We’re taking time to get to know the members of the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Committees. Join us to learn more about our early career scientist advocates.

Junnan Fang

Career Development Subcommittee

Emory University

Research Interest:

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. According to the GLOBOCAN report, in 2020 there were 19 million new cases diagnosed and nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths worldwide. Cancer causes physical, mental, and financial destruction to patients and families and leads to enormous economic costs on a global scale. I started thinking a lot about cancer as a teenager when my grandma died of stomach cancer. I wished her cancer had been diagnosed and treated earlier.

Chromosome instability is a hallmark of cancer; therefore, it is important to understand how chromosome stability is precisely regulated. Throughout my research training, my research interests have focused on how the centromere and the centrosome, two types of machinery in cell division, regulate chromosome stability. I will continue my research, in hopes of identifying new biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and providing new insights into developing better therapeutic strategies.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

In addition to mentoring the next generation of scientists, my career goal is to lead an independent lab in a research-focused institute and study the mechanisms that safeguard chromosome stability. The academic environment is where the most advanced aspect of scientific research takes place. I am passionate about uncovering the complexity and depth of information in the levels of molecular and cell biology that have yet to be discovered.

I have greatly enjoyed training and mentoring other people at different academic career levels. I always want to apply my skills and knowledge to positively influence others. Throughout my educational and research training, I was fortunate to have support from teachers and mentors, along with inspiration from colleagues. I am eager to pay it forward and mentor next-generation scientists.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

In the future, I see myself as an independent researcher, mentor, and leader.

In addition to my research and publication, I would like to advance the genetics community through scholarly peer review. From 2021 to 2022, I served as a peer reviewer in the American Heart Association’s Basic Science Committee, in which I reviewed, discussed, and scored pre- and postdoctoral fellowships. Currently, I serve as a peer reviewer for Cell Cycle. In addition, I am participating in the GENETICS peer reviewer training program, where I review manuscripts and receive feedback from GENETICSeditors. Getting involved in the peer-review process will not only advance my career but also help me serve the scientific enterprise with my newly acquired knowledge and skills.

As a female researcher and mother of two young children, I understand firsthand the challenges of balancing multiple roles while pursuing a career in science. It is disheartening to see many of my female colleagues and friends postpone or give up on their career aspirations due to societal expectations. I am committed to supporting other female scientists by creating a supportive environment in my future lab and offering flexible schedules to accommodate trainees’ motherhood and other commitments.

Working with minority groups during my research training made me realize that everyone has distinct educational challenges and requires different mentoring approaches. Thus, as a mentor and educator, I will provide a learning environment that is welcoming and inclusive, where every student has equal access to educational resources and opportunities. My team, for instance, will welcome students and scholars, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, abilities/disabilities, and socioeconomic status.  

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

Since joining the GSA Early Career Leadership program, I have enjoyed it much. With the support of the Career Development Subcommittee, I have co-organized workshops, networked with peers on different career paths, and provided a bridge between peers and early career students and postdocs. Organizing these workshops has also helped me improve my leadership skills.

During my remaining time in the ECLP, I will continue to organize workshops and/or conferences to build relationships with professionals and companies in the larger scientific community, create deeper connections with the Society and its members, and help GSA members and the public with their career development plans. On a personal note, I plan to expand my network and further improve my leadership skills through the ECLP.

Previous leadership experience

2021–2022 Peer reviewer, American Heart Association Pre- and Post-doctoral Fellowships

2021 Co-chair of the session “Life and death: Regulation of stress, cell cycle, cell growth, and cell death,” 62nd Annual Drosophila Research Conference

2021 Poster judge, 62nd Annual Drosophila Research Conference

2021–Present Reviewer: GENETICS

2019–Present Reviewer: Cell Cycle

By Sharifu Tusuubira 

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

We interviewed Dr. Sonia Hall, the President and Chief Executive Officer at BioKansas, a non-profit organization that fosters and supports the regional bioscience ecosystem. Sonia is also a board member of the Council of State Bioscience Associations, and she previously worked as the Director of Engagement and Development for the Genetics Society of America. During her career, she developed numerous educational outreach activities, including co-founding Kansas DNA Day. Sonia advocated for policy change to modernize graduate education and designed communication projects to highlight the important contributions of scientists with diverse life histories. Here, we talk with her about her non-traditional undergraduate experience, how her background in business helped her succeed, and what early career scientists can do to get the training they need for a successful career. 

As someone who started their career in business, what sparked your interest in becoming a science policy champion?  

