Mentoring and training for ethical behaviour aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, according to the (free access) Editorial in the current issue of Nature (449, 638; 2007) . Melissa Anderson and her colleagues at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis decided to investigate the relative effects of mentoring and formal instruction in setting a young scientist’s ethical framework (M. S. Anderson et al. Acad. Med. 82, 853–860; 2007). As many as a quarter of the NIH PhD fellows in 2000–01 had not taken ethics courses or been mentored in ethics workshops or discussion roundtables. One quarter of the survey respondents admitted that they did not feel well prepared to deal with ethical issues in their work.
After highlighting several puzzling and dissapointing resposes to the survey, the Editorial goes on to conclude:
“Collective discussions are perhaps a better way to reinforce good behaviour. A good forum for such discussions might be the lab’s journal club — particularly if the mentor is skilled in inviting open discussion in a non-confrontational atmosphere. Mentors who regularly set aside time to discuss issues of concern may find that everyone benefits from the ‘wisdom of the crowd’. Students can be asked to propose topics to kick off discussion: “I have a friend whose adviser asked her to write several anonymous reviews for him because he is too busy. Should she say yes? Ask for proper attribution?” Figuring it out together is the way to raise everyone’s game."
Also in the current issue of Nature is the report of our South African mentoring awards (449, 752; 2007).