THE RESPONSIBLE
CONDUCT OF RESEARCH
MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS:
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE
UGLY
Cynthia Rand, Ph.D.
Professor of Medicine
Disclosures
No Relevant Financial Relationships
with Commercial Interests
OVERVIEW
Why care about mentoring
 The link between mentoring relationships and
the responsible conduct of research
 The hallmarks of good and bad mentoring
relationships
 Mentor-Mentee Vignettes
 Institutional role in enhancing the quality of
mentoring relationships

WHY CARE ABOUT MENTORING
RELATIONSHIPS?
WHY CARE?

Mentoring is the primary process for formal research
training of the next generation of scientists.







Knowledge- what content domains do you need to
master?
Skills –what you need to be able to do (techniques,
procedures, methodologies)
Critical thinking- how do you generate hypotheses?
Observation- how do you interpret data?
Communication –how do you present data, write
papers?
Collaboration- how do you collaborate within and
across teams and networks?
Rules –what are the rules for the responsible
conduct of research?
WHY CARE?

Mentors also serve as role models and informal
guides to the “society” of science and academic
medicine






Passion, curiosity and fun
Formal and informal networks and collegiality
Career guidance and advocacy
Prioritization and time-management
Professionalism, values and attitudes
The nature and quality of mentoring of new
academic medical researchers will determine the
future culture and success of science for years to
come

But why care about mentoring relationships and the
responsible conduct of research?
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
2% of scientists
admitted to have
fabricated, falsified or
modified data or results
at least once
From G. Dover with permission, Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738.
Scientists’ Self-Report Sketchy Research
Practices
 Anonymous
survey of 4160 early and 3600
mid-career scientists funded by NIH
 Response rates: 43% Early career, 52% Mid
career
 33% had engaged in at least one of ten
questionable research-related behaviors
during the previous three years
From T. Cheng with permission. Martinson B et al. Nature 435: 737-738, 2005
From T. Cheng with permission. Martinson B et al. Nature 435:
MENTORING AND RESEARCH MISCONDUCT:
WRIGHT ORI REVIEW OF TRAINEE MISCONDUCT

Reviewed ORI cases to assess the role of the mentor
in the cases of trainee research misconduct on three
specific mentor/mentee behaviors (1) review source
data, (2) teach specific research standards and (3)
minimize stressful work situations.




Review Closed ORI cases of trainee misconduct 19902004
33 post docs, 10 graduate students and 2 additional
trainees
All but three cases involved either or both fabrication
and falsification
77% admitted to misconduct
By permission from T. Cheng. Wright DE et al. Sci Eng Ethics 2008
14:323-336
MENTORING AND RESEARCH MISCONDUCT: MENTOR
STANDARDS AND REVIEW

In review of 33 cases in which trainee found guilty of
scientific misconduct:
 90% involved fabrication, falsification or both
 Over half first reported by someone other than
mentor
 63% led to retractions of published papers
 73% mentors did not look at raw data
 62% mentors did not have set standards for
recording data
From G. Dover by permission
MENTORING AND RESEARCH MISCONDUCT:
STRESS AND MENTOR EXPECTATIONS

53% of cases described their stress levels as a
factor that caused or contributed to their
misconduct
62% felt pressure to perform well
 38% felt time-related stress such as submitting a
grant, publication or publication deadline or complete
dissertation
 17% felt unreasonable pressure from the mentor to
get desired or quick results

By permission from T. Cheng. Wright DE et al. Sci Eng Ethics 2008 14:323-336
“Even though I had already secured a position…and
had 18 publications, an NIH fellowship and several
awards for my prior work, I believed myself to be a
complete failure as a scientist…I think that was going
through my mind, had led me to believe that, if I could
just show one piece of ‘promising’ data on a group
meeting, my supervisor would let me continue working
on the problem and produce real data that be
presented and published…”
By permission from T. Cheng. Wright DE et al. Sci Eng Ethics 2008 14:323-336
DID INADEQUATE MENTORING CONTRIBUTE
TO/FAIL TO PREVENT MISCONDUCT?
WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
INADEQUATE MENTORING?
Failure to review trainee raw data at regular intervals
 Failure to establish clear standards for:

Keeping lab books
 Managing and retaining data
 Authorship


Failure to adequately support trainee career
development
Unsupportive work environment for trainees
 Undue pressure to produce results quickly
 Unreasonable expectations as to productivity
 Failure to monitor and be alert to stress levels of trainees

Adapted from J. Freischlag with permission
SO WHAT IS GOOD MENTORING?
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL
MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS



Reciprocity: bidirectional
nature of mentoring,
including consideration of
strategies to make the
relationship sustainable
and mutually rewarding
Mutual respect: respect for
the mentor and mentee’s
time, effort, and
qualifications
Shared values: around the
mentor and mentee’s
approach to research,
clinical work, and personal
life