I was a non-traditional undergraduate student with a decade of work experience in business, two children, and a husband. This made the inequities that exist within higher education and the subsequent opportunities that people get to pursue, very pronounced. I was fortunate to land a really wonderful undergraduate research lab experience with Rob Ward at the University of Kansas. I also received a travel award from the University of Kansas that allowed me to attend my first national conference as an undergraduate. These opportunities altered my trajectory. I applied to the molecular, cellular, and developmental biology program at the University of Kansas and was accepted. The business experience that I brought with me helped me realize that there was a disconnect between the training that was being provided to early career scientists and what was actually needed to succeed in the workplace. This realization allowed me to carve out a unique opportunity to create programming both at the institutional and national level through service with my professional society, the Genetics Society of America. I never lost sight of the inequities and systemic constraints that make it challenging for individuals with diverse life histories to be successful in higher education. 

What role do you see investments, such as attending conferences, having in terms of guiding scientists? 

Sometimes, they’re an access point to opportunity. I likely wouldn’t have been able to go to that conference as an undergraduate without that support. I wonder if there’s sufficient funding to enhance equity within the sciences. Looking at the levels of endowments, at different academic institutions, you’d see some disparity. At an institution like the University of Kansas, which has a lot of international and first-generation students getting a PhD or those coming from rural communities where access to science and scientific training isn’t always as available as it is in an urban core, it is critically important to have those types of travel grants at a high enough frequency.

What role did you play at the GSA to support early career scientists’ access to opportunities? 

When I was working at GSA, I founded the Early Career Leadership Program (ECLP). The inspiration for this program was the need to demonstrate that early career scientists have valuable contributions that they can make to the scientific enterprise, even if they haven’t completed their degree or their postdoctoral work. In the ECLP, students had the access to develop these skills, build network connections, and create deliverables that they could then take out onto the job market to demonstrate that they could successfully do this type of work. This raised their visibility and demonstrated the valuable contributions early career scientists can make toward equity and inclusion. Furthermore, this helps make sure that they get that robust professional development training that they need while preparing them to enter a variety of different positions in any of the career pathways that they pursue. 

At BioKansas, that is still integrated into a lot of our programs, but there’s an additional layer that we have here within the state. The midwest is really challenged by its retention of technically trained scientists. We’re such huge exporters of technically trained scientists, and so there is the need to figure out ways to be able to keep them here. If we utilize a community-based approach to raise our academic institutions to better support our early career scientists, that’s a really great way to share the responsibility, while also leveraging the unique strengths and competencies of those different groups. 

What can early career scientists do to get involved or get the supplementary training that they need? 

Students should get involved in professional societies and associations. The Genetics Society of America has a lot of really fantastic opportunities. Whatever your scientific discipline, find your professional society or association. In every single state, we have a BIO affiliate. They provide a great way to explore opportunities in industry and get industry-specific training.  

Science entrepreneurship is the heart of innovation and commerce. How should we encourage scientists to go into entrepreneurship?

Our academic institutions are a great source of new discoveries and innovations. It’s a difficult path to go from that point of discovery into commercialization. However, that is how we increase the economic capacity and the innovation capacity of our world. For many students, there’s a lack of understanding of what that entrepreneurial pathway looks like and what that process is, so early on in graduate school, it would be useful to get students to think from within an entrepreneurial mindset. 

The first step is stepping outside your academic walls and thinking about the individuals who understand the space. There are a lot of nonprofit organizations that work to support entrepreneurs. Learning about who they are and the support structures that are available is extremely important. As an early career scientist, you shouldn’t navigate the pathway alone. Let us help remove the barriers. 

How should early career scientists handle mentorships as they transition out of grad school to postdoc to working?

It’s absolutely critical to have a mentor at all career levels. The number one thing is to know we don’t ever think that it’s a problem to not know something. We should be learning continuously. That’s one of the strengths that we, as academics, bring into the business community. We have that lifelong learning that we undergo, and mentorship is a way to obtain that learning. I have met some important people in my life as a professional since I’ve taken this role that I depend on, and they provide me with a lot of knowledge and background information as well. Mentors will help you decrease the energy and effort that you have to put into identifying each and every resource because they already have knowledge and expertise far beyond what you have. 

Any parting words?

Going into higher education I realized that the system wasn’t built for people like me. I took the policy and advocacy pathway because I found that the way to disrupt systems and constraints that create inequity is by changing the policies and the processes that exist to keep the inequities in place. So, when I was an undergraduate, I committed to myself that I would do everything I could to change those systems so that other people didn’t encounter the same challenges that I did.  

