Future Directions for the Clinical Laboratory Scientist

Extract

Editorials serve many purposes: one is to communicate an issue or concern, another is to provide an overview of the journal articles, and a third is to generate discussion from its readers. The Winter 2003 editorial encouraged readers to become more involved in the profession and perhaps submit articles for publication. The Spring 2003 editorial…well, you can decide its purpose.

Some time ago, I posed the question…“is it time to look at an entry level master's degree for the clinical laboratory scientist?” Justification ranged from keeping up with the other professions that are moving or have already moved to the master's level, to the knowledge required to function as a CLS exceeds the baccalaureate degree. CLS educators complain that the body of knowledge of the profession can not be adequately covered in four years. The changing responsibilities for the CLS requires more didactic time to learn laboratory operations, financial management, regulatory compliance issues, clinical correlation, and research design. Thus, an entry level master's would afford more time to adequately cover the material. This suggestion has not met with unanimous support. Arguments against the idea include low salaries, increased shortages in manpower, and uncertainty of the role the hospital-sponsored programs could play in this type of education program. Even so, NAACLS has appointed a task force to evaluate the move to the graduate level as a future direction for the profession.

Setting emotions aside, look at where the education and responsibilities of the CLS and CLT are in 2003 compared to…