Preface: This in-depth piece looks at skills, networking and training, in the current UK, technical landscape, with consequent challenges, and potential solutions, discussed. In effect, this is an exegesis of a piece that I published with Lab Innovations, in association with Stone Junction, in Breakthrough Issue #23, 2024, pp.36, entitled, “Lab Innovations: UK Science Skills. Crisis or Opportunity?”. Furthermore, this piece is recapitulated in a report for Government, published by Lab Innovations, in conjunction with Advanced Engineering, entitled “UK Industry’s call to Government” (in which I was a coauthor).

In addition, I published a related piece, as a talking point, with Lab innovations, cf. “Opinion Piece: The landscape of Professional Registration and its impact within the wider Technician Commitment,” in which I touched upon existential challenges in the current technical landscape and the part Professional Registration, in the context of the wider Technician Commitment, might play in addressing some of these challenges. Regardless, these challenges must be addressed, “With 50,000 technicians retiring every year and an estimated need for another 700,000 technicians by 2030” as I explained in a talk with Lab innovations at the 2019 Road show.   

1. 1.  In your opinion, what are the main challenges facing the UK’s skills, networking and training within science right now? 

As summarized in my opinion piece, “upskilling a nation”, in the Lab Innovations/Advanced Engineering report, entitled, “UK Industry’s Call to Government”: In short, a lack of joined up thinking and practice; an ageing technical workforce and a paucity of investment in infra structure in the HE sector, coupled with poor administration of those funds, are hampering the UK’s ability to transition more fully to a knowledge based economy:

Specifically, there is a manifest disconnect between training and knowledge, provided in universities in particular, which does not equip graduates with what is necessary for competent practice in the industrial sector. Teaching in universities tends to be exclusively pure rather than applied knowledge and practical modules are designed, in the main, to reinforce theory rather than equip future graduates with skills that are actually utilized in the workplace. This tendency is exacerbated by a lack of investment in technology which would equip graduates with competent skills that they could take into the real world. Of course, there is a responsibility of technical workplaces to train up fresh faced graduates “on the job,” but to arrive in a workplace with no fundamental practical skill sets is less than ideal.

There are a plethora of other factors challenging the HE sector, including retention of skilled personnel, on account of poor career progression, and the failure to not just replace those personnel (due to economies of scale) when they leave, but to train up replacements before they leave. Moreover,  there is an increasing trend for older PhD students to train up new graduates, where as in the past, such training would have been assigned to experienced technicians who, like their experienced academic student counterparts, are equipped to train novices in standard operating procedures, but, in addition, bring to the table a wealth of extra experience, which enables them to more fully train “fresh faced academics” in the limitations, pitfalls and how to circumvent pit falls by deploying troubleshooting knowledge (often missing from students placed in the “driving seat”). Consequently, experienced personnel are leaving and taking all of that value added knowledge with them. Admittedly, a case can be made for nurturing the teaching skills of young PhD students as part of their formal training: Thus, a balance needs to be struck between allowing older PhD students to explore, cultivate and apply their practical teaching skills, in concert with theoretical knowledge and (re)enabling technicians to augment that instruction, by participation in practical training as well; Hitherto, this more ideal calculus, where PhD students would “teach” beginners (cf. academic theory + practical training) and technicians would “train” beginners, i.e., additional bench training with fundamental technical knowledge explaining the operating procedure, was common in the past.

In addition, a case can be made about adverse trends in the SE sector, impacting on HE training. Specifically, literacy and numeracy skills and basic scientific aptitude in UK schools is low by international standards and this is undermining theoretical instruction as well as competent practical training when fresh faced school leavers arrive in, HE.

In the context of effective networking and its impact on UK skills and training, I have mentioned the fact the universities tend, in the UK, to operate independently, and many have aged infrastructure and a lack of up-to-date equipment. This will inevitably lead to a diminished “training milieu” for students within HE institutes that are traditionally cash poor, as opposed to the more prestigious Russel group universities, where technical personnel and academics in training are provided with a more enriched, up to date portfolio of skills. The answer, or at least a mitigation in part, might be regional networks where equipment and “best practice” are shared between neighboring institutes; training placement options for technical staff and students; and perhaps more effective infrastructure regarding the provision of reciprocal training courses, where industrial laboratory scientists train up personnel in universities and universities in turn provide theoretical courses to industrial scientists. The good news is that initiatives described are starting to be put in place: See for example exemplars like Midlands Innovation.

Quite apart from disparities in basic kit, there is also, I would conjecture, a “Philosophical” problem with how young academics, in particular, are trained: Specifically, there is a prevailing attitude that young academics, to foster independent thinking, should, de facto, “Sink or swim” wherein technical problems should, where possible, be resolved in house. In today’s “interconnected world” I would contend that students should be encouraged to seek help via external training and “virtual mentoring,” as well, augmenting in house practice, to appreciate external gold standards and best codes of practice.