I think the most important thing that early career scientists need to do is to believe in themselves—when they start to get that feeling in the pit of their stomach that they could be making the wrong decision, they need to evaluate it. Sometimes that’s an opportunity knocking. Sometimes you have to explore that opportunity. I just think that there are so many times that early career scientists feel like they need to fit into the box that somebody else built when all they have to do is put their hand in or their foot. You don’t have to climb all the way in: you can create your own opportunity, build your own box, and make sure it has lots of windows.

Guest post by Meredith M. Course* and Irini Topalidou.**

The career success of graduate students and postdocs (referred to here as “trainees”) is largely dependent on just one or two principal investigators (PIs). PIs influence how trainees think about science and whether they choose to stay in the field. The fundamental purpose of mentorship is for a trainee to intellectually and professionally benefit from the mentor’s experience and network. Good mentorship benefits PIs and institutions, too: well-mentored trainees will produce higher quality research, ultimately leading to labs that run smoothly and productively. Because PIs are largely responsible for defining our academic culture, who we put in these positions of power and what we expect of them deserve careful consideration.

Though a PI’s mentorship ability plays a crucial role in shaping the field, it is often undervalued and inadequate.¹ Not every PI possesses the understanding of what it means to be an effective mentor or knows how to apply these principles; some PIs have good intentions but simply don’t know how to train, guide, and support trainees; others do not prioritize good mentorship, and have no incentive to. Unfortunately, almost every academic institution— and many of their trainees— have suffered due to bad mentors. Given its significance, why is poor mentorship a persistent issue in academia? Major contributing factors include: (1) a lack of training for mentors, (2) the overwhelming demands of a faculty job, (3), a hiring and promotion method that ignores mentorship abilities, and (4) institutional protection of PIs at the expense of their trainees.

The issue develops well before a scientist becomes the head of a lab, since training to become a PI rarely includes learning to mentor effectively. During the doctoral and postdoctoral years, the chief goal of a future PI is to publish several quality, first-author papers—an expectation that does not require or promote mentorship abilities. This emphasis on research may result in outstanding experimentalists, but it does not create effective mentors.

After focusing on benchwork as a postdoc, a young PI experiences dramatic changes in responsibilities; they must suddenly excel as a mentor, manager, grant writer, and leader. Provided with little guidance, PIs are left to discover on their own, by trial and error, how to accomplish these tasks. Unfortunately, the “guinea pigs” of these trials are their trainees. Without being set up for success, overstressed PIs may end up misguiding or even mistreating their trainees.

Furthermore, because the main criterion for hiring and promoting a faculty member is the candidate’s quality of research and not their mentorship skills, institutions accumulate PIs who are not necessarily good at being mentors. In turn, this inadequacy can result not only in unsatisfied trainees, but also PIs who feel insecure or unhappy in their positions. The fact that the institutions entrusted with educating our future scientists do not require evidence of successful mentorship calls into question their role in properly training the next generation of scientists.

Because trainees depend on their PI’s guidance and support for professional success, they have difficulty finding where to turn to when a PI is either passively or actively failing to provide this support. Institutions often protect PIs because they provide grants, have tenure, or both. Institutional protection of PIs, coupled with the lack of a reporting system for trainees, can trap trainees in lab environments where they feel disempowered and alone.

The pervasiveness of poor mentorship in academia suggests that the issue is not a case of individual bad actors; rather, it is a systemic problem. Seen through this lens, we contend that mentorship reform should not fall solely to individual PIs, but to the institutions that both prepare and employ them. Institutions can begin to address this problem if they: (1) recognize the issue, (2) implement mentorship training for postdocs and PIs, and (3) use selection and evaluation methods that provide incentive and accountability.

First, the academy at all levels should recognize that capable mentorship is necessary for their trainees to have healthy and productive educational experiences, and for institutions to represent centers of educational excellence. Understanding that the responsibility of quality mentorship lies at multiple levels within the system—such as university leadership, department chairs, program directors, as well as PIs— is the first step toward improved mentorship.

Mentorship training should begin during the postdoctoral period. Postdocs interested in faculty positions should be encouraged to mentor trainees, and they should be offered mentorship training to improve their understanding of what it means to be a good mentor. This training and experience can help postdocs determine whether a position requiring mentorship truly fits their skills and interests. Alternatives to faculty positions should be considered and equally encouraged, especially for postdocs who are uninterested in mentorship.

