Responsible Conduct of Research, Part I

Last week I was forced to attend a mandatory seminar for postdocs on the responsible conduct of research. I had avoided it for two years, but after some threatening emails I have now participated in this day-long affair. For the most part, it was mind-numbingly dull. Don't get me wrong, I think it is fantastic to teach people about research ethics and foster discussion about all the murky grey areas that at some point we have to deal with (e.g., what contributions deserve authorship, interactions within the lab, etc.). I'm not convinced, however, that a mandatory day-long snooze-fest is particularly useful.

The people who do perpetrate serious academic misconduct generally know that it's wrong but do it anyway. The people in the news for fabricating data weren't ignorantly going about their business thinking it was alright to just make up results. Even on a less dramatic scale, people will rationalize their actions, knowing that they are doing something sketchy. I have heard many comments like, "I know person X didn't do anything to earn authorship on this paper, but I really want to help them [get into grad school/ get funding/ get a job/ get tenure] so let's add their name to this manuscript." Basically, when people do things that are unethical (or in a murky grey area of possible-unethicalness), they usually are aware of it. In the same way that pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packs don't make smokers quit, listening to talks about how academic misconduct is bad is probably not going to change the behaviour of unethical people.

Moreover, shouldn't you already know this stuff by the time you get your Ph.D.? Maybe we shouldn't be awarding Ph.D.'s to people who haven't yet learned that you shouldn't fabricate data or that a significant contribution is necessary to earn authorship. This type of seminar would make more sense for senior undergrads or junior grad students, when they are first starting to do research and are still learning how to do research right. Gotta train 'em up right in their formative years! In fact, I had just such a course as a grad student, where we learned all sorts of fabulous things about peer review and authorship and academic misconduct. Useful then, redundant now.

So, by all means, when people start doing research make sure they are taught the rules and expectations for ethical research (and the consequences of violating those rules). Keep an eye out for anything sketchy and address it immediately to stop misconduct in it's tracks. Continue discussing what is and isn't appropriate with your students and colleagues. But don't waste people's time.

Responsible Conduct of Research, Part II: Mentoring

Imagine that you are at a big party and someone across the room catches your eye. You make your way over to them and after a brief chat you find each other interesting enough that you decide to go out on date. You have a lovely dinner together, during which you find you get along really well and have similar interests. At the end of the date, the other person whips out a contract and asks you to commit to dating them for the next five years. You would probably assume that this person is f--king crazy, no?

Welcome to grad school. When those five years are up you will "break-up" with your supervisor and repeat the process for a two-year contract as a postdoc.

On the surface this scenario seems ridiculous, but this is essentially how applying to work with a mentor goes down. You are interested in their work, you apply to work with them. If they are sufficiently interested in you, they bring you in for an interview (which is on par with a first date for anxiety provocation). If you mesh well during the interview you can look forward to committing yourself to this person for an extended period of time.

In my last post I talked about my day at the mandatory responsible conduct of research seminar: 3/4 of it was pretty dull, but there was one session that was actually interesting and potentially useful. It was on the mentor-trainee relationship and the rights and responsibilities of each party. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the same qualities that make for good personal relationships are really important for positive and productive mentoring relationships as well.

1) It takes two
I think one thing that gets forgotten when problems do arise in mentor-trainee relationships is that it is, in fact, a relationship and both parties have played a role in whatever problems have arisen. Mentors and trainees share responsibility for the quality of their relationship. Of course, there is a power imbalance inherent in this relationship, which means the mentor probably needs to be more aware of how his-or-her actions are influencing the trainee than vice versa, but trainees have to take responsibility as well. If you're not getting what you need from your mentor you need to speak up (nicely, of course!). Which leads to...

2) Communicate!!!
To have a successful and productive relationship, both mentors and trainees have to make themselves available to the other person, listen carefully to the needs and expectations that the other person is expressing, and clearly communicate their own needs and expectations. If you discover mismatches in your expectations early on you can address them and hopefully come to a solution, but if your expectations aren't clear and explicit there's a pretty good chance that the other person is not going to live up to them and everyone will be disappointed and miserable. Make sure you are clear about what you are expecting from your mentor, and if you're not sure what they expect from you, ask.

3) ****You can have multiple mentors****
I put lots of extra stars by this because I think it's a point that's not talked about much but really important. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and different areas of expertise. It is perfectly ok to seek out mentorship from people other than your supervisor who have skills that you want to learn. You shouldn't expect one person to provide you with everything you need and a good supervisor will recognize when there are things they can't teach you and encourage you to find that information elsewhere.

4) Keep learning
A good relationship is hard work. The mentor-trainee relationship is no exception and will continually evolve over time. Mentors can learn through experience and feedback to become better mentors. Similarly, trainees can learn to be more successful trainees and can learn how to become good mentors themselves. If everyone keeps communicating and is open to constructive criticism, mentor-trainee relationships can be positive, productive, and end with both parties having forged valuable friends and colleagues for future collaborations.

Group projects

I am a big fan of group discussion. Getting your students into small groups can be really helpful for fostering discussion, particularly for those who don't feel comfortable speaking up in front of a large class. At the senior-undergraduate and graduate levels, small group seminars can produce some excellent discussion and exchange of ideas. Group projects, however, are a whole other kettle of fish (yes, I just said that, judge me if you will). It's one thing for students to discuss ideas (or in a lab, collect data together), but having them be evaluated as a group is a recipe for disaster:

via I Love Charts

The only way for a group project to work is if all the people in the group have similar motivation, goals, and knowledge, which rarely happens in an undergraduate course. There's always that one person who doesn't show up for meetings or does a half-assed job of their part of the project (if they do anything at all). I've had more than my share of group projects where I ended up doing the majority of the work so that we didn't fail. Almost everyone I know has expressed their extreme dislike for group projects.

So the question is, who are the people who think forcing students to do group work is a good idea? This keeps happening in undergraduate classes. Were they the assholes people who didn't do much during their group projects and let the over-achiever in their group do all the work? I can see these people having the impression that group projects were fun. Or, given that the over-achievers seem most likely to go on to become professors, are they assigning group projects because of a sadistic need to do to the students that which was done to them? Perhaps it is out of a desire to be helpful and teach the students a valuable lesson (i.e., that people suck). Why? Why do we keep making students do these horrible group projects? I hereby vow to only use group work and discussion when it will enhance students' learning and to only evaluate my students as individuals. You know, once I actually have a job and students.