Comments
Questions
How to Believe in Others
(and Other Musings on Mentoring)
Kim E. Barrett, Ph.D.
University of California, San Diego
|
 Dr. Kim Barrett, a native of the United Kingdom, obtained
her B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Chemistry at University
College London. Following a
post-doctoral fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, she joined the
faculty of UCSD School of Medicine in 1985 and rose to her current rank of
Professor of Medicine in 1996. Her
research interests center on the normal and abnormal biology of the intestinal
epithelium and their relevance to a variety of digestive diseases, including
inflammatory bowel diseases, infectious diarrheal diseases, and peptic ulcer
disease. She has received a number of
honors for her research, including the Bowditch and Davenport Lectureships of
the APS, the McKenna Lectureship of the Canadian
Association of Gastroenterology, and the degree of Doctor of Medical Science, honoris causa, from Queens University
Belfast. She is the author or editor of
several books and monographs, including Gastrointestinal
Physiology (McGraw-Hill, 2006) and more than 200 peer-reviewed journal
articles, book chapters and reviews. She
has also been highly active in professional societies and in scholarly
editing. She is President-Elect of the
APS and will begin a one-year term as President in
2013. She was Chair of the APS Publications
Committee for six years, which involved oversight of the Society’s 14 journals
and adjudication of all ethical issues arising in the journals. She is also the past Editor-in-Chief of American Journal of Physiology-Cell
Physiology and the current Deputy Editor-in-Chief for the Americas of Journal of Physiology, among other
editorial assignments.
|
In April 2012, I received the Bodil M. Schmidt Nielsen Distinguished Mentor and Scientist Award from the APS, one of the most gratifying honors I have been blessed with in my career to date. It was truly humbling that colleagues, trainees from my lab, and others I have mentored in less formal settings, were willing to take the time to write letters on my behalf and thrilling that the Women in Physiology Committee selected me on the basis of these letters among what I am sure was a group of at least equally deserving colleagues. While I can personally take pride in the scientific contributions that my group has made over the years, I know that none of these would have been possible without the dedicated efforts of our entire team, from undergraduates to visiting professors. Further, these research contributions, in my view, are not nearly as important as the fact that I have been able to contribute to the career development of the next generation of scientists.
As for most people, my approach to and passion for mentoring have been immensely shaped by my own positive experiences with a series of talented mentors. I was a very shy child and teenager, but my teachers – and especially Valerie Tickner, Elsa Cameron, Ann Parkin and Gill Ellis – had great confidence in me and supported my development as a fledgling scientist. They provided me with the confidence to consider university, which was a path for only a small minority in 1970s England and an unknown world to my parents, neither of whom even finished high school in wartime London. In particular, my high school chemistry teachers, Ann and Gill, alerted me to opportunities to explore different colleges, such as a two-day introductory course at the one I finally selected, University College London (UCL). It was at this event that I met my next influential mentor, Fred Pearce, at that time a young faculty member in the Department of Chemistry. My group was assigned to work with him on a lab exercise and I was very impressed (and a little star-struck) by his ability to ask the sorts of questions about our results that allowed us to build our own understanding. I was horrified, therefore, at the last social gathering of the course, to spill an entire cup of steaming tea down his front. I was truly mortified, and even more so when I arrived for an interview for a place at UCL about a year later and realized to my utmost dismay that Fred would be my interviewer. However, he betrayed no evidence that he remembered the tea debacle and set about putting me at ease and recruiting me to the school. He later became my Ph.D. supervisor and remains to this day a trusted advisor, all-round supporter, and friend.
Of the many things Fred taught me, one was probably most important for the next stage of my life and career. He encouraged me to seek post-doctoral training in the US with the admonition that I would need to “put myself about a bit” – a soccer phrase encouraging players to chase the ball that also implies the need to personally make sure that people register your existence and contributions. Initially, this did not come easily, but my other key mentors through my post-doctoral fellowship and early faculty years in San Diego – Dean Metcalfe, Kiertisin Dharmsathaphorn, Steve Wasserman and Jon Isenberg – ensured that I would not be allowed to retreat into my shell. There is a substantial literature showing that women (and underrepresented minorities) in academia are particularly susceptible to the “imposter syndrome” and my shyness certainly ensured that I was not immune to this. However, each of my mentors proactively identified opportunities for me to contribute that further bolstered my confidence. It is notable, moreover, that none of my formal mentors after leaving school has been a woman. In part, this reflects the paucity of women, at least initially, in my chosen field. However, it is important to remember that mentors do not need necessarily to have shared your life experiences to be effective – they just have to display a willingness to understand them. I have also received great sustenance from a group of women peers – we all supported each other as we navigated the early hurdles of grants, tenure, papers and the inevitable rejections together.
Another important influence in my professional life has been my involvement with societies – not only the APS, but also the American Gastroenterological Association. The APS and AGA were, and remain, critical in my development not only as a scientist, but also as a confident contributor to my discipline overall. After I had some reviewing under my belt, Kiertisin Dharmsathaphorn suggested that I volunteer myself to serve as an editorial board member on at least one journal where we sought to publish our work. This was how I met Dale Benos, who to my amazement not only added me to the editorial board of AJP-Cell Physiology, but a few years later also suggested that I apply to be Editor-in-Chief as his term was ending. I followed Dale into this and many of the roles he served in our society and learned a huge amount about service, dedication and generosity. We lost this talented and caring individual, himself the mentor to a huge number of trainees and colleagues, way too soon. Sadly, Kiertesin and Jon, too, are gone after untimely deaths – a reminder that we should take every opportunity to thank people we are grateful to while they are still around to hear it.
This description of my own career development, and especially the talented individuals who showed me the ropes at many pivotal career stages, therefore leads me to the answer to the question posed in the title of this piece. To believe in others, first you have to believe in yourself. Thanks to people who took the time to probe my interests and motivations, and who encouraged me out of my shell, I learned to believe in myself and so have had the privilege of mentoring others in turn. I think the essential attributes called for from a mentor can be summed up as the “triple A” – accessibility, adaptability, and appreciation. In the remainder of this article, I will touch on each of these.
First, accessibility. Certainly, this changes over time, but you cannot be effective as a mentor if you can never make time for people. As a junior faculty member, my door was always open. Being just across the hall from the lab, I could often recognize the change in tone that signaled an impending problem by simply listening with half an ear as I worked on proposals and manuscripts at my desk. Now, however, having moved into a full-time administrative position as Dean of Graduate Studies, the majority of my daylight time is spent in an entirely separate building from my lab. But it is still just as critical to ensure undivided attention and focus even if members of my group can no longer just stick their heads around the door and ask to talk. I have learned to schedule meetings with trainees at the beginning or end of the day, when I am less likely to be disturbed or distracted, and to make time for both one-on-one meetings and those with the wider group. Electronic communication can help, but it is no substitute for meeting face-to-face. Indeed, from time to time I have had “reluctant mentees” who have used my schedule as an excuse to avoid meeting – often a sign that experiments are not panning out as hoped. I have dealt with these situations by insisting on a series of regular standing meetings. My fantastic assistant also knows that it is critical to make room for the occasional “emergency” contact – which can equally be negative or positive – news about a grant received or a manuscript accepted is most exciting for the teller and for me while still fresh!
In the area of adaptability, like my own career and my own need for mentors, the needs of my trainees have clearly evolved over time and certainly differ between individuals. Certainly, it is exciting to move from discussing the nuts and bolts of a scientific career to the unwritten rules of the game and future plans. It is also important to judge when it is time to step back and allow your mentee to fly solo – and when to nudge a reluctant fledgling out of the nest. My own mentors were so effective because they gently forced me to do things that I thought I could not – ask questions at meetings, contact prospective collaborators, put myself about a bit…..eventually, even I forgot that I was only pretending not to be shy. The mentor role also implies being open to a trainee’s possible changes in career direction. Indeed, one of the saddest things I hear as a Graduate Dean is that many doctoral students are afraid to talk to their advisor if they are contemplating a career that involves anything other than turning into his or her clone. We all have an obligation, in my view, to help students explore the full range of opportunities available to them with the benefit of a doctoral education – and to use our networks to connect our mentees with individuals who can serve as resources in other areas, such as pharma, biotech, or teaching in a small undergraduate college. The APS is also a great starting point for these explorations, with a wealth of on-line resources and programs offered at EB. And while I believe that mentoring can profitably extend for life, sometimes a relationship simply runs its natural course. In these cases, it’s fine to end things amicably with a “no-fault divorce” and to pass your mentee along to a colleague who can better serve their needs.