Once hired, junior PIs should also receive mentorship training together with guidance and feedback from experienced PIs. It is crucial that this training be mandatory, as those who are unaware that they lack mentorship abilities are the least likely to seek it out. Mentorship training should be included in tenure requirements as part of the PI’s protected time, to signal to PIs that the institution prioritizes mentorship.

Equitable and inclusive strategies need to be part of mentorship training also, as trainees from underrepresented groups generally receive less mentoring than their well-represented peers, which prevents them from benefitting professionally in the same way.² Institutions should educate their PIs about this issue and outline how they expect them to combat it. Fortunately, high-quality, evidence-based mentorship trainings and tools are available freely (Entering Mentoring³ and The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM⁴ are excellent starting points), therefore institutions do not need extra resources to implement them.

Finally, institutions should realign their selection and retention criteria by requesting evidence of a candidate’s mentorship abilities for faculty hiring and systematically evaluating the PI’s ability to mentor at promotional junctures. After a PI is hired, feedback from both experienced PIs and trainees should be taken into account—and be taken seriously, which means that institutions need regular and standardized mentoring evaluations, such as the freely available Mentoring Competency Assessment.⁵ In addition, trainees who are struggling under poor mentors deserve human resources personnel to turn to when they need advice, advocacy, and protection from poor mentors. Requiring mentorship compacts^{6, 7} is another easy and free way for programs and departments to protect trainees, improve accountability for mentors, and assess mentors’ performances.

One of the chief responsibilities of a PI is mentoring future scientists, yet frustration over inadequate mentorship is frequently lamented among trainees. This is not just a failing of individuals, but signs of a system that sets up PIs to fail. Here, we’ve outlined several reasons why institutions accumulate poor mentors, and several steps they can take to ameliorate this issue. It is imperative that institutions take charge of the mentorship environment that they provide to trainees and implement selection, evaluation, and training paradigms that focus on the mentorship ability of those training our future scientists. The good news is that improved mentorship does not need to involve starting from scratch: quality, evidence-based, and free resources already exist. They deserve increased use and prioritization. Effective mentoring will not only improve the experiences of trainees, but also benefit individual PIs, institutions, and the scientific community as a whole.

*Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

**Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

References 

¹A message for mentors from dissatisfied graduate students

C Woolston (2019)

Nature 575, 551-552

DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03535-y

²NIH Scientific Workforce Diversity Office

https://diversity.nih.gov/

³Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists

J Handelsman et al. (2005) https://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/Educational%20Materials/Lab%20Management/entering_mentoring.pdf

⁴The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM Online Guide

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

https://www.nap.edu/resource/25568/interactive/index.html

⁵The Mentoring Competency Assessment: Validation of a New Instrument to Evaluate Skills of Research Mentors

M Fleming (2013)

Acad. Med. 88(7), 1002-1008

DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318295e298

⁶Mentorship Compacts/Contract Examples

UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research

https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/mentoring-compactscontracts-examples/

⁷Ten simple rules for developing a mentor–mentee expectations document

KS Masters and PK Kreeger (2017)

PLoS Comput. Biol. 13(9): e1005709.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005709

Improving research mentor training requires new approaches.

Mentoring is essential for the success of researchers at all career stages, but not all mentor-mentee relationships are created equal. Students from historically underrepresented backgrounds often receive less mentoring than their peers, and many mentors are not trained in how to mentor effectively. To address some of these needs, Entering Mentoring, an evidence-based program for research mentor training, was developed and shown to be effective in improving mentoring. 

Of course, such programs are only useful if people have access to them. In CBE—Life Sciences Education, Spencer et al. report on the infrastructure they have created to facilitate more widespread research mentor training.

The first hurdle that must be cleared for more mentors to receive training is to have more people capable of giving the training. Therefore, the authors took a train-the-trainer approach and recruited and trained master facilitators to instruct others in how to implement research mentor training, termed facilitator training. This approach has resulted in nearly 600 people being trained as facilitators, with over 4,000 mentors receiving research mentor training.

In order to be broadly useful, training for mentors needs to be applicable in a variety of settings, including at different institutions and for researchers at multiple career stages. The original Entering Mentoring program was designed as a summer seminar for graduate students mentoring undergraduates, but it has been expanded for different research areas and for those mentoring everyone from undergraduates to junior faculty. Modules to address specific concerns, like culturally aware mentoring, have also been developed, and there are resources available for structuring the programs in a variety of formats.

Even though a person might be trained in facilitating research mentor training, actually running such workshops requires time, resources, and support, which are not always available. To help address these concerns, facilitator training workshops were restructured to include resources and strategies for overcoming obstacles to implementation, such as encouraging facilitators at the same or similar institutions to cooperatively plan.

As mentorship programs expand, quality control is necessary to ensure that workshops are productive and that resources are accessible. Therefore, assessment tools were developed for facilitators to evaluate workshops they run, and a centralized evaluation system was developed to more effectively make use of feedback.

By developing this infrastructure, better training will become more accessible for more mentors. Early results of self-reported surveys suggest that research mentor training is already being effectively implemented—ultimately helping make science more accessible and productive. 

CITATION:

Building a Sustainable National Infrastructure to Expand Research Mentor Training

Kimberly C. Spencer, Melissa McDaniels, Emily Utzerath, Jenna Griebel Rogers, Christine A. Sorkness, Pamela Asquith, Christine Pfund

CBE—Life Sciences Education Published Online: 28 Aug 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-03-0034

Guest post by Pinar Gurel. GSA is currently accepting proposals from students and postdocs for the next round of Career Development Symposia. Gain leadership experience and serve the early career scientist community!

Among the many roles that scientists play, mentoring younger scientists is one that researchers are rarely trained for. In the current STEM research environment, lack of funding is but one of the systemic issues young scientists face, and their roles, responsibilities, and career trajectories are changing. To address such issues, organizations such as Future of Research and Rescuing Biomedical Research have been formed, while others, such as the National Mentoring Research Network, have arisen to address the training needs of those who wish to remain in academia but receive no formal training in how to mentor students. Still, academia does not always embrace the value of being an inspiring leader, promoting a positive work environment, and having happy, mentally fit employees. Where other industries recognize these benefits, academic culture lags.

Conference attendees listen to a panel discussion on mentoring. Panel (L to R): Andy De Los Reyes (UMD), Belinda Huang (GWU), Chinonye “Chi-Chi” Nnakwe (AAAS), Meg Bentley (AU).

All of these issues are intertwined, and lead to the career-related pessimism and learned helplessness found in many young researchers around the world. With funding in part from the GSA Career Development Symposia Program, the Ethical and Inspiring Mentorship in STEM conference was held at the University of Maryland- College Park on September 21, 2017 to address issues in mentorship and to discuss current mentorship practices and the ways they could be improved.

The goals of the symposium were:

1. To recognize and discuss the issues surrounding mentoring in STEM fields
2. To discuss effective mentorship and advocacy techniques at all levels: PhD, Postdoc, Faculty
3. To provide a platform to connect like-minded young scientists who wish to effect change at their own institutions at the grassroots level
4. To inspire participants to practice effective mentorship practices and promote these skillsets to their peers and colleagues at their own institutions

This one-day conference was co-organized by Juan Pablo Ruiz (Labmosphere), Gary McDowell (Future of Research), Blessing Enekwe (University of Maryland-College Park), and Pinar Gurel (Rockefeller University) with funding from the GSA, ASCB, The Union of Concerned Scientists, BD Biosciences, and the University of Maryland. The meeting consisted of three speakers with break-out sessions in between the talks, as well as a mentorship panel, followed by discussion and a networking reception. The entire day was interactive and fostered communication and discussion—both for those in attendance and online through social media (#STEMentoring17). The conversations included students, postdocs, and experts in both STEM fields and mentoring, covering culturally aware mentoring, hyper-competition, mental health, ethical behavior, and advocacy.

The meeting began with a keynote lecture by Sandra Quinn (UMD, NMRN) who presented extensive research about current mentoring issues and provided tips for improving mentoring relationships. Importantly, Quinn stressed that anytime one has a conversation with a mentor or mentee, the conversation should start with respect, and this will allow both mentor and mentee to begin discussions in a positive manner. She also addressed culturally aware mentoring and explained that mentors need to be aware that each individual’s life experience is diverse. To be culturally aware and promote diversity, mentors need to demonstrate that they are available and ready to listen.

The keynote was followed by breakout sessions with Quinn addressing diversity and being a culturally aware mentor, and Gary McDowell in collaboration with the Union of Concerned Scientists discussing Local Advocacy.

