1. Medical Communication is too eclectic to be encompassed by a single certification program. A quick glance at the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) membership directory underscores this fact. Members are educators, advertisers, researchers, marketers, pharmacists, journalists, translators, editors, managers, and writers. This inclusiveness acknowledges that medical communication draws its uniqueness from a variety of interconnected fields such as healthcare, education, biotechnology, medical devices, and pharmaceutical research. Consequently, one test could not cover all disciplines of medical communication. Alternatively, a test that covers basic skills that all medical communicators should possess, regardless of the area in which they work, cannot guarantee quality, but merely shows that someone can take a test.
2. The wheel already exits, so why reinvent it. Because of the eclectic nature of medical communication, devising a single test or a basic skills test that satisfies all medical communication practitioners could be an insurmountable undertaking. However, widely recognized certification programs already exist that individuals can take. Many of these programs relate to a particular aspect of medical communication that is often of interest to employers. For instance, the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (BELS) certifies the proficiency of manuscript editors in the life sciences; Regulatory Affairs Certification (RAC) certifies regulatory professionals in the healthcare product sector; and the American Translators Association certifies translators who meet certain standards of the translation profession.
3. There is my way, your way, and then there’s the Evaluator’s way. Join any medical communicator’s forum, blog or message board and ask a question and you will get as many answers as there are members, and each answer is just as legitimate as any other. Unlike electrical engineers and other certified professionals who must comply with numerous rules and regulations, medical communicators often use non-binding guidances, a variety of published and departmental style guides and templates, and personal references, preferences and networks to write for their audiences. Without extensive knowledge about the audiences that its members write for, the body responsible for creating the certification program will default to the lowest common denominator and selectively impose its own sense of correctness to subjective responses. This will dilute the credibility of the certification in the eyes of an employer who is looking for guarantees of quality and potentially alienate highly experienced members who may feel that their contributions to medical communication will go unrecognized in favor of a passing score on a test.
4. No evidence employers will value certification. If no one but the members of an organization or an association recognizes the value of certification, certification will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Unless medical communicators and the organizations that represent them can successfully demonstrate their value to employers and dissuade employers from outsourcing to the lowest-cost contractor by overcoming the notion that medical communication is nothing more than a commodity like white socks, certification will be nothing more than a meaningless adornment that dangles after your name on a signature line or a business card. Equally important to consider is whether an employer is willing to pay more for a certified communicator. If not, then earning certification is not worth the effort and expense to obtain it.
5. Medical communication is not a local phenomenon. Eight of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies by 2008 sales were headquartered outside the United States. In terms of medicinal products sold, the United States accounts for about 25% of the global market. These statistics underscore the global nature of the biopharmaceutical industry. The pool of medical communicators who provide services to this global industry is just as globally diverse. In an effort to provide a forum where medical communicators could meet and share knowledge and experience, several organizations have emerged around the world to represent medical communicators. These organizations include the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), Australasian Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and most recently, the Indian Medical Writers Association (IMWA). Unless a certification program is both portable and globally recognized by employers and by medical communicators and the associations that represent them, it is unlikely to be successful.
6. There is a potential for competition. As mention above, several organizations currently exist that represent medical communicators around the world. Each organization would have a vested interest in any certification program that would be touted as “the” medical communication certification program. Any one organization that is considering developing a certification program in isolation is likely to come up against strong opposition from similar organizations. In an effort to keep its own identity and to protect its membership, a similar organization may begin to develop its own certification program. This would only lead to confusion among employers as to which certification program is the most relevant. For medical communicators, the worst-case scenario would be that all certification programs are viewed as relevant by employers, adding both a financial and personal burden on medical communicators who decide to investment money and time to obtain and keep these various certifications active.
7. Medical Communication is more than writing. Even if a certification program is able to show that a medical communicator has mastered writing/editing for a scientific/medical audience, medical communication requires other important skills, such as the ability to negotiate, arbitrate, persuade, influence, lead, interpret, problem solve, and organize. Mastering these skills gives medical communicators a greater say, a greater role, and a greater satisfaction in their work. A certification program would not be expected to include these dimensions into its scope, but these dimensions are what differentiate medical communication from all other forms of written communication. Consequently, the best a certification program could do is to attest to one dimension of medical communication. As such it would be best directed to novice medical communicators who lack a body of work to show employers. That is where a certification program could have its greatest impact.
I do not speak for any of the organizations mentioned above. I am only expressing my own personal concerns. A continuing open dialogue is important to ensure that the views and opinions are heard and factored into any response that may ensue.
Hi there, I found your blog via Google blogsearch and your post looks very interesting for me. Nice post I must say.
ReplyDeleteCheck this out too:
Medisoft Program