Physics Medical Physics is an exciting field

[AtomicPile]

AtomicPile may I ask your current area of profession, I take it you are current not in a position within Medical Physics, as you seem very enthused and keen as posted.

I actually came across the profession Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) quite by mistake. I have done a great deal of research into the profession in the last three weeks, and am meeting my State Government's director in Radiation Oncology in the coming weeks to discuss the profession futher.

From my perspective (down under), there is a shortage of ROMPs; why would the director be so keen to meet with me and inform and show me aspects of the profession first hand. The shortage forecast is said to be so severe, that IAEA has provided a training program manual free to the public as a framework for new entrants to the profession.

I am sorry that you felt that you have been misrepresented and lead up the garden path in the past.

Hi Clancy Brown, where is "down under"?

Can you post the study estimating the number of ROMP's that will be needed for this worldwide shortage?

It's true that the IAEA gives away a free manual. So what does giving away a manual for free have to do with the price of rice in China? Will the IAEA serve-up a physician, equipment, facility and a little ROMP with that manual?

Let's say that I did the medical physics training, got the badge and could not find a job as a medical physicist (or any of its derivative titles).

P.S. I thought the movie Highlander was fantastic. ;)

 

[Choppy]

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about the job market in medical physics.

(1)
To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession. However, from an employer's point of view, when you have an opening, finding a qualified medical physicist (ie. certified by the ABR, the CCPM or equivalent) and preferably with some experience, is very difficult.

(2)
The single greatest risk factor for the most common cancers is age. As the population ages and people live longer, the demand for radiation therapy will increase. You cannot meet this demand by hiring selective occupations (as AtomicPile implied). Some hospitals may try, but this will create a workload bottleneck.

(3)
With respect to training programs wanting your money and cheap labour, I think this is incredibly misleading. Graduate programs in medical physics don't turn a profit.

 

[AtomicPile]

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about the job market in medical physics.

(1)
To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession.

Are those "physicists" trying to get into "medical physics" really the issue? I am guessing that this is a very common theme. A "medical physicist" is a "physicist", but a "physicist" is not a "medical physicist".

But let's phrase this in terms of a sales gimmick:

-You do not have enough education so get a bachelors (1st sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a masters in medical physics (2nd sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a Ph.D. in medical physics (3rd sale)
-Wait that is not enough, now you need to do a residency in medical physics. (4th sale)
-Guess what, a residency is not enough, because now you need ABR certification. (5th sale)
-The next line of the argument is that ABR certification means that you have met a minimum level of qualification but it does not mean you have enough experience to do your job. (6th sale)

However, from an employer's point of view, when you have an opening, finding a qualified medical physicist (ie. certified by the ABR, the CCPM or equivalent) and preferably with some experience, is very difficult.

Look at the biography of Geoff Ibbot (http://www.aapm.org/org/history/bio/2013/) Geoff Ibbot was given the title of medical physicist in 1974. Geoff received his BA in 1979. Geoff was called a "medical physicist" before he had his bachelor's degree. Geoff Ibbot is a trustee of the ABR.

So is ABR certification really that relevant or just some carrot to be dangled in front of children?

(2)
The single greatest risk factor for the most common cancers is age. As the population ages and people live longer, the demand for radiation therapy will increase. You cannot meet this demand by hiring selective occupations (as AtomicPile implied). Some hospitals may try, but this will create a workload bottleneck.

Your age argument is sound, but it lacks clarity of thought. What workload bottleneck?

(3)
With respect to training programs wanting your money and cheap labour, I think this is incredibly misleading. Graduate programs in medical physics don't turn a profit.

Help me out here...where does the money to pay the teacher's salary come from?

Lesson learned
Unless a teacher works for free, then the graduate program makes money off of its student. Shareholders may not exist, but income must be made. That fits the definition of profit.

