In my opinion, there is no substitute for the rigor of science to expand the brain and establish the synaptic connections that will underpin any endeavor in medicine. The laboratory is the practice field and the experiments are the drills that build confidence and deftness for the serious challenges ahead—whether in the clinic, laboratory, or administrative suite.
In today’s world in the United States, parents encourage, push, or prod their children into activities motivated to build character. Whether the children kick soccer balls, toot clarinets, or spin themselves silly doing somersaults and cartwheels, the goal is the same—to create a strong work ethic. As the parents disgorge their children from the minivans, they also tell them to obey the coach and follow instructions. Few children will ascend the heights of musical or athletic stardom, but the belief is strong that these pursuits will make a better person, ready to take on the real world.
Why, then, the reluctance to have trainees take on the challenge of research and entrust themselves to a real coach for two or three years? If I go to a mentoring committee, then that is my recommendation: Go work with the best researcher you can find. What happens when the fellow proposes a retrospective chart review of some condition or a smattering of courses in biostatistics? I know that I communicate less than a full measure of enthusiasm. Who knows? I may sigh, wince, or grimace; my body language is not giving a positive sign.
One-to-One Relationship Key
In academics, we are open minded and eclectic and respect the work of our colleagues. But when it comes to training—which is, after all, a version of parenting—we all have our way of doing things. Furthermore, when we are in the role of mentors, there is reluctance to have committees meddle with our approach to training. The mentor–mentee relationship is a classic dyad that probably works best when the mentee embraces the vision of the mentor and dives into the work with gusto. I fear that a mentoring committee can weaken the bond of mentor and mentee and, accordingly, the whole training experience. If our faculty is as good as we say it is, why do we need a committee to make sure they are doing their job? As they say, too many cooks can spoil the broth.
Just like the player–coach relationship, the mentor–mentee relationship is filled with tension, and often there is strife. Most mentors think that their mentees don’t work hard enough and most mentees think that their mentors are unrealistic in their work demands. A lot of chafing and fuming goes on. These disagreements are fundamental to training and, indeed, it is essential for both sides to reach an accord on how to get the job done. Negotiation is part of the process that is hard for a committee to manage.
