- Email: [email protected]
European veterinary education: What does harmonisation mean?
The Veterinary Journal The Veterinary Journal 169 (2005) 157–158 www.elsevier.com/locate/tvjl
Guest editorial
European veterinary education: What does harmonisation mean?
The arguments and ambitions for a European Union (EU) approach to veterinary education are eloquently and enthusiastically expounded by Tito Fernandes in this issue of The Veterinary Journal (2005). I would not want to be insular, but my problem with a harmonised approach to European veterinary education is the same as it would be for a similar approach to insulation: different countries actually have different needs. Harmony is the outcome of underlying melodic diversity but the EU relentlessly seeks unison. The central administration in Brussels is concerned above all with free movement of goods and services, not their suitability. Moreover, even in something as simple as an electric plug, there is no sign of harmony and a flourishing trade in multiplugs persists at airport shops. Yet plugs only have one purpose, to safely transfer electricity from a mains source to a compatible piece of equipment. In contrast, even in a single country, it is hard enough to keep pace with the educational context set by progress in veterinary science and a governmentÕs demands on higher education and the changing requirements posed, or likely to be posed, by economic, social or political expectations. The best example of the problem is food hygiene, also known as Ôstable to tableÕ, Ôfarm to forkÕ, Ôsperm to spamÕ and various equally depressing ÔstraplinesÕ. It has been clear for four decades that veterinary surgeons could play a unique role in synthesising antemortem knowledge of herd health in source farms with the assessment of the safety of the resulting abattoir products and their suitability for subsequent processing. It has been equally clear that additional expertise was needed beyond the basic course and, sadly, that very few veterinary surgeons were really motivated to take up this torch. The Brussels approach is to find British undergraduate courses lacking in the relevant training. Yet the last thing the UK needs is seven schools annually pumping out hundreds of graduates ready to play key roles in safeguarding supermarket meat and dairy counters. Our local national need is 1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.12.002
for a smaller number of highly trained and motivated graduates emerging from one or two schools with the real multidisciplinary expertise and excellence to present the subject as a Ôcareer path to die forÕ. Equally there are EU countries where weakness in goat medicine would be as intolerable as inadequate training in feline medicine would be here – and where a state-ofthe-art training in feline medicine would be irrelevant – except to facilitate job mobility. We should have sufficient British experience of the disasters resulting from trying to make education conform to political theory rather than real requirements, to be able to offer expert advice on the menace of such follies. But, for the moment we have to live with the EU ground rules and their underlying philosophy. Essentially, assessment of future needs and monitoring of standards have been abandoned to the profession and its educational establishments. That provides an admirable basis for developing a vision for progress but this is then constrained by the inflexibility of the Directives. The virtues of the vision, and some of the associated problems of implementation, are carefully described in Professor FernandesÕs article – and few experts have a more appropriate variety of high level experience from which to view the current scene. He emphasises the value of diversity and the potential for European veterinary education to provide Ôa bridge to qualityÕ; the question is: will it prove Ôa bridge too farÕ? While the impossibility of perpetuating either omnicompetent veterinary graduates or omnicompetent veterinary schools is well recognised, the Directives remain an intransigent obstacle to progress; we have to try and navigate around them instead of working with laws which are fit for purpose. The very fact that evaluation of schools is a voluntary, unenforceable process emphasises that the EU concern is with mobility, not competence. While the need is for greater flexibility, new EU laws threaten to supersede the recognition granted by bodies such as the UKÕs Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) and to supplement the
158
Guest editorial / The Veterinary Journal 169 (2005) 157–158
problems of harmonising veterinary education by those of attempting to create an integrated European university system. To me, European veterinary education presents a vision of an increasingly perfect and desirable paradise which is receding and becoming increasingly unattainable as we drown in the cross currents of inflexible EU legislation. Unfortunately, Fernandes (2005) reinforces my frustration with this impasse, despite his understandable enthusiasm for the vision. We may refine our professional ambitions but we remain shackled to an obsolete vision of veterinary education enshrined in EU law and Brussels has no interest in updating it.
A.R. Michell Department of Biochemical Pharmacology Heavy Research Institute St. BartholomewÕs Hospital Charterhouse Square London EC1M 6BQ, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
Reference Fernandes, T.H., 2005. European veterinary education: a bridge to quality. The Veterinary Journal 169, 210–215.