 

[Choppy]

But let's phrase this in terms of a sales gimmick:
-You do not have enough education so get a bachelors (1st sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a masters in medical physics (2nd sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a Ph.D. in medical physics (3rd sale)
-Wait that is not enough, now you need to do a residency in medical physics. (4th sale)
-Guess what, a residency is not enough, because now you need ABR certification. (5th sale)
-The next line of the argument is that ABR certification means that you have met a minimum level of qualification but it does not mean you have enough experience to do your job. (6th sale)

Alright, so at what point would you argue someone has sufficient training and experience to work independently as a medical physicist? Keep in mind that the people that make this decision have to balance it against the potential for lawsuits from cohorts of patients potentially over or underdosed, not to mention a moral obligation to provide an acceptable standard of care.

From a cost-effectiveness point of view, graduate programs don't bring enough money into the department to offset the cost of the program. If they did, you would see all sorts of small graduate programs popping up at smaller independent centres. But they only exist in larger institutions capable of absobring these costs.

Further, from the point of view of someone potentially going through the process, you have to keep in mind that as a graduate student you receive a stipend. It's not a lot. But it covers the cost of tuition and modest living. Beyond that, as resident, you're getting paid a reasonable salary. So even if you want to believe this process is some sort of a cash grab, the student/resident gets both money and an education out of it.

Look at the biography of Geoff Ibbot (http://www.aapm.org/org/history/bio/2013/) Geoff Ibbot was given the title of medical physicist in 1974. Geoff received his BA in 1979. Geoff was called a "medical physicist" before he had his bachelor's degree. Geoff Ibbot is a trustee of the ABR.

So is ABR certification really that relevant or just some carrot to be dangled in front of children?

The first airplane was built in 1903 by a pair of bicycle mechanics. Are the regulations of the aeronautical engineering industry really all that relevant?

Your age argument is sound, but it lacks clarity of thought. What workload bottleneck?

Let's put it this way - say you're in the business of building houses and you need to expand, so you hire more carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, and roofers, but you keep the same number of plumbers. The plumbers will keep the construction at the same pace as always because the plumbers won't be able to work any faster (or if they do, you'll end up with shotty plumbing, which will lead to lawsuits, and lost business). This is a workload bottleneck.

Medical physicists play a critical role in the clinical operations of a radiation therapy department. They can't be replaced by dosimetrists, therapists, or technicians.

Help me out here...where does the money to pay the teacher's salary come from?

In my department, the medical physicists are given adjuct appointments within the department of physics at the local university, but we get paid the same whether we teach or not.

 

[AtomicPile]

Alright, so at what point would you argue someone has sufficient training and experience to work independently as a medical physicist? ...

The point is that there is an over supply of medical physicists. Which is why the qualifications for the job keep rising.

Also, I am very concerned about someone lobbying for "medical physics" in a physics forum who make this statement:

To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession.

 

[Heresy]

AtomicPile is just bitter =/

 

[Choppy]

The point is that there is an over supply of medical physicists. Which is why the qualifications for the job keep rising.

Again - do you have any data on this?

One study I'm aware of suggested a need for approximately 200 new medical physicists (in radiation oncology) per year to meet the projected demand in 2020. [Mills et al. Med. Phys. 36 2769 (2009)] Granted it is a single study, but the number isn't unreasonable - even if you assign it some rather large error bars. The number of people passing the board exams every year, ABR and CCPM combined, is in the ballpark of 100. This is without any program accreditation prerequisites (they haven't come into effect yet).

So, even if that study overestimates the need by a factor of 2, the profession would be just breaking even - hardly a saturated market.

As I've mentioned before, healthcare is effected by a slow economy just like all other industries. The hiring will likely be slow for a while, but this doesn't mean that the demand has disappeared, or that there is a conspiracy to raise the qualifications to artificially inflate the value of the currently employed physicists.

 

[AtomicPile]

Again - do you have any data on this?

The conference abstract that you cite undercounts the existing workforce by defining and using the phrase "qualified medical physicist". Under this definition neither an MS graduate, Ph.D. graduate, postdoctoral fellow, nor a residency graduate is considered a "qualified medical physicist" even though the graduate is in the employment pipeline. Furthermore a hospital can legally operate without employing a "qualified medical physicist" or for that matter a "medical physicist".

The "conference abstract" which is not considered "peer reviewed" is by M Mills(1), J Thornewill(2), and R Esterhay(2)
[(1) University of Louisville James Graham Brown Cancer Center, Louisville, KY, (2) University of Louisville School of Public Health, Louisville, KY]

I try to encourage people to get out there and talk to real people in their community.