Following lunch, Chris Pickett from Rescuing Biomedical Research presented data on the current ailments of the US biomedical research enterprise. Notably, an alarming figure showed the number of trainees is at an all-time high, but the number of tenure-track positions and grant funding for these trainees is at an all-time low. Pickett is working in several ways to reverse this trend and stresses that much more active work is needed. Pickett highlighted the need to raise awareness of all career paths for science PhDs and the need to train academic mentors to enable students to pursue different careers.

Brooke Deterline (Courageous Leadership, LLC) explains how the brain functions under different circumstances and how anxiety compromises our creativity and productivity.

Following Pickett, Brooke Deterline from Courageous Leadership, LLC presented an inspiring talk on leadership in today’s society. Deterline has worked with countless executives and teams to act with ethical courage and ingenuity to overcome complex and challenging issues. During her session, Deterline laid out a paradox common for most researchers: the more we care about something, the more we stress about it. But excess stress often leads to diminished capacity and poor decision making. She noted that “Under time and cost pressure, the ethical implications of our actions fade from our minds.” Deterline encouraged attendees to take on a courageous mindset by focusing on long-term goals and to behave in ways that are in alignment with ones’ values. Importantly, she emphasized that how we respond to stress is up to us, and by targeting the negative behaviors resulting from stress, we can behave much more productively.  

Two more breakout sessions followed, one with Will Olds from Proteintech discussing mentorship across the academia/industry divide, and another with Juan Pablo Ruiz discussing mental health issues and the value of support networks. Ruiz introduced active listening techniques as an effective mechanism to communicate with mentors and mentees—focusing on listening first, and giving advice when needed or asked.

The symposium was wrapped up by a delightful mentoring panel featuring Meg Bentley (American University), Andy De Los Reyes (University of Maryland), Belinda Huang (George Washington University), and Chinonye “Chi-Chi” Nnakwe (AAAS). The panelists provided tips and stories about mentoring situations they’ve encountered and recommendations on how to train mentors, how to overcome adversity, and how to incentivize/reward mentorship in STEM. Notably, all panelists encouraged attendees to first determine what they desire in a mentor, and then to seek out many mentors who can contribute to all the aspects of their needs. There is more than one good mentor!  

Conference organizers and participants unwind at the networking reception at Milkboy Arthouse. From L to R: Pinar Gurel (Rockefeller University), Blessing Enekwe (UMD), Juan Pablo Ruiz (Labmosphere), Gary McDowell (Future of Research), Will Olds (Proteintech).

At the end of the day, attendees, speakers, and panelists were all able to unwind and engage in productive discussion at a networking reception at Milkboy Arthouse at UMD. Importantly, this meeting was a step in beginning conversations around the problems and solutions for ethical and inspiring mentorship. One major takeaway from the meeting is that mentorship goes both ways; as a mentee, you have to decide what is the right fit for you and to seek out many mentors. As a mentor, it is important to listen and be aware of what tools and resources your mentee may need.

Extra Resources:

• Mentoring for Scientists eBook: http://info.addgene.org/download-addgenes-ebook-mentoring-for-scientists
• My IDP: http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/
• NMRN Mentoring Kit: https://issuu.com/shawmutdelivers/docs/164812-nrmn_info_kit-final?e=15518566/44324860
• Mapping a Mentoring Roadmap and Developing a Supportive Network for Strategic Career Advancement:
  http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/izCuY6fGpyIi7B5JREqZ/full
• Form your own peer mentoring circle: http://blog.addgene.org/form-your-own-peer-mentoring-circle-a-how-to-guide-for-scientists
• The center for non-violent communication: https://www.cnvc.org/
• Boosting the career development of postdocs with a peer-to-peer mentor circles program: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n7/full/nbt.3631.html
• Peer Mentoring: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/peer-mentoring-addgene-happy-day-joanne-kamens-phd/
• Choosing a good mentor for scientists: http://blog.addgene.org/choosing-a-good-mentor-for-scientists
• Thinking critically about the ways we help our students: https://smallpondscience.com/2017/07/03/thinking-critically-about-the-ways-we-help-our-students/#more-19465
• What makes a good mentor: http://blog.addgene.org/what-makes-a-good-mentor-and-6-more-faqs-about-science-mentoring
• Mentoring in STEMM: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24815/effective-mentoring-in-stemm-practice-research-and-future-directions-proceedings
• On Twitter:
  #STEMentoring17
  #MentoringFutureSci

Inaugural class sets high standards for a growing program.