•  
• 2.  What do you think is having the biggest impact on these challenges?

I have spoken almost exclusively about ageing infrastructure and poor organization and training of laboratory staff within an HE setting; the disconnect between “Premier HE institutes” and cash strapped HE institutes; as well as dissonance between HE institutes and industrial scientific workplaces.

In my experience, there are key initiatives that are starting to improve these challenges and consequent future outlook and trajectories. The first is the new style apprentice levy: This has come into inception by Government promulgating a set of specific “Apprentice standards” via the IfATE (Soon to be replaced by Skills England).

In addition, the last Government brought together Trail blazing organisations in STEM, with a remit and capital to devise a curriculum of theoretical and practical training that is aligned with the practical needs of industry. Moreover, under the auspices of Government, Industrial trail blazers have networked with training institutions to provide a syllabus of theoretical knowledge that are principally applied and augments competent practice within a designated institute. These so called “Training Providers” are autonomous companies affiliated to an HE Institute, e.g., CSR Scientific or, alternatively, a conventional HE Institute such as Manchester Metropolitan University.

Finally, the 3^rd player in this Triumvirate is the (so-called) End point Assessment company (EPAO) which examines apprentices at the end of their 2-3 year (typically apprenticeship standard) and awards a pass or distinction, based on prescribed apprentice standards. In that way, the quality and applicability of training is consistent, relevant to work place needs, accountable and of a higher standard than was hitherto the case. Finally, to effect and facilitate this arrangement, the Government provides financial support in the form of the Apprentice Levy.

The second initiative, which is affording impact or amelioration of what was outlined in 1) is the so-called Technician Commitment. This initiative is under the auspices of the Institute of Technical skills and training (ITSS)  and its principal mission is to reverse the exodus of technical staff from the HE, SE, FE and industrial sectors, linked to aforementioned challenges.In short, it aims to reverse this trend by providing inter alia external training opportunities and viable career path models, in association with organisations, like the National Technician Development Centre (NTDC) , the RSB and RSC  and independent (so called) Licensed bodies falling under the aegis of the Science Council. To date, comprehensive commitment plans have been enunciated by more than 120 signatories, including up to half of all UK Universities, the MRC, BBSRC and Research England (amongst others) and these “signatories” are expected to submit comprehensive reports, detailing how they will support, in house, or on a national platform, technical careers regarding training, career opportunities and also my own specialty: namely technical accreditation via Professional Registration which I have discussed at length in numerous publications, including incipient pieces for Lab Innovations.     

The impact of the Technician commitment, thus far and from inception, is summarized in the interim report, “The Technician Commitment: Inception to Impact.”

•  
• 3.  How do you think the new government can support in helping overcome them?

For starters, the new Government should continue with the type of initiatives outlined. Specifically, and of paramount importance, continued focus should be given to rewarding, training and retaining key technical personnel, be they academic or technical. In addition, the government, should encourage and support schemes which promote STEM careers within schools. The latter is imperative for uptake of the physical sciences, engineering and math’s by aspiring and ambitious school girls in particular. Currently, there is a paucity of senior female role models in Sciences and the Government needs to collaborate with experts who devise secondary school curricula to pay more attention and afford more prominence to pioneering female “Iconoclastic” Scientists; and by that I don’t just mean veritable “Titans” like Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie, but rather more regional and perhaps relatable figures.

Finally, the government, via funding bodies like the MRC and BBSRC, should introduce mandatory specifications, which stipulate those technical personnel that have provided key contributions to data underpinning funding corner stones should be acknowledged on out puts like peer reviewed scientific publications. This is consonant with the “Visibility pillar” of the Technician commitment and hitherto was much more common in academic institutions (circa the 1990s and before) but sadly, over the last 20 years, has declined as a prevalent practice. That said, prescriptions by funding bodies are now starting to appear and, as an aside, in house stipulations are also now being codified and practiced by progressive HE institutes inter alia.      

•  
• 4.  What are the three areas of change that you think the new government should focus its efforts on in order to help the UK’s lab skills to improve?

I have opined on the current landscape, “The good, the bad and the ugly” and sector responses to current imperatives, challenging and impeding productivity and progress within the context of the laboratory sector; both industrial and within HE settings. Based on my comments thus far, I would conjecture that the following three areas merit particular Government attention in the short term:

•  
• –  The new Labour Government has inherited an apprentice framework that in the main appears to work well and deliver apprentices with the mind set and skill sets to work appropriately and productively within lab-based settings. Accordingly, I would encourage the Government to cultivate what is essentially a “Virtuous scheme” and adjust at the margins to improve.
•  
• –  The Technician commitment is also yielding dividends and affording participating personnel and institutes training and networking opportunities that will improve morale, augment CPD opportunities and create a milieu which will offset the current exodus of technical staff to seek better opportunities. The existential nature of this attrition, in numbers and the projected impact, on a future “Recruitment and retention” crisis cannot be overstated. As I stated in the preface to an “Opinion piece I wrote for Lab Innovations, entitled, “The landscape of Professional Registration and its impact within the wider Technician Commitment”  

