immediate answers.
Mark Walker - Oxford
What is a Pharmaceutical Scientist ?
Pharmaceutical scientist member Pharmaceutical scientist member would include applicants holding a degree from an RPS-recognised institution, and working in the basic or applied sciences, or the social sciences, impinging on the discovery, development, delivery, quality, safety, efficacy, regulation or usage of medicines and their educational development. Applicants would have to hold a BSc or equivalent or higher and have some vocational experience in pharmacy. They would have no voting rights and would have the post-nominals “SRPharmS”.
Do Pharmaceutical Scientists agree to this definition ?
Do they have to?
Whether or not the Pharmaceutical Scientists agree to the definition is a moot point. Ideally, the definition should only be up for discussion by pharmacists, which is why we will be voting on the inclusion of this membership categoree as pharmacists. The definition is about getting the types of scientist on board that will widen our professional influence, provide us with rock solid links with the pharmaceutical industry, keep our schools of pharmacy staffed with internationally renowned scientists, offer us effective collaborative partnerships in research and broaden our knowledge. This is not about widening a definition to maximise scientist membership, but about maintaining the standard of their credentials. Otherwise, we give succour to all those urban legends of store managers with sociology degrees queuing up outside Lambeth. Despite what the "No" camp have been saying, it really is up to us who we have in our plb, and if only pharmacists have voting rights, it always will be.
So the answer is simple- if a scientist fits these criteria and considers the journals, networking opportunities, professional support and brownie points of being in the RPS to be worth the membership fee, they will join regardless of either the definition or the absence of voting rights.
Please Define Pharmaceutical Scientists
My question is genuine, I was a phamacist in industry, never in community. However, if the bizarre definition supplied by the PJ online is put to members I will campaign no and vote no. Why ? because it could allow nearly any graduate working in pharmacy to be a member, including non pharmacist retail owners and managers.
If a definition restricts the offer of membership to people working in academia/industry with at least a masters degree and min 2/3 years senior pharmaceutical experience, I would vote yes because such people would add to the strength of the RPS. (Voting and post-nominals are best avoided because they are a sticking point with many community pharmacists).
A definition is a critical starting point. Also anyone who proposes this new class of membership needs to convince all RPS members that it will not cost them to create it, and these new members will add financial value to the RPS.
So over to you Dr Wicks et al, a definition please.
Mark Walker - Oxford
Yes I agree that the
Yes I agree that the definition should be water tight. However, it should not be up for agreement by pharmaceutical scientists- they have to fit in with us. I would like to extend the criteria to include 2 published papers in the pharmaceutical literature and a cv for inspection by a pharmacist membership panel. The definition shouldnt be the key means of selection and I dont believe it will be.
However, I dont believe that the current definition "and working in the basic or applied sciences, or the social sciences, impinging on......" will allow store managers to apply for membership. Its all in the grammar, I read the definition as working in the sciences WHICH impinge on drug usage, rather than working in the sciences OR working in a job that impinges on drug usage.
Had I not been a pharmacist the definition suggested above by Mark Walker would have excluded me at the time of my first academic position in a school of pharmacy. I went straight from my PhD and certainly didnt have any senior pharmaceutical experience. If the criteria had been published papers, however, I would have been able to apply. Perhaps this is the way forward.
Basic Definition Lacking
The bizarre current definition is very leaky, not at all water tight. Pharmacists have suffered from 'unforeseen consequences' from weak definitions for the whole life of the Society. Let's not repeat past mistakes.
I predict the current definition would be soundly rejected by pharmacists as it could allow store managers to become members. So back to my first request - a definition for pharmacists to discuss please.
Once the Boards and Assembly (not Lambeth staff) agree that this definition could be accepted by pharmacists it should be discussed with APS and other stakeholders. If they say it is not interesting for pharm scis, please stop the vote and do not waste our money. A vote of the full membership undertaken by the Electoral Reform Society is a substantial cost.
I am not convinced that new employees at Schools of Pharmacy with a PhD should be automatic members, even with published papers. Simarily, team members of a formulation development team in industry would need a Masters degree and pharmaceutical experience before admission.
I also need to know who pays for the pharmacists panel to consider applications. Fine if it is the applicant but not if it is the existing members thru our fees.
Fortunately, the Assembly has given time for these discussions to take place. If I (member of IPG) am not convinced of the definition then community pharmacists will say a resounding no.
Mark Walker - Oxford
Store managers
The debate about store managers carries on.....
Firstly, by the current definition, which stipulates that applicants must work in the science associated with various aspects of the pharmaceutical process, how can store managers ever be described as working in science? I really fail to see how a store manager, unless he calls himself a scientist by virtue of him/her researching shampoo supplies or the latest marketing ploys to improve toilet paper sales, or attending trekkie conferences at weekends, can claim to be carrying out a scientific job and be taken seriously. If this is a matter of syntax, lets just overcome the problems by writing a definition in good English. It beggars belief that we doubt that we can determine the difference between a store manager and a scientist and have the confidence to just say no to their application.
Secondly, tenured lecturers dont necessarily have post-doctoral experience. Is it really fair that someone charged with educating our pharmacy students, someone who is helping to drive the place of our schools in academic research is excluded from the RPS? Industrial employees are different, in that they need several years experience to reach a level of seniority with real influence on R and D. An academic, however, may be running a small scale research programme from day 1.