Guest editorial
European veterinary education: What does harmonisation mean?
The arguments and ambitions for a European Union (EU) approach to veterinary education are eloquently and enthusiastically expounded by Tito Fernandes in this issue of The Veterinary Journal (2005). I would not want to be insular, but my problem with a harmonised approach to European veterinary education is the same as it would be for a similar approach to insulation: different countries actually have different needs. Harmony is the outcome of underlying melodic diversity but the EU relentlessly seeks unison. The central administration in Brussels is concerned above all with free movement of goods and services, not their suitability. Moreover, even in something as simple as an electric plug, there is no sign of harmony and a flourishing trade in multiplugs persists at airport shops. Yet plugs only have one purpose, to safely transfer electricity from a mains source to a compatible piece of equipment. In contrast, even in a single country, it is hard enough to keep pace with the educational context set by progress in veterinary science and a governmentÕs demands on higher education and the changing requirements posed, or likely to be posed, by economic, social or political expectations. The best example of the problem is food hygiene, also known as Ôstable to tableÕ, Ôfarm to forkÕ, Ôsperm to spamÕ and various equally depressing ÔstraplinesÕ. It has been clear for four decades that veterinary surgeons could play a unique role in synthesising antemortem knowledge of herd health in source farms with the assessment of the safety of the resulting abattoir products and their suitability for subsequent processing. It has been equally clear that additional expertise was needed beyond the basic course and, sadly, that very few veterinary surgeons were really motivated to take up this torch. The Brussels approach is to find British undergraduate courses lacking in the relevant training. Yet the last thing the UK needs is seven schools annually pumping out hundreds of graduates ready to play key roles in safeguarding supermarket meat and dairy counters. Our local national need is 1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.12.002
for a smaller number of highly trained and motivated graduates emerging from one or two schools with the real multidisciplinary expertise and excellence to present the subject as a Ôcareer path to die forÕ. Equally there are EU countries where weakness in goat medicine would be as intolerable as inadequate training in feline medicine would be here – and where a state-ofthe-art training in feline medicine would be irrelevant – except to facilitate job mobility. We should have sufficient British experience of the disasters resulting from trying to make education conform to political theory rather than real requirements, to be able to offer expert advice on the menace of such follies. But, for the moment we have to live with the EU ground rules and their underlying philosophy. Essentially, assessment of future needs and monitoring of standards have been abandoned to the profession and its educational establishments. That provides an admirable basis for developing a vision for progress but this is then constrained by the inflexibility of the Directives. The virtues of the vision, and some of the associated problems of implementation, are carefully described in Professor FernandesÕs article – and few experts have a more appropriate variety of high level experience from which to view the current scene. He emphasises the value of diversity and the potential for European veterinary education to provide Ôa bridge to qualityÕ; the question is: will it prove Ôa bridge too farÕ? While the impossibility of perpetuating either omnicompetent veterinary graduates or omnicompetent veterinary schools is well recognised, the Directives remain an intransigent obstacle to progress; we have to try and navigate around them instead of working with laws which are fit for purpose. The very fact that evaluation of schools is a voluntary, unenforceable process emphasises that the EU concern is with mobility, not competence. While the need is for greater flexibility, new EU laws threaten to supersede the recognition granted by bodies such as the UKÕs Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) and to supplement the
158
Guest editorial / The Veterinary Journal 169 (2005) 157–158
problems of harmonising veterinary education by those of attempting to create an integrated European university system. To me, European veterinary education presents a vision of an increasingly perfect and desirable paradise which is receding and becoming increasingly unattainable as we drown in the cross currents of inflexible EU legislation. Unfortunately, Fernandes (2005) reinforces my frustration with this impasse, despite his understandable enthusiasm for the vision. We may refine our professional ambitions but we remain shackled to an obsolete vision of veterinary education enshrined in EU law and Brussels has no interest in updating it.
A.R. Michell Department of Biochemical Pharmacology Heavy Research Institute St. BartholomewÕs Hospital Charterhouse Square London EC1M 6BQ, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
Reference Fernandes, T.H., 2005. European veterinary education: a bridge to quality. The Veterinary Journal 169, 210–215.