Whatareya?*

Questions of identity and self-perception are important in workplaces as they help to define how we behave and what decisions we take. For many regulatory bodies, it is crucial to have technical experts as part of the regulatory team – veterinarians, engineers, accountants, environmental scientists, chemists, doctors and so  on. But how does a technical expert see themselves when they work for a regulator, and why does it matter?

One of the first mistakes that can be made when a technical expert comes to work at a regulator is the assumption that their technical expertise is enough – that they can immediately start their regulatory role. But regulation is a science – or an art – or, as I tend to think, a little bit of both. It has its own set of skills and underpinning knowledge. To regulate effectively, it is necessary to understand the science of regulation as well as the technical field of the new regulator’s expertise. We are fortunate now that there is an increasing number of regulatory courses available - training in regulatory decision-making is an important investment for all new regulators, whether they come from a policy background or a technical one. It is also great to see groups like the Regulatory Science Network working to improve science-based regulatory decision-making.

So once trained, a technical expert can take on the role of a regulator. Surely this makes them a regulator? Well, that is an interesting question to ask them. How do you see yourself and how do you identify? For the technical experts I have worked with in regulatory roles, I have had a range of answers. Yes, some see themselves as regulators. For many though, this isn’t the primary way they identify. For those who have undertaken significant study or been members of very specific professions, often they will still see themselves as an engineer or a veterinarian or similar. Similarly, for those who have invested significant passion in their technical career, they also maintain that identity – as an environmental scientist, as a research chemist, as a historian.  For some, particularly those who have been working in a regulator for a while, they see themselves as a blend – as a regulatory scientist for example.

Is it really a problem how people answer this question? Well, not necessarily. I would never suggest that a regulatory officer who still defines themselves by their technical speciality is automatically a bad regulator. Passion about technical details is a good thing. But the problem arises when there may be a clash between what a technical expert sees through that lens versus what the legislation they are administering requires. When a regulatory veterinarian makes a decision about whether an animal is fit to transport/slaughter they have to use both technical expertise and knowledge, and judgement about what the legislation requires. When a regulatory historian has to make a recommendation about heritage protection, they have to use their professional skills both as a someone who understands the past, but also knows what is and isn’t relevant to legislative criteria. A regulator can’t be just a veterinarian or a scientist or a historian, they need to think about how to use the skills of their dual role in concert.

To improve regulatory practice we need to highlight and discuss these potential conflicts. We need to celebrate the technical expertise of our regulators, but we also need to champion the regulatory skills. Being a regulator hasn’t always been seen as an exciting designation – even within the public service, you’ll find most people want to work in policy, not be a regulator. We need to improve the perception of regulation as a career path.  We also need to think critically about what makes people good at their jobs. Skill improvement for a regulatory scientist is not just about them keeping up to date with the latest in their field. It is that, but it is also thinking about how to apply that knowledge within the legislative framework that exists, or, if new developments in science make that framework obsolete and endanger regulatory goals. We should try to ensure that regulatory and technical expertise work in balance, not in opposition and the best way we can do that is by recognising that there can be a tension, and working to address it.

*with apologies to TISM