As far as paying for a selection panel to consider applicants- this takes place in every scientific association, why shouldnt it take place in ours? New applicants are elected at AGMs as a matter of routine in a wide range of professional and scientific associations. This is the only way we can be watertight about who we admit. I prefer to think of this as the panel earning their keep rather than us paying for an extra service.
I agree- this should be discussed with the APS, as if we are having so much trouble telling the difference between a store manager and a scientist, maybe we do need to ask them. However, we still have the problem that the APS is mainly Pharmaceutics, and the whole reason we cant afford to restrict ourselves to pharmacist only membership is that we need to expand our knowledge base to include scientists from areas such as pharmacology. Perhaps we should consult with the RSC, BPS and BSCB too. As for their interest in the definition- why should they be? As long as the definition includes them they would be more interested in what membership means and what they can get out of it, rather than whether or not they might have a chance of brushing shoulders with store managers.
Finally, with all this paranoia about store managers- has anyone actually come across a store manager who wishes to join the RPS where they will have no voting powers, no cause for any scientific networking, no use for CPD and no legislative or managerial influence as the RPS is no longer regulating pharmacy? I quite like Pharmacy Professional, but I wouldnt pay an RPS subscription for it. Maybe they would just want to be a fly on the wall and see what we are saying about them- perhaps it would do them good! Perhaps we can also ask the APS if they ever get applications from store managers.
Testing the proposed definition
As a management consulltant I was taught to test business cases by using extreme examples. Extracting from the proposed definition:
Pharmaceutical scientist member would include applicants holding a degree from an RPS-recognised institution, and working in the social sciences, impinging on the delivery or usage of medicines. Applicants would have to hold a BSc and have some vocational experience in pharmacy.
A - graduate ecologist from Kings, London working as a distribution centre manager for a major pharmaceutical company.
B - graduate economist from Bath Uni working as an Alliance Boots large store manager.
Both A + B meet the requirements for a Pharmaceutical scientist member and SRPharmS would look good on their business cards.
Corporate bodies owning pharmacies is lawful in the UK because of unintended consequences in legislation. Changes in our Royal Charter were poorly drafted recently. This is another example of poor drafting.
Its not paranoia, its learning from pharmacists' history.
Community pharmacists are rightly very protective of our hard earned post nominals.
Mark Walker - Oxford
The actual definition put
The actual definition put forward is
Pharmaceutical scientist member would include applicants holding a degree from an RPS-recognised institution, and working in the basic or applied sciences, or the social sciences, impinging on the discovery, development, delivery, quality, safety, efficacy, regulation or usage of medicines and their educational development. Applicants would have to hold a BSc or equivalent or higher and have some vocational experience in pharmacy.
A and B do not qualify as they do not work in the basic or applied sciences. End of.
Unlike the legislation for owning pharmacies, this is not, well, legislation! We will not be forced by law to let them in because they have found a hole in the wording, we wont get itinerant store managers suing the RPS because we turned them down on the basis that we want scientists and they have not been near a research facility since they did their undergraduate project. And dont believe that stipulating a masters degree will do anything that this wording wont. Managers may well have a masters too and even a PhD.
As for the post-nominal- it is not hard earned anymore, but paid for as a reflection of committment to pharmacy. The restricted title of pharmacist is what is now hard earned. It seems that people are still not getting the new function of the RPS- only an observation!
Hmm...
Hello,
I will first like to thank Rachel Airley for your contribution to this thread. As a late comer to this debate, I am fascinated by where this notion of allowing store managers to be classified as scientists originated from.
If we are going to learn anything from our history (quoting: Mark Walker), it is that we don't engage in pointless arguments about what some companies might or might not do. My question to Mr Walker is this: Is there nothing in our history that will make allowing Scientists to join our profession the right thing to do?
I am not interested in how Alliance Boots or others will respond to allowing Scientist into the RPS. I am however interested in how we can make the process of allowing scientist into the RPS work for the pharmacy profession. As Mrs Airley rightly said: "It seems that people are still not getting the new function of the RPS"
I only wish we can just move this debate on a little bit.
Many thanks
Meaning of Words, see Alice In Wonderland
I am fascinated that Rachel Airley and Kazeen Olalekam have chosen to allow 'social scientists' in their definition of 'scientist'. Why have both of you not dealt with the words 'social scientist' in the proposed definition, are they scientists in your opinions ??
My examples A+B would both qualify for an SRPharmS as they are working in the social sciences and pharmacy, which is included in the proposed definition.
Kazeem requests that instead of debating this point we move on, why ? To answer your question: I support experienced senior pharmaceutical scientists being included as associates of the RPS. But not every Tom, Dick or Harry.
Most pharmacists are community employee pharmacists, with about one third being locums. These pharmacists will not permit a definition, which in any remote circumstance could allow a non pharmacist owner or manager become an SRPharmS.
If those of you proposing pharmaceutical scientists as members cannot develop a definition which meets my testing, then a vote is simply wasting the RPS's money. It will be soundly defeated.
You may wish to move on. However, the starting point is a water tight definition, for what you are proposing. Like it or not.
Mark Walker - Oxford