Mentoring Matters

The Genetics Society of America takes an active and collaborative role in the Promoting Active Learning & Mentoring (PALM) Network, along with our partners: the American Society for Cell Biology and the American Society of Plant Biologists. PALM funds one-on-one, long-term mentorships for faculty or postdocs new to the effective biology education approaches outlined in the Vision and Change recommendations. PALM Fellows work with mentors to develop, use and evaluate evidence-based active learning strategies in their own classroom. Fellows also will disseminate their new resources in their own professional networks as well as via our Society’s outlets, including GSA PREP, the CourseSource Genetics course, and education events at The Allied Genetics Conference. The longer term goal is for Fellows to catalyze enduring change that will positively influence the teaching culture at their institution.

Congratulations to the Spring 2016 Class of PALM Fellows!

Using real-time response questions in small-group, active learning exercises to assess and enhance student understanding of meiotic recombination and its critical role in the process of evolution.

Mentee: Christopher L. Baker, PhD
Position: Postdoctoral Fellow
Institution: The Jackson Laboratory
PALM Partner Affiliation: GSA

Mentor: Michelle K. Smith, PhD
Position: Assistant Professor
Institution: University of Maine
PALM Partner Affiliation: GSA

Using the model roundworm C. elegans, students will conduct authentic research and generate data investigating how epigenetic information is inherited through generations

Mentee: Teresa W. Lee, PhD
Position: Postdoctoral IRACDA Fellow
Institution: Emory University School of Medicine
PALM Partner Affiliation: GSA

Mentor: Karen L. Schmeichel, PhD
Position: Associate Professor
Institution: Oglethorpe University
PALM Partner Affiliation: ASCB

Using the Online Macromolecular Museum, case studies, and a new assessment tool to engage students in hands-on learning about the biology of Sickle Cell Anemia

Mentee: Stephanie Levi, PhD
Position: Adjunct Professor
Institution: Oakton Community College & Northeastern Illinois University
PALM Partner Affiliation: ASCB

Mentor: David J. Marcey, PhD
Position: Fletcher Jones Professor of Developmental Biology
Institution: California Lutheran University
PALM Partner Affiliation: ASCB

The Future of PALM is in Your Hands

To learn more about the PALM Network and how to become a PALM Fellow, Mentor, or Network Partner, please see http://www.ascb.org/PALM/.

Josh Hall, Director of Science Outreach and UNC PREP at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Director of North Carolina DNA Day, and creator/co-host of “Hello PhD: a podcast for scientists and the people who love them.”

Most grad students and postdocs struggle with where their training will take them as they complete each phase of their career development. After discussions with individuals in the scientific community, I’ve learned that many successful scientists followed a career path that allows them to work in areas they are truly passionate about. Questioning where we fit best and recognizing our personal strengths is critical to our career development. For Dr. Joshua Hall of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, this self-awareness was the key in recognizing that a career away from the bench was the best fit for him.

Josh began assessing his career options while in graduate school, but still pursued a traditional postdoctoral position where he applied his research skills to a new set of questions. At the same time, he received an Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Awards (IRACDA) Fellowship, allowing him to gain valuable experience in teaching. During his postdoc, he became decreasingly motivated by bench work and realized that what he really enjoyed was mentoring students and helping them chart out their own careers. He identified that his strength was his ability to guide others toward achieving their goals, be that through one-on-one guidance or larger communication forums.

But how does someone build a career centered on mentoring? And perhaps equally important, what’s the best way step off of the research career track gracefully?

Well, Josh acknowledges that it is a challenge to make the decision to move away from the bench. “The sense that you are setting your long held career goals aside is scary,” said Josh. He also encountered little support from his mentors. In many conversations, when he asked for support he instead got comments trying to persuade him to stay in academia. He often heard, “you’ve got what it takes to be a faculty member, so you should pursue that.”

Josh is an excellent example of why we cannot continue to have the same discouraging conversations about long term career options for trainees. There is a very large and complex scientific enterprise that requires a multitude of interests, strengths, and talents. We cannot continue guiding the bulk of trainees towards tenure track academic research positions; especially since those positions will not fit every individual’s motivation and personal drive. If the majority of students and postdocs are prepared only for tenure-track faculty jobs, it places a large burden on trainees as well as the research community. Like Josh, each trainee can make a substantial impact on the research landscape by pursuing careers that specifically fit their strengths and talents.