Clear expectations:
expectations of the
relationship are outlined
at the onset and revisited
over time; both mentor and
mentee are held
accountable to these
expectations
Personal connection:
connection between the
mentor and mentee
Strauss et al . Acad Med. 2013;88:82–89.
VIGNETTE 1
Mei is an international Ph.D postdoctoral fellow
working in Dr. Barlow’s proteomics lab. Mei’s spoken
English skills are poor, however, other fellows and
technicians in the lab speak Chinese so she has had no
problems working in her lab setting. Dr. Barnett’s
grant will be up for renewal soon, however, the project
Mei has been working on has not been going well. Dr.
Barnett’ has expressed dissatisfaction with her progress
and results and has asked her to do additional
experiments. Mei is increasingly stressed about her
progress and her position in Dr. Barlow’s lab and has
been working 80 hour weeks to make progress. She is
anxious and uncertain about what she should do.
POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE MENTEES
International scholars may be fully reliant on
their mentor for visa status and/or salary
 Limitations in English skills may contribute to
misunderstandings and isolation from the
broader academic community
 Cultural differences may exist related to
expectations about mentee/mentor relationships,
lab practices, expectations for performance

Mentoring International PostDocs http://ori.hhs.gov/rcr/CHOP_VideoGuide.pdf
VIGNETTE 2
Dr. Wyatt is a Division Director of a busy clinical division in
Medicine. He is under increased pressure to meet clinical
demands of a newly opened service at Greenspring Station.
To meet these needs he recruits Dr. Thomas straight out of
her fellowship at UNC Chapel Hill, to join the faculty. Dr.
Thomas is very excited to come to Hopkins because of the
opportunity to develop a clinical researcher career. Dr. Wyatt
has assured Dr. Thomas that Hopkins is a wonderful
environment for a budding clinical researcher. In the offer
letter Dr. Wyatt notes that he will serve as Dr. Thomas’s
mentor and that they will meet regularly to review progress
toward academic goals. After one year, Dr. Thomas has
found it difficult to get a research program going with her 7
clinics a week and the conversion to EPIC. At the time of her
annual review, Dr. Wyatt says that Dr. Thomas has been a
wonderful addition to the Division, and he would therefore
like her to take on the role of co-director of the fellowship
program. Dr. Thomas is worried that this will further retard
her research career.
WHICH HAT?
Manager






Mentor
Directs the work of the
individual
Focused on performance,
professional development and
career development
Based on organizational
needs
Driven by learning agenda
influenced by organizational
needs
Inside the hierarchy of direct
reporting relationships
Sometimes, but not always
confidential






Guide and support the
individual
Focused on professional
and personal development
Based on mentee’s
expressed needs
Driven by specific learning
agenda identified by the
mentee
Outside the hierarchy of
direct reporting
relationships
Confidential
Adapted from M. Feldman, UCSF Faculty Mentoring Toolkit
http://academicaffairs.ucsf.edu/ccfl/media/UCSF_Faculty_Mentoring_Program_Toolkit.pdf
CONFLICT OF INTEREST MENTORING?

“a division chief may find conflict of interest in his or
her roles as both guardian of the division and
facilitator of a junior faculty member's professional
aspirations”
Pololi and Knight J Gen Intern Med. 2005 September; 20(9): 866–870.
VIGNETTE 3

Dr. Yon is a very prominent and very successful
researcher. He prides himself on his mentoring
skills and his unbroken records of NIH funding.
He therefore attracts many fellows and junior
faculty eager to work with him. Trainees learn
quickly that they will need to impress Dr. Yon
with their data if they want to get his time and
attention. For the smartest and most successful
trainees, Dr. Yon can open many doors. And Dr.
Yon is just as willing to tell the less successful
trainees that they don’t’ have what it takes to
succeed. He believes it’s important to be blunt.
Dr. Yon has won several mentoring awards.
“TOR(MENTORS)”

"[a]t the same time we proffer kudos upon
outstanding mentors, it behooves us to call
attention to those who engage in actively
negative mentoring, which for want of a better
term we shall refer to as 'tormenting.' Perhaps an
award should be given to 'Tormentor of the
Year.'"
Silen, "In Search of the Complete Mentor," in Mentations, Volume 5-Fall 1998
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_mentoring/foundation/#9
TOXIC MENTORS
1) “Avoiders” – mentors who are neither available nor
accessible
2) “Dumpers” – mentors who force novices into new roles and
let them “sink or swim”
3) “Blockers” – mentors who continually refuse requests,
withhold information, take over projects, or supervise too
closely
4) “Destroyers or criticizers” – mentors who focus on
inadequacies (from Darling 1986, quoted in Mateao et al.
1991:76).
Williams et al. Education for Primary Care (2012) 23: 56–8
WHEN MENTORING FAILS



