Saskia Henn looks at the skills gaps in the UK’s chemical and biological engineering industry and asks how they might be filled
Training in the UK’s engineering biology sector is something that the UK must urgently develop to avoiding falling behind other countries.
Currently, there is a shortage of professionals with robust training in engineering biology. There are several reasons for this, including the fundamental challenge that engineering biology crosses two research councils.
Problem of two councils
Both the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences and Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Councils are responsible for providing funding for grants, post-graduate degrees, scientific research institutes and university research departments.
The structural split in funding breeds uncertainty about which research council assists what organisations, and what form that assistance takes.
While challenges lie in the blueprints of the structure built to support it, the problems with the training infrastructure extend far beyond that.
Many scientists reportedly struggle to translate their academic work into useful products ready to be marketed and sold. It is rare for a biology engineer to understand regulations and intellectual property, for example, because the opportunities for academics to learn about these topics are so few.
Lack of breadth
Members of the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), a community of chemical, biochemical and process engineers have noticed this.
IChemE head of policy and impact, Duncan Lugton, said: “We often see challenges for people who are really good at all the things they’ve trained for as an academic – getting those ideas, working in the lab, writing the grant proposals – but when they have to dive into some of the other kinds of skills, that are required to scale things up,” he continues, “this is quite a different set of skills, and there can often be a gap.”
Engaging with commercial realities at an earlier stage could help scientists increase the likelihood that their work move from pipette to product.
Another organisation that has observed similar challenges is the UK Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy (ITSS) a programme supporting organisations and employers of technicians to strengthen their technical workforce.
ITSS director Kelly Vere also suggests that incorporating commercial aspects into everyday laboratory education could help the UK with its scale-up problem by forging new routes forward.
“Employers and funders should prioritise retention strategies for technical professionals that include enhanced career progression pathways,” says Vere. “Recognising the overlap of technical and academic roles is key to creating new opportunities and ultimately a sustainable workforce.”
Enriching existing PhD programmes and offering more post-graduate learning opportunities are two more ways to accomplish this, as there are currently only two doctorate training centres in the UK.
‘A-year-in-the-industry’-style programme could also provide opportunities for universities to collaborate with start-ups, small-to-medium enterprises and larger companies. With this type of education, academics are exposed early on to the inevitable commercial requirements they will bump up against in the laboratory.
Other aspects of training that require urgent attention are programmes below and beyond PhD level. Many technical positions do not require a PhD, but opportunities at earlier stages of university in the UK are lacking.
“We want to see the government prioritise chemical, biological and process engineering education and training at all levels, including things like significant expansions in technical apprenticeship, undergraduate, postgraduate and post-doctoral routes,” says Lugton.
While an aging technical workforce means that many colleagues are retiring, there are also plenty of experienced workers ready to learn new commercial skills on top of the technical skills they already have.
“It’s not just about growing new chemical engineers or whoever else in the workforce. It’s also about recognising that there are lots of people already in the workforce who could step into these roles with appropriate training, and I think that’s something that we really think the government should support,” says Lugton.
Re-skilling is a valuable resource to obtain skilled workers already in the UK and familiar with the industry.
“Employers of technicians would significantly benefit from investing in technician-specific training, including technical skills aligned with critical technologies and professional development programmes that are designed for the unique roles of technicians,” says Vere.
Re-skilling to support scale up
Re-skilling staff will support the scale-up infrastructure that the UK desperately needs to prevent talent from leaving the country to find better opportunities abroad.
The Lords report touches on several areas of training in the UK that are most needed and some organisations are hopeful that the document is an acknowledgement from the government that scaling up young companies and developing commercial sense and technical skills must now be a priority.
“The government clearly understands that this is important,” says Lugton. “We just want to see more specifics regarding these plans as they get developed, and to help play a part in refining and make a success of them.”
For more information visit: www.icheme.org