Michael Mills, Ph.D., MSMPH, FAAPM
Radiation Oncology Dept.
James Graham Brown Cancer Center
529 S Jackson St
Louisville , KY 40202
work phone: 502-561-2700
email: mdmill03@gwise.louisville.edu
CV http://browncancercenter.org/CancerResearchers/tabid/85/Default.aspx?id=1617

Michael Mills has a Masters in Public Health from the Univ. of Louisville School of Public Health and he shares a history with his co-authors. Michael has worked at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and has worked with many other academic faculty (e.g. MG Herman, KR Hogstrom, MT Gillin, PR Almond) who are trying to lengthen the training period for their respective academic programs. In 1993 PR Almond started a residency program at Univ. of Louisville, KY.

Call up Michael Mills, pretend you are a "qualified medical physicist" and ask him for a job.

 

[AtomicPile]

AtomicPile is just bitter =/

Oh, c'mon, "global warming" was an honest mistake...we just need more "medical physicists" to study the problem. ;)

 

[qball]

First of all, I would like to clarify a few points.

A "medical physicist" is a "physicist", but a "physicist" is not a "medical physicist".

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Medical physicists do not study physics, and physicists do not study "medical physics." Radiation oncology physics was old 50 years ago. No one studies it any more. What they study now is the incorporation of new imaging technology into rad. onc., or better ways to calculate dose. Both use known physics. On the imaging side, the physics is also not new. What's different is the way it's applied. Physicists certainly don't care about any of these things.

Second, the field of medical physics is not just limited to radiation oncology. You only need ABR certification if you're doing some kind of clinical work. For pure research it is not necessary.

It is my suspicion that the new requirements for 2012/2014 are designed to prevent physics Ph.d's from entering the field directly. Currently there is no restriction and someone with a Ph.d. in any relevant field can do a residency and enter the field of medical physics. According to the AAPM's Bruce Gerbi (http://chapter.aapm.org/nccaapm/Gerbi_Bruce.pdf ) 54% of all medical physicists are trained on the job. While this probably sufficient (let's face it, this ISN'T rocket science) it seems that the current medical physics community doesn't believe the field is insular enough.

Additionally, there is talk about instituting PDMP programs in medical physics. This obviously won't affect the current students, but future students (post-2014) will have to deal with it. This essentially a Ph.d. program you have to pay for, like med. school. The only good thing that could come out of this is that paying students can demand excellence in teaching that the rest of us can only pray for. Also, it seems counter-intuitive to claim that the need for medical physicists is rising but propose to solve this by increasing the number of programs students have to pay to attend. Would this really increase the quality of medical physicists if any Johnny Richdaddy can pay to get into a program and become a medical physicist?

Anyone in this profession needs to seriously question the direction the field is moving, especially in the US (AAPM). Anyone thinking of getting into the field needs to find a way to get an honest assessment of what the field is like from someone they trust, by reading these forums, or through whatever means they have available.

 

[AtomicPile]

Radiation oncology physics was old 50 years ago... On the imaging side, the physics is also not new.

Agreed that there is no new basic science.

Second, the field of medical physics is not just limited to radiation oncology. You only need ABR certification if you're doing some kind of clinical work. For pure research it is not necessary.

The AAPM, ACMP, ASTRO and ACR are trying to train everyone within the healthcare community to expect ABR certification. In addition they are loading academics into national and international advisory boards.

The nasty part of this is that if enough people subscribe to the practice, then it becomes the standard of care. This then trickles down into law.

This is what is so horrible about the "qualified medical physicist" definition; the definition is constantly being altered so that it translates into a certification "ponzi scheme" that produces more people than job slots.

54% of all medical physicists are trained on the job.

Be wary of posts encouraging people to go to school and train for this. Gerbi is part of the same subset of people who share the same slides to lobby for a residency. One of the key flaws is that their statistics do not cite a valid unbiased study. The real cure is to call some hospitals/clinics and get the real facts.

The only good thing that could come out of this is that paying students can demand excellence in teaching that the rest of us can only pray for.

I disagree here. The current standard of practice in healthcare/medical training contradicts this. Medical students tend to view lectures as inefficient learning tools and do not go to lectures. The reality is closer to the fact that you are bribing someone for the opportunity to take a standardized exam.

Anyone in this profession needs to seriously question the direction the field is moving, especially in the US (AAPM). Anyone thinking of getting into the field needs to find a way to get an honest assessment of what the field is like from someone they trust...

I would add that academics programs and residencies are selling "medical physics". The self-interest ingrains a biased and unrealistic view of the job market.

 

[Granny11]

AtomicPile, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what exactly is your connection to the medical physics field? I'm just curious why you seem to be so exasperated by medical physics. If you're in the field and hate it...why not switch?

I'm not trying to sound critical, I'm just genuinely curious what it is that happened to make you think this way.

 

[Choppy]

For those just joining the discussion:

Qball uses a unique definition of physics which excludes any form of applied physics, and hence fields such as astronomy, space physics, geophysics, computational physics, and about 95% of experimental physics in particle and condensed matter is also not physics.

AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary. Obviously, I have a vested interest in the the medical physics community over the coming years, and despite arguing the contrary point, I would try to be open-minded about growth or lack thereof in the field.

I did a back of the envelope calculation last night and if you take all of the student members of the AAPM, DOUBLE that number to account for those not registered, as a basis pool of potential medical physicists (regardless of program) and then adjust to account for things like time spent in graduate school, other career options (academia, industry, going into other branches of medical physics besides radiation oncology physics), etc. we would barely be meeting the projected demand.

 

[qball]

For those just joining the discussion:

Qball uses a unique definition of physics which excludes any form of applied physics, and hence fields such as astronomy, space physics, geophysics, computational physics, and about 95% of experimental physics in particle and condensed matter is also not physics.

AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary. Obviously, I have a vested interest in the the medical physics community over the coming years, and despite arguing the contrary point, I would try to be open-minded about growth or lack thereof in the field.

I did a back of the envelope calculation last night and if you take all of the student members of the AAPM, DOUBLE that number to account for those not registered, as a basis pool of potential medical physicists (regardless of program) and then adjust to account for things like time spent in graduate school, other career options (academia, industry, going into other branches of medical physics besides radiation oncology physics), etc. we would barely be meeting the projected demand.

... and Choppy lives in a fantasy world where the day to day calibrations of machines and QA forms counts as basic research.

And FYI:

Astronomy != physics. No pretense of physics here, either.

As for the other fields, I would not say they are doing "physics research" either. But then again you don't seem to understand the difference between being in an applied field and being in a field that does basic research.

 

[qball]

From a recent NYTimes article on how medical physicists are a bunch of screw-ups,

"In the world of radiotherapy, medical physicists play a vital role in patient safety — checking the calibration of machines, ensuring that the computer delivers the correct dose to the proper location, as well as assuming other safety tasks."

QED

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=3

 

[AtomicPile]

For those just joining the discussion:

AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary...

In the flavor of a StarKist tuna commercial:

"Sorry, Choppy. Physicists want good sound advice, not advice that sounds good."

First of all, nothing beats the reality of applying for jobs.
1.) You meet people trying to find jobs for their students, family members and in laws.
2.) You find out quickly that companies just put out obligatory job ads to see who is on the market.

Let's assume Choppy's number are right. Your future vis a vis some of the major headlines of medical physicist employers:

-01/2010 Varian Medical Systems Receives Certification to Assemble X-Ray Tubes in China
-11/2009 Varian Medical Systems lays off 150 people, Palo Alto CA

-12/2008 TomoTherapy Inc, the manufacturer of Hi Art system, said it has reduced workforce by approximately 12% through a combination of layoffs and the elimination of open positions. As of September 30, 2008, the company had 721 employees.

-4/2009 Elekta implemented a "deep hiring" freeze and has reduced its existing role-call by attrition.

-4/2009 GE Healthcare plans to layoff 179 employees at its GE Healthcare Monitoring Solutions plant in Milwaukee.

