HP Profession?

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

Group:

We've had this discussion before.  It becomes emotional because we use the
word "professional" in different ways.  We sometime use it to describe
personal characteristics, "a real professional" or "unprofessional."
Strictly speaking a profession has to do with the JOB, not the person who
does the job.  (With all due respect to Scott's father, in most states it
is illegal to call yourself a PROFESSIONAL engineer without a license.)  I
hope we can all be "professional" and not take the comments as personal
insults.

Even in relationship to a job, the word has been diluted in recent years:
it just means you get paid for your work.  Today you can even be a
"professional" athlete or soldier!  Traditionally, though, it has to do
with public service and safety.  The main characteristic of a profession is
that its practice involves substantial risk to the public in an area where
members of the public cannot adequately judge the practioner's
qualifications independently because most of us don't have the requisite
specialized training.  The prototypes are doctors, engineers, lawyers,
accountants, etc.  All these require a long, formal training process and an
exam at the end in order to practice independently.  The board exam is NOT
the principal way for establishing competence; the training and experience
process is the weeding-out step.  The board (or bar) exam is the final step
that catches the occasional dud that makes it through the training.

Doctors often employ PAs and RNs and engineering firms often employ
unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed doctor or
engineer.  But they are not allowed to work independently without this
supervision.  Maybe the PA or RN could help a lot of people; maybe the
non-PE engineer could design a solid bridge.  But society has decided that
they cannot try without formal training.  Non-CPA accountants are not
allowed to perform formal audits of corporations, etc. etc.

In the past I have advocated that we follow the model of lawyers, PEs, and
physicians, etc., by requiring some kind of certification before anyone can
practice health physics independently.  (Look in the radsafe archive for my
posts.)  However, after thinking about it a little more, I have concluded
that HP is not a "profession" in the traditional sense of the word.  Health
physics is a fine job, even a vocation, but it's not a profession.  (1) As
many have attested, it isn't hard to become competent in this field without
formal training.  (You can even get an HP master's degree over the
internet!  That seems awfully close to self-study.)  We don't even have a
universally accepted training model like doctors and lawyers.  (2) It's
really unlikely that anyone would be physically hurt by an RSO's mistaken
judgement.  In most cases, we're basically technical administrators working
with fairly cut-and-dry regulations.  It's not like the early days, when
things were decided up as you went.  (Note that Keith Dinger's Pres-elect
speech is about the transition of HP to an operational field.)

It goes without saying that this does not demean our role.  We're not the
same as doctors and lawyers, but we're not less important.  I just don't
think you can make a case that the public would be put at risk without a
licensed profession.  In our case, the board exam seems to be more geared
toward demonstrating competence to our peers, not the public.

Just my view,

Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu