A colleague the other day was a wee bit angry.
She had to get a photograph or something counter-signed for something official; you know the drill, "I certify that this is a true likeness of Minne Mouse" blah. And there's a reasonably lengthy list of professions whose signatures are somehow worthy of trust in this matter. JPs. GPs. Ministers of Religion. Solicitors.
Dentists.
Accountants.
Back up a minute there. Accountants? Well, okay, I suppose they had to do a few exams, and come somewhere between General Practitioners and solicitors on the weasel scale, and get to wear smart suits so they must be trustworthy, but where the hell on that list does it say 'professional scientist'?
(clue: It doesn't)
What kind of world are we living in where a beancounter's word is valued more highly than that of one who has made a career out of uncovering the truth, in sometimes very dark places? What sort of world is it where someone who gets paid to find ways of withholding money from the government (and therefore the poor, actually) on behalf of the already obscenely rich is held in higher regard than some poor bastard working all the hours God sends, for lousy pay, in pursuit of a better life for us all, ultimately. What kind of crazy, mucked up system allows this to persist?
I'll tell you; it's a world where the beancounters and politicians are in charge, because the people deserve it.
Comments
The reason accountants are listed and scientists aren't is because accountants have a professional organization and are a self-governing profession. Lab rats are not.
Posted by: Paul Tomblin | November 29, 2006 02:17 PM
I see. So if professional liars have an *organization* they become respectable. I'm having a Pratchett-style 'Guild' moment now.
Posted by: BK | November 29, 2006 02:23 PM
No, but if "professional liars" have an organization that is licensed by the government to be the sole regulating authority for that profession, which includes a code of conduct and a board that certifies "professional liars" and which will kick out the ones that voilate the code of conduct, *then* they become respectable.
As a former engineer and current computer programmer, I'm well acquanted with the differences between unregulated and regulated professions. Unlike you or probably anybody else in your co-hort, I had to take a mandatory 4th year credit in law and ethics, and if I had gone for certification I would have had to pass a further exam on it. And for the rest of my professional career, my actions would have been accountable to the Association of Professional Engineers. And a criminal conviction for something unrelated to my profession (like drunk driving or vandalism) would have been grounds for disbarrment.
Posted by: Paul Tomblin | November 30, 2006 12:48 AM
Sounds like we - well, group leaders at least - need to get our acts together.
Posted by: BK | November 30, 2006 06:21 AM
re: "engineering professional association ..."
and i don't see engineering being able to certify such and such either...
my believe is that the system is done this way , since scientists, engineers etc are already poor in time, and hence don't have all the time in the world to read a 24 page summary of a 900 page document to certify that "hey, this is the copy of the original"
no offence to any accountants/lawyers/other professional workers who is listed.
Posted by: xg | December 12, 2006 08:54 PM