 

[AtomicPile]

AtomicPile, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what exactly is your connection to the medical physics field? I'm just curious why you seem to be so exasperated by medical physics. If you're in the field and hate it...why not switch?

I'm not trying to sound critical, I'm just genuinely curious what it is that happened to make you think this way.

Hi Granny,

Facts can be used to fix problems. Unfortunately, I find that the job statistics are based on a practice comparable to "cargo cult science". So I am taking the time to show people where to go in their own research. It is not perfect, but I am learning how to best express my experience in a "retaliation free" environment.

 

[Granny11]

Hi Granny,

Facts can be used to fix problems. Unfortunately, I find that the job statistics are based on a practice comparable to "cargo cult science". So I am taking the time to show people where to go in their own research. It is not perfect, but I am learning how to best express my experience in a "retaliation free" environment.

I'm not sure that quite answers my question. Are you involved in the medical physics field, or just 'researching' it?

 

[AtomicPile]

I'm not sure that quite answers my question. Are you involved in the medical physics field, or just 'researching' it?

Hi Granny,

Got the training, got the badge, and I still apply to medical physics positions. I take the third and last part of the ABR therapy exam in the summer.

 

[Choppy]

In the flavor of a StarKist tuna commercial:

"Sorry, Choppy. Physicists want good sound advice, not advice that sounds good."

First of all, nothing beats the reality of applying for jobs.
1.) You meet people trying to find jobs for their students, family members and in laws.
2.) You find out quickly that companies just put out obligatory job ads to see who is on the market.

Let's assume Choppy's number are right. Your future vis a vis some of the major headlines of medical physicist employers:

-01/2010 Varian Medical Systems Receives Certification to Assemble X-Ray Tubes in China
-11/2009 Varian Medical Systems lays off 150 people, Palo Alto CA

-12/2008 TomoTherapy Inc, the manufacturer of Hi Art system, said it has reduced workforce by approximately 12% through a combination of layoffs and the elimination of open positions. As of September 30, 2008, the company had 721 employees.

-4/2009 Elekta implemented a "deep hiring" freeze and has reduced its existing role-call by attrition.

-4/2009 GE Healthcare plans to layoff 179 employees at its GE Healthcare Monitoring Solutions plant in Milwaukee.

I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy in north america is in a slump right now. Not that I pay much attention to politics, but didn't President Obama's state of the union address just underscore a need for job creation? Automobile manufacturing for example is barely keeping its head above water.

So why should the healthcare industry be any different? It is somewhat insulated from economic fluctuation because it is so heavily influenced by govenment funding (more so in Canada), but when money is tight, hiring stalls just like anywhere else.

What I'm saying, is that this is temporary. In the coming years, the projected increases in cancer cases is going to drive up the demand for radiation therapy significantly. In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.

 

[qball]

I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy in north america is in a slump right now. Not that I pay much attention to politics, but didn't President Obama's state of the union address just underscore a need for job creation? Automobile manufacturing for example is barely keeping its head above water.

So why should the healthcare industry be any different? It is somewhat insulated from economic fluctuation because it is so heavily influenced by govenment funding (more so in Canada), but when money is tight, hiring stalls just like anywhere else.

What I'm saying, is that this is temporary. In the coming years, the projected increases in cancer cases is going to drive up the demand for radiation therapy significantly. In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.

Not necessarily. New research may provide alternatives to radiation therapy that are equally or more effective. Radiation therapy has a lot of side effects, including the introduction of secondary cancers, and is a less-than-ideal option for treatment. As our understanding of carcinogenesis evolves there will surely be treatments to stop it in its tracks before it becomes life threatening.

 

[Choppy]

Not necessarily. New research may provide alternatives to radiation therapy that are equally or more effective. Radiation therapy has a lot of side effects, including the introduction of secondary cancers, and is a less-than-ideal option for treatment. As our understanding of carcinogenesis evolves there will surely be treatments to stop it in its tracks before it becomes life threatening.

This is a good point. There is always the probability that new treatments will come along that will change the current paradigm. Of course, the chances of something like that happening exists in just about any field.

