Ghana Trained Her Biomedical Scientists. It’s Time to Let Them Practise.

Every year, Ghanaian universities graduate young scientists trained in Biomedical Sciences, a field spanning clinical laboratory diagnostics, molecular biology, genomics, drug discovery, and translational research. They are trained to perform and interpret laboratory investigations that inform clinical decisions, investigate disease in Ghanaian populations, and contribute to the development of new diagnostics and treatments.

Yet many of these graduates cannot practise their profession in Ghana.

Not because they lack university training. Not because their degrees are inherently unrecognised. And not because the field is without international precedent. Rather, Biomedical Science has fallen through a regulatory gap that deserves to be addressed.

When Ghana's allied health regulatory framework was established in 2013, the list of recognised professions reflected the health professions and training pathways that existed at the time. Biomedical Science was not included as a distinct profession. More than a decade later, the profession has developed substantially within Ghana's universities, but the regulatory framework has not evolved accordingly.

The consequence is a peculiar form of institutional waste.

Ghana invests in educating highly trained graduates, only to leave some of them without a clear professional pathway through which to contribute their skills to the country's health system. Some seek opportunities abroad. Others move into occupations outside their training. Still others remain in research or academic positions while waiting for a regulatory pathway to emerge.

This is not simply a question of employment. It is a question of whether Ghana is making full use of the scientific workforce it has invested in producing.

Recognition does not have to mean replacement

This conversation should not be framed as a competition between Biomedical Science and Medical Laboratory Science.

Medical Laboratory Scientists perform an indispensable role in Ghana's healthcare system. Their contribution to diagnosis, disease surveillance, transfusion medicine, and public health is beyond dispute. Recognising Biomedical Science as a distinct profession would not diminish that contribution.

But recognition should reflect the reality that the two educational pathways are not identical.

Biomedical Science programmes incorporate substantial laboratory and clinical training while also extending into areas such as molecular biology, cancer biology, genetics, reproductive and developmental biology, pharmacology and pharmacognosy, bioinformatics, drug discovery, and translational research. This breadth reflects the increasingly interconnected nature of modern biomedical science, where diagnosis, disease mechanisms, therapeutic discovery, and population health increasingly intersect.

That additional scientific training should not be treated as a reason to exclude graduates from professional practice. If anything, it represents a resource Ghana should be positioned to use.

Ghana faces a health landscape in which infectious diseases remain important while non-communicable diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, continue to impose a growing burden. Addressing these challenges requires not only healthcare professionals who can deliver existing services, but also scientists capable of developing and evaluating better diagnostics, understanding disease mechanisms, supporting precision medicine, and contributing to locally relevant therapeutic research.

Biomedical Scientists are trained for precisely this intersection between laboratory science and translational medicine.

The regulatory gap can be addressed

The solution does not necessarily require Ghana to build an entirely new regulatory institution.

The Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857), established the Allied Health Professions Council and provides the statutory framework through which allied health professions are regulated. As health professions evolve, regulation must be capable of responding to changes in education, technology, and healthcare delivery.

Biomedical Science should be considered within that framework.

Recognition need not mean placing Biomedical Science graduates on an existing professional register without assessment. A more appropriate approach could involve a clearly defined professional category, a review of accredited university curricula, competency requirements, supervised clinical experience where necessary, and an appropriate licensing examination.

Such a pathway would allow the regulator to answer the question that matters most: Does a graduate meet the competencies required for safe professional practice?

That is a question that can be assessed.

It is also a question that should be separated from whether the name of a degree appeared on a regulatory schedule more than a decade ago.

Ghana should not have to lose its own scientists before recognising them

There is an uncomfortable irony in the current situation.

Ghana trains Biomedical Science graduates. Ghanaian universities have developed programmes in the field. Students invest years acquiring laboratory, scientific, and research competencies. Yet the absence of a clear professional pathway can make it difficult for these graduates to apply those skills within Ghana's regulated health system.

Meanwhile, biomedical science as a profession is well established internationally.

The answer should not be to tell Ghanaian-trained scientists to leave Ghana if they want their qualifications to be fully utilised.

A country seeking to strengthen its health system should be asking how to retain and deploy its scientific workforce, not how to make highly trained graduates look elsewhere for opportunities.

This is about building Ghana's health workforce

The Ghanaian Society for Biomedical Scientists has formally engaged the Allied Health Professions Council to propose a pathway for the recognition and regulation of Biomedical Science graduates.

Our position is straightforward.

We are not asking for another profession to be displaced. We are not asking for standards to be lowered. And we are not asking for automatic licensure.

We are asking for a fair assessment of the profession and its graduates.

If the curricula meet the required competencies, establish a pathway. If additional competencies are required, identify them. If supervised practice is necessary, create it. If a licensing examination is appropriate, let qualified graduates sit for it.

What should not be the permanent answer is simply: the profession is not on the list.

Regulation exists to protect the public while ensuring that appropriately trained professionals can contribute to healthcare. It must therefore be capable of evolving alongside the professions it governs.

Ghana has already done the difficult part

The difficult part of developing a scientific workforce has already been done.

Universities have built programmes. Students have completed them. Lecturers have trained them. Laboratories have provided practical experience. Ghana has invested time, money, and institutional resources in producing these graduates.

The remaining question is whether the regulatory system will create a legitimate pathway for that investment to benefit the country.

The Ghanaian Society for Biomedical Scientists stands ready to provide curriculum documentation, competency frameworks, international comparisons, and any other evidence required for a rigorous review. We are prepared to work with regulators, universities, Medical Laboratory Science professionals, clinicians, and other stakeholders to develop a pathway that protects patients and maintains professional standards.

This should not be an argument about who deserves a place in Ghana's healthcare system.

It should be an argument about whether Ghana can afford to leave trained scientific capacity unused.

Ghana trained these Biomedical Scientists.

It is time to let them serve the country they were trained to serve.