Poor communication:
including lack of open
communication, failure
to communicate
tactfully, and inability
to listen
Lack of commitment:
lack of time committed
to the relationship or
waning interest over
time
Perceived (or real)
competition



Personality differences:
different personal
characteristics between
the mentor and mentee
Conflicts of interest:
competing agendas
between the mentor and
mentee
Lack of experience:
mentor may not have
relevant knowledge,
skills, or experience
Strauss et al . Acad Med. 2013;88:82–89.
IF A MENTORING RELATIONSHIP ISN’T
WORKING…
Work it out: If you’ve never addressed the
problems head on, talk with your mentor. Share
your concerns. Does he or she feel that it is
working? Any suggestions for meeting each
others’ expectations?
 Supplement it: If your mentee is good in some
ways but lacks certain skills/capacities- Add
additional mentors (formal or informal)
 End it: If your mentoring relationship is toxic,
demoralizing or otherwise irreparably negative Change mentors.

VIGNETTE 4
Dr. Dwight is an ambitious Assistant Professor on
a K award who feels that his productivity is slow
because he has never had a postdoctoral fellow
work with him in his research program. He is very
pleased when an incoming fellow selects him to
serve as his primary mentor. He gives the fellow a
project to complete, however, after nine months the
fellow seems to be floundering. Dr. Dwight is
uncertain how to help.
JUNIOR OR SENIOR FACULTY MENTOR?
Junior
More available
 Fewer other
mentoring
commitments
 More time
 May be more
personally engaged

Senior
More resources
 More experience
 More influence
 More competitive as a
K mentor

Consider a duo- Junior + Senior Mentor
30
THE MULTIPLE MENTOR STRATEGY
 Few
mentors can provide all necessary
mentoring support
 Keeps the novice from setting out on the
often futile search for the “perfect mentor”
 Gives the mentee the opportunity to
evaluate advice from several different
perspectives
 Makes it more likely that the mentee will
have access to both male and female
mentors of the same and other races and
in various positions
Adapted from Hall, 1983, AAMC
31
VIGNETTE 5

Mary is a postdoctoral fellow in Pediatrics. She is in year
three of her fellowship and is hoping to be offered a position
on the faculty. At the beginning of her fellowship her
mentor Dr. Alsop had offered to meet with her every two
weeks to review her progress, however, Mary frequently
ended up canceling meetings at the last minute because
she still had clinical commitments to finish up. Dr. Alsop
had helped her initiate a small clinical study, however, it
had taken a long time to learn the e-IRB system and the
data collection was going slowly because she kept getting
interrupted by her other commitments. Last year, Dr.
Alsop provided her with a data set that she could use to
write a secondary analysis paper and gave access to her
biostatistician, however, she was really done with all the
analyses and was having trouble getting started on the
draft. She has asked Dr. Alsop to be her mentor for a K
award and is shocked that Dr. Alsop says that she does not
believe she can serve as Mary’s K mentor.
THE TEAR-YOUR-HAIR-OUT MENTEES:
WHAT THE MASTER MENTORS SAID
Brilliant, but not working to potential
 Highly distracted, not focused
 Passive
 Passive-Aggressive
 Arrogant or disinterested in being mentored
 Not a team player or exhibiting poor behavior
 Poor time management
 Unreliable
 Not listening to you
 Doesn’t appreciate mentoring

WHAT THE MASTER MENTORS SAID:
MOST DIFFICULT CHALLENGES







Motivating the procrastinator
Not getting the obvious – teaching independent thinking
Award-driven, but not substance-driven ideas
Not understanding that it takes longer than anticipated
Teaching organizational skills
How to manage/direct yourself when opportunities
change
How to teach trainees that they are responsible for their
own careers
PROACTIVE MENTEESHIP
Agree on structure and objectives of relationship
 Respect your mentor’s time
 Plan and set the meeting agendas
 Asks for and be receptive to feedback
 Clarify mentor’s expectations regarding
authorship, intellectual property, team
responsibilities
 Follow through on assigned tasks/projects/papers
 Set and regularly review mutually determined
goals, milestones and expectations
 Be responsive and flexible

INSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN ENHANCING THE
QUALITY OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

Does the Institution:







Assure that all trainees and junior faculty have
identified mentors?
Provide training for mentoring skills?
Provide resources and support for mentoring diverse
faculty?
Have guidelines for “best practices” mentoring?
Monitor the quality of mentoring relationships?
Provide regular opportunities for informal and/or
cross-departmental mentoring?
Recognize and reward excellence in mentoring?
Panel Discussion
o Errin Britt, J.D.
o Carolyn Machamer, Ph.D.
o Martha Zeiger, M.D.
o Julie Gottlieb, M.A.
• Moderator