Josh’s decision to step away from the bench has had a positive influence on the scientific community, particularly among the trainees that have worked with him directly, myself included. Currently, Josh is the Director of Science Outreach and UNC PREP in the Office of Graduate Education at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. For the past six years, he has also served as Director of North Carolina DNA Day, an outreach program that connects scientists with high school classrooms. In this role, he and his colleagues at UNC work to facilitate opportunities for graduate students and postdocs to gain skills and sculpt careers both inside and outside of the lab. These opportunities involve improving career awareness, communication skills, opportunities for teaching and outreach, and bringing students with similar career interests together. More importantly, they work to teach early-career scientists that PhD training leads to an outstanding ability to solve problems and ask questions, something that is broadly applicable to numerous career options. Josh and his colleagues help trainees recognize that career paths are often not straight lines, and that a PhD provides the keys to unlock a wide array of doors along the career path. While careers away from the bench may not have as clear a path as the one for tenure track faculty, this also means that there are ample opportunities to carve out a unique position. The key to building a successful career away from the bench, according to Josh, is to “self-reflect and figure out where your skills and passions lie, ask for help when you need it, and don’t be afraid to try something new.”

Indeed, Josh is not afraid of new challenges. The experiences in his current position have made him realize that many of the issues graduate students and postdocs are having now are the same as those he had when he was in training. Because of this, he created and co-hosts a podcast, “Hello PhD: a podcast for scientists and the people who love them,” in order to broaden the reach of his mentoring. Here, he works with his long-time friend from graduate school, Daniel Arneman, to broaden the discussion about important issues surrounding the PhD experience. The podcast is a venue to discuss topics that are important for grad students and postdocs with an aim to form a community to talk about the shared experiences and challenges related to scientific training. “If the podcast makes the science training experience better for just one person, then we will consider that a success,” Josh says. Perhaps this serves as the best example of how to build a satisfying career: first, you recognize your strength as an individual. Then, you identify a need or something that needs to be improved. Finally, you take the leap and build your part in the future of the scientific community.

These conversations about career options, whether they take place on a podcast or in the laboratory, during a winter hike or in a blog post, are important for the continued strengthening and growth of our community. To continue to progress the research enterprise, it will take the collective creativity of a diverse group of trainees and mentors working to build a highly skilled workforce. And the skills that are needed are not going to be found only at the bench. They will be found leading initiatives to increase support for funding, communicating the importance of fundamental discoveries, and teaching the next generation of great scientists.

Connect with Josh:

Twitter: @jdhallphd

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jdhall 

Hello PhD Twitter: @hellophd

Many of us have been there: you’ve attended seminars and workshops focused on transforming the way you teach, and you can’t wait to use what you’ve learned. However, examining the evidence behind evidence-based teaching and actually using the evidence-based teaching methods are very different beasts. If you aren’t quite sure how to incorporate active learning techniques into your classroom, consider applying to be a Promoting Active Learning & Mentoring (PALM) Network Fellow.

The PALM Network was established by GSA, the American Society for Cell Biology, and the American Society for Plant Biologists to spark sustained biology education reform at diverse institutions through one-on-one long-term mentorships for faculty new to approaches based on recommendations from the Vision and Change report. PALM provides faculty and postdoctoral scholars with resources that allow them to gain hands-on experience and long-term mentorship support to bring evidence-based, active learning strategies into their own classrooms. PALM offers up to $2,000 per Fellow; a $500 mentor stipend; and up to $1,000 for network meeting travel (for each Fellow and mentor).

The PALM Fellow application website opens on January 1, 2016; however, you can begin working on your application now! Use the guidelines available at www.ascb.org/PALM. The application deadline is January 15, 2016.

Applicants must:

• Be or become members of organizations that belong to the PALM Network.
• Demonstrate an abiding/sustainable interest in undergraduate biology education.
• Establish a mentor relationship before formally applying.
  • Mentors must be skilled in active learning strategies and evidence-based teaching that align with Vision and Change principles. See http://www.visionandchange.org.
  • Mentors must belong to (or join) one of the PALM Network organizations.
  • Assistance with mentor matching is available (PALM Steering Committee can make recommendations based on geography and specific teaching interests).
• Explain alternatives if they have no immediate access to their own teaching setting.

Become a Mentor

If you are already skilled in the active learning strategies and evidence-based teaching that align with Vision and Change principles, volunteer to become a mentor! Mentors receive a $500 stipend to help implement effective teaching strategies, as well as network meeting travel support. Be a part of true education reform by becoming a PALM Network Mentor!

Questions? Please email grant PI Sue Wick at swick@umn.edu or Beth Ruedi at eruedi@genetics-gsa.org.

Funded by NSF Research Coordination Network in Undergraduate Biology Education grant #1539870