With 50,000 technicians retiring every year and an estimated need for another 700,000 technicians by 2030, the UK is heading towards an ‘existential crisis’ in terms of a labour shortfall. What is causing this growing deficit and moreover what can be done to retain current technicians and induce young Scientists to become technicians?”  This Exculpatory statement was made by me as an introductory remark for a talk I provided for Lab Innovations, (circa 2019), in which I opined on the current recruitment and retention crisis for UK technicians in the FE, SE, HE and industrial sectors. The Government must do everything within its ambit therefore to support and fortify this “Virtuous practice”. One tangible way of achieving this aim is to reinforce the current leverage that government funding bodies, like the MRC and BBSRC, can exert on grant recipients, as already mentioned: Certain Funding bodies currently urge grant recipients to “declare and promote” the interests of technicians within their groups (citing them on papers, affording them opportunities to attend conferences and training), as a pre-condition of making the award. I would argue that this advice should be a mandatory, in line with funding bodies signing up to the Technician Commitment. Moreover, central Government should also work with protagonists like funding bodies and scientific societies to promote STEM careers. By attacking the problem at both ends, the current “recruitment and retention crisis” can be ameliorated. As Richard Branson famously remarked, “Train your staff well enough so they could leave but treat them well enough, so they chose not to”.  

•  
• –  The last area I would contend constitutes a “Call to arms” is training and infra structure: Specifically, large disparities exist in the quality and quantity of laboratory analytical platforms with derivative training across the UK, giving rise to a 2-tier experiential environment across the UK. This is affecting the quality and type of training provided to both technicians and academic staff. The Government needs to directly invest in better equipment and encourage sharing of equipment and training provision via regional and national organisations e.g., MI Talent and ITSS.
•  
•  
• 5.  Can you tell me a little bit more about your involvement with UK skills, networking and training over your career?

In the last 8 years, I have played a direct role in “Commitment to skills and training,” by leveraging my own diverse, extensive and international experience within the laboratory world, by working with the Science Council, IST, RSB, NTDC and MI Talent; and indeed Lab Innovations to promote and promulgate the aims of the Technician Commitment on a National Stage. Amongst other places I have opined on my responsibilities in an “Opinion piece” I wrote for Lab Innovations, entitled, “5 Minutes with Laurence Dawkins-Hall”. In particular, I am currently an Applicant Support Mentor for the Science Council; A Special advisor for the NTDC; an ad hoc guest lecture for MI Talent in their “Festival of Talent”(s) and sit on the advisory board and have provided lectures for Lab Innovations. Collectively, in these roles, I provide in person and interactive workshops on preparing for Professional Registration at University and (aforementioned) society conferences. In addition, I have put together a plethora of online learning materials, including a whole host of you tube videos, describing inter alia preparing for different aspects of Professional Registration. Recently, I was featured as a special guest on a University of Edinburgh pod cast to describe my own experiences of promoting Professional Registration and the wider Technician Commitment.  I have prepared similar on line materials for both MI Talent and indeed Lab Innovations in the context of their “Lab on demand” webinar series. In the last 8 years, collectively and in person, I have worked with approximately 3000 technicians in the UK in the FE, HE, secondary education and industrial settings and provided approximately 100 talks and interactive workshops and prescriptive webinars on all aspects of Professional Registration.

I am currently divesting my efforts, to work with STEM Apprentices for the Science Council and NTDC, pertaining to a shortened route to Professional Registration for these qualified apprentices: My efforts in this regard have recently been showcased in a recorded “Tech Meet” forum with NTDC and an article published in Laboratory News (a sponsor of the Lab Innovations show), cf. “Letters of Mark”,  Issue #1, 2025, pp. 37-39.

To round up this piece and pay tribute to the support, both personal and National, afforded by Lab Innovations, in the last 6 months, I was the winner of the Outstanding Achievement award, presented to me at the 2024 Lab Innovations show. 

•  
• 6.  You have Coauthored this opinion piece in conjunction with another Scientist, Eve Jarman. What is Eve’s background, informing your collective comments?

Eve is currently a second-year PhD candidate in the Leicester Cancer Research Centre. In 2020, she completed a degree in Biomedical Sciences rom Sussex University and then went on to obtain an MSc in Genomic Medicine at Imperial College London, where she graduated in 2021. Professionally, Eve spent two years in the genomic services department of the University of Oxford, where she developed expertise in high-throughput sequencing and led the automated robotics department. Whilst at Oxford, she was seconded to the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, where she shared advanced library preparation techniques and deepened her understanding of the downstream applications of genomic data. My input was historical and rooted within longevity in this sector. Eve provided a more contemporary perspective, as somebody starting out In laboratories.