Finally, appreciation. In the early stages, the work you devote to mentoring usually accrues direct benefits to you in the form of data, publications and grants. It costs nothing to make sure that you assign appropriate credit as you get the invitations to speak while your students and post-docs stay behind working hard in the lab. But as your own career evolves and/or the talents of your trainees emerge, the time comes to step back. In my opinion, the mark of a truly effective mentor is to be able to take genuine pleasure in the accomplishments of others (indeed, this is excellent preparation too for the life of an administrator!). I have tried to continue to be generous with my time and advice even when there is no direct benefit to me – or, even more importantly, when it may actually cost me something. This does not imply that you need to be a doormat, but it does open an even wider universe of viable mentees, such as junior faculty at my own institution and beyond and, in my current role, staff members. It is just important to remember that while you can play a key role as an impartial outsider with a different vantage point, you are usually a supplement rather than a substitute in the mentoring relationship. However, when I have gotten the balance right, this has certainly been a most satisfying way to give back to the discipline, as well as a really pleasant way to broaden my own personal network.
In closing, therefore, physiology is fundamentally an enterprise of people. It has been a wonderful opportunity throughout my career to have played some small role in the development of those people, in itself a very substantial reward. I am indeed humbled and grateful to have been recognized publicly for these efforts, particularly with an award that celebrates Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen, the first woman President of the APS and herself without peer as a mentor. As I contemplate my own upcoming tenure as APS President, the fifth woman in this role, I will remind myself of my mentors’ advice and hope that I can live up to Bodil’s example.
Acknowledgements
In addition to my valued mentors (both those named in this article and those who remain nameless), I am especially grateful to my former mentee and current colleague, Declan McCole, who did the very hard job of pulling the nomination packet together with his characteristic humor and grace. I also am indebted to the colleagues and mentees who wrote on my behalf -- Mark Donowitz, Mike Reid, Barbara Jung, Stephen Keely, Fermin Sanchez de Medina Lopez Huerta, Alfred Chappell, Jimmy Chow, Michael Scharl, Melissa Kahn, Pradipta Ghosh, Hui Dong, and Jorge Uribe. I thank the Women in Physiology Committee for selecting me for the award and the APS for sponsoring it, and my assistant, Glenda Wheeler, for generally keeping my work life on track so I have the dedicated time to mentor others. I would also like to acknowledge the colleagues in addition to those listed above for whom I have served as a mentor since my days as a post-doc, including (in approximate chronological order) Tracy Tashof, Eva Szucs, Shalini Shah, Renee Glover, Cindy Bailey, Gianluigi Rossi, An Yen, Richard Quist, Udom Kachintorn, Piapong Vongkovit, Mana Vajanaphanich, Kenley Chin, Taweesuk Buranawuti, Cornelia Gelbmann, Jurgen Stein, Jurgen Ries, Christopher Myers, Jane Smitham, Sean Calandrella, Nelson Chang, Silvia Resta-Lenert, Lone Bertelsen, Zachary Sellers, Biguang Tuo, Alfred Chappell, Raschid Hoda, Wolfgang Tillinger, Michael Scharl, Gisela Paul, Cheryl Stork, Michael Bunz, Ronald Marchelletta, Anouk Van Berkel, Roos Visser, Elise Roel, Rachel Klinkenburg, Harrison Penrose, Taylaur Smith, Nilay Shah, and Melanie Gareau as well as countless other medical students and undergraduates who have helped in our work. Finally, nothing I do would be possible without the support and supreme patience of my loving husband, Peter Pierce.
Comments:
What a wonderful article on mentoring and congratulations on the Bodil M. Schmidt Nielsen Distinguished Mentor and Scientist Award! This article serves as a wonderful example of how one can pass on the knowledge and joy of science from one generation to the next, and it also reinforces how important it is to acknowledge the importance of team effort regardless of whether you are referring to science per se, or mentoring of trainees or fellow colleagues.