The higher probility, in my opinion, is that the technology for cancer treatments is going to get more complex in the future. We're likely to see more detailed image guidance and adaptive RT, MRI-based guidance, and laser-accelerated ion beams which will substantially bring down the cost of proton facilities. So medical physicists are likely to see their clinical duties increase.

That, of course, is just an opinion.

 

[AtomicPile]

In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.

What province, are you in Canada?

 

[Choppy]

What province, are you in Canada?

Alberta.

 

[AtomicPile]

Alberta.

Canada's cold might create a local problem, but that translates into saying, "Canada has a shortage of medical physicists."

When passing out advice in a .com forum, as opposed to a .ca, you should state this clearly. The plain fact is that you are misleading a lot of people by your point of view.

I live in the USA. I have met medical physicists from all over the world. Australia, South America, France, Russia, India, Asia, England, Japan, New Zealand and Canada.

There is no shortage of medical physicists in the USA. For that matter there is no shortage in Australia or Japan. Some countries have a shortage by the mere fact that they use a different job title.

 

[Clancy Brown]

I have met medical physicists from all over the world. Australia, South America, France, Russia, India, Asia, England, Japan, New Zealand and Canada.

For that matter there is no shortage in Australia or Japan.

Wow Atomicpile you surprised me, I thought you were too ignorant to understand that there was a world beyond the North American borders ie USA and Canada.

"Australia wide there is a vacancy rate of almost 14% for Radiation Oncology Medical Physicists (ROMPs). A worldwide shortage of qualified physicists (ROMPs) makes it difficult to fill the vacancies by overseas recruitment. "

http://www.qld-cpc.org.au/domain_Medical%20Physics%20Career%20Information.htm

 

[Clancy Brown]

Also in New Zealand

Job Outlook
Medical physicists are in demand throughout New Zealand and chances of getting a job in this area are excellent.

Skill shortage information
There is an immediate term skill shortage for this job.

Source: Department of Immigration NZ, Skills Shortages

 

[AtomicPile]

Also in New Zealand

Job Outlook
Medical physicists are in demand throughout New Zealand and chances of getting a job in this area are excellent.

Skill shortage information
There is an immediate term skill shortage for this job.

Source: Department of Immigration NZ, Skills Shortages

Hi Clancy,

How many physicists does New Zealand & Aus need? Have fun bashing me, but that is my point. If your program outputs 100 medical physicists and your shortage is 5, then you are creating unemployed professionals. Are the people in your program expecting jobs in their home country? Are you sure that medical physics is different than health physics? Has that occurred to you?

In the USA you could contact Paul Keal at Stanford University (paul.keall@stanford.edu). He left New Zealand to come to the USA. Paul received his degrees at:

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, B.S. (Physics and Mathematics)
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, M.S. (Health Physics)
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, Ph.D. (Physics)

Note that Paul did not get a degree in "medical physics". That should tell you something very powerful.

Here is a link to Australian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine:

http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/component/jobline/

Note that engineer is part of the society's name and not physicists.

I imagine that Paul would appreciate a pay raise, so you could ask him to return and train the locals.

 

[Clancy Brown]

How many physicists does New Zealand & Aus need?

As many that are willing to come and work here I guess.

Have fun bashing me

I was being honest, and you did surprise me.

If your program outputs 100 medical physicists and your shortage is 5, then you are creating unemployed professionals.

There not enough people in the program to satisfy demand, hence 100% employment.

Are you sure that medical physics is different than health physics? Has that occurred to you?

I am actually highlighting the shortage of "Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP)" ie Medical Physicist here in Australia

In the USA you could contact Paul Keal at Stanford University (paul.keall@stanford.edu). He left New Zealand to come to the USA.

Cool, thanks for the contact, for future reference

Here is a link to Australian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine:

http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/component/jobline/

surely I would know my own accreditation body

I imagine that Paul would appreciate a pay raise, so you could ask him to return and train the locals.

Moot point, he may be paid more where he is; the pay is not the issue. I can make more as a Biomedical engineer as I would as a ROMP and with far less training.

Atomicpile, why don't you venture down here and work, you already have a link to the job board.

 

[AtomicPile]

Atomicpile, why don't you venture down here and work, you already have a link to the job board.

OK, Clancy. Send me your e-mail.