Barbara Alexander
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Questions:
This is a very stimulating article, providing excellent advice for mentors at every stage of one's career, along with offering very interesting tidbits that trainees will find extremely helpful. Congratulations, Dr. Barrett, on the much-deserved honor of being named as the 2012 Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen Distinguished Mentor and Scientist Awardee! I found your advice to be very valuable, especially the discussion of appreciation for others' efforts. Related to this point, I would like to know if you can comment on your thoughts about providing a supportive environment for individuals with different levels of training (undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs...). For instance, what is your view on supporting fairness (knowing that life is not always fair) for the good of the group, such as in the context of working on different parts of a project or authorship credit? Also, what is your advice about determining reasonable expectations for trainees at different levels, such as in the context of effort or timeline to completion of a task?
Angela Grippo
Northern Illinois University
Reply:
Thank you for your kind words. You pose some really good questions that do not always have easy answers, particularly in these times when journals typically expect a multifaceted approach to any given research hypothesis, which often means pulling in individuals with a range of different expertise. However, one solid approach to making sure that everyone gets the credit they deserve without any nasty surprises is to be as transparent as possible as the project is developing. It’s a good idea to discuss who will be authors of a paper, and in what order, as early as possible (perhaps even before starting the experiments), knowing that things may possibly change as the project evolves. It is unusual (although not unheard of) for undergraduates to take the sort of lead role and/or contribute sufficiently to a manuscript to earn first authorship. On the other hand, it’s important for graduate students and post-docs to gain first authorships at these key stages of their career development. It can be useful to use asterisks to denote joint first authors in a complex project, but try to have an agreement to switch the order for the next paper as the person listed first will always get slightly more recognition no matter how many asterisks you use. Finally, as far as expectations go, at the beginning of one’s career you should still have a pretty good idea of how much time it should take to complete a particular task, and it’s very reasonable to hold people to that expectation, being mindful that expectations may need to be adjusted if the individual has responsibilities outside the lab (an undergraduate, or a grad student who is rotating, taking courses, or serving as a TA). Nevertheless, it never hurts to set a high bar and to use any slower than expected progress as a warning sign that maybe the experiments are not working out, and that some new directions, or additional troubleshooting or assistance, may be needed. Again, keeping the lines of communication open will go a long way towards reasonable expectations on all sides.
Thanks again for the honor of the award and your thoughtful response to my essay!
Kim Barrett
First of all, I would like to thank the author for her insightful article. It is clear that Dr. Barrett cares deeply about the development of her mentees. I have been fortunate to have been advised by mentors who all seemed to share the belief in the ”triple A” philosophy of mentorship and, therefore, can attest to the importance of each “A”.
I was hoping that Dr. Barrett might be able to give some general insight into some of the differences, if any, between how she mentors male and female students. It has been suggested that the graduate school experience/environment may be perceived differently by men and women, perhaps resulting in women leaving academia more often than men. I recognize that each student has his/her individual mentorship needs, however, are there certain mentorship strategies that work better for woman and some that are more effective for men?
Melissa-Ann L. Scotti
University of Illinois at Chicago
Reply:
I appreciate Melissa-Ann’s kind remarks and also her insightful question. In the main, I have tried to think about what each individual trainee most needs in the way of mentorship in a way that is independent of considerations of gender (or ethnicity, or background, etc). However, there is no denying that, with a history of underrepresentation, female trainees may have had less access to the types of informal networks that are so critical for advancing in our field. I therefore take the time to let them know how valuable I have found it to establish a network of my own female peers for advice and support, and to encourage them especially to put themselves forward for opportunities. It is also the case that sometimes women are not willing to ask questions around issues of work-life balance, possible discrimination, negotiating for positions, etc, in a mixed gender group. I was instrumental in setting up sessions at a national academic skills workshop solely for the women participants in attendance and these have become a highlight of the meeting (although in recent years some men have asked to join us, so we must be doing something right -- or perhaps it is the wine and cheese……).
All joking aside, I remain hopeful for the day when there will be few, if any, concerns of trainees that are not recognizable to all groups, but we are not there yet.
Kim Barrett