Okay, so good afternoon and welcome to our Mentor-Mentee Session. It's a great pleasure to be here guiding this amazing group of people that are going to answer some of the questions. And also, if you have any questions, you can do it through two ways, through the system in the app, but because we are a small group, you can do it through the microphone that will be better. So, let me introduce myself. My name is Ricardo Correa. I'm an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, the Program Director and the Director for Health Equity there. I want to introduce our panelists, first starting with Dr. Dale Abel, who is a William Adams Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine and UCLA Health. Dr. Abel has so many things that all of you know him, past president of the Endocrine Society, many, many things. So, to make this more going to the point, I will omit all of the huge accomplishments of all of our panelists. Dr. Athentor A.J. Hinton is a Tenure-Track Assistant Professor in the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics in the Vanderbilt School of Medicine-Basic Science at Vanderbilt University and a member of the Vanderbilt Diabetes Research and Training Center. And he earned his early career as an investigator. Dr. Heather Beasley, she is a Postdoctoral Researcher Scholar at A.J. Hinton Laboratory at Vanderbilt University. She earned her PhD in Biomedical Science with an emphasis in Biochemistry and Cancer Biology from Meharry Medical School and currently is a Postdoctoral Researcher at A.J. Lab. Sorry. We have Dr. Lindsay Trevino. She is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Health Equities in the Department of Population Science at City of Hope in Duarte, California. She received her doctorate in Reproductive Physiology from Cornell University and continued her postgraduate training at Baylor College of Medicine and received additional postdoctoral at the Institute of Bioscience and Technology of Texas A&M. Dr. Joshua Joseph is an Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine in the Division of Diabetes and Metabolism at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. He's the co-chair of The Ohio State University Committee and member of the Health Equity Serving Committee. Also, he's the chair of the Clinical Affairs Committee for the Endocrine Society. So three of our panelists are here and two are in that first table. So we are going to start because the nice part of this is that we want you to ask questions on how can we improve mentor-mentee relationship, what has been their experience, what is your experience and then come together in a two-hour discussion that's the important thing about this panel. First, I want to start with A.J. with a question to you. Okay. Let's start with Dr. Abel. Yes. Okay. So Dr. Abel, what has been your most crucial mentoring lesson and how has it been proven invaluable? Okay. Okay. So like a good politician, before I answer the question, I'm going to make a few comments. First of all, I want to thank for the invitation to be on this panel. So what you're looking here is like an intergenerational panel going on here. So I'm feeling like I'm a grandfather, I have a son who was a girl child, right? So we're really spanning three generations. It's like you get a family together and you're going to start to talk about, well, what really happened in the family, right? So that's the first disclaimer. And then the second disclaimer is that the other two panelists who are in the audience are leaders in the FLIR program that some of you know about and I think if you don't, you should definitely learn about it, which has been a program within the Endocrine Society focused on mentorship across particularly at those crucial transition points in individuals training and I'm happy to share that we have been supported for 10 years by the NIH. We just got official word that we're going to be renewed for another five years in the FLIR program. So, so far we've had 200 FLIR fellows come through and we hope to have another 100 come through to really transform and diversify biomedicine. Lindsay and Josh are the new co-principal investigators of the grant that I led initially and now what you're witnessing is sort of a passing of the baton onto the next generation. So that's my preamble. So now you asked a question about, you know, the most crucial mentoring lessons and how has it proven invaluable. So I'm going to start actually by some lessons I learned when I was a mentee that actually has really helped to shape and guide now how I mentor. And there are different sort of places in your life and career where you get mentored. At some points in your training it's sort of giving you the mentorship that gives you the encouragement to move on to the next step and then at other points in your career you're actually getting very direct mentorship in skills and experiences and attributes that in fact will define what your next step is going to be. I've had really, you know, mentors across that entire spectrum and I would say that within the first category have been individuals who were much more supportive of what I was going to become as opposed to what could I do for them. And I think that that really represented a very important lesson that I learned and of course, you know, spoke to my direct experience through their generosity as mentors which was that their goal in the mentor-mentee relationship was certainly much, much more heavily weighted towards we want to ensure that you will have the necessary doors open and the necessary experiences so that you can be on a trajectory that will lead to your success. Now, this is very important for you to hear this because I think that for many that's not necessarily the dynamic in a mentor-mentee relationship. It's sometimes a bit more transactional that, you know, you're in my group, you're in my department whatever and you work for me and so I have expectations as to what you'll deliver. And by the way, I will write you a good letter or I will, you know, make a good recommendation. Now, I've also had experiences in my training where the dynamic wasn't exactly the same, where it was more like what I described where I was in a group and there were expectations as to what I would deliver to the group but that was where the box, that's where the boundaries were drawn and less so about what from the experience can, in fact, I gain from that that could really help me in the next step of my career or that journey. That can be quite stressful because, you know, it puts you potentially into a situation that could lead to conflict with the mentor and so then the question then is how do you really begin to navigate that? In my case, the way that I navigated it was number one, had peer mentors outside of those boundaries that were drawn so that as I began to think about my own sort of the steps I would take moving forward, there was sort of peer validation and the peer mentors were not necessarily only people who were, you know, my equivalent but there were also people who were more senior to me, right, but there would be validation that with regards to what I needed to do to actually advance despite the fact that there were constraints placed on that. And ultimately, for me, what that really looked like was, you know, developing some independent ideas that I had, fortunately there was independent funding at the time to actually do that. And that really began to set the stage for a transition. It wasn't without difficult conversations, but ultimately it was the right thing to do because that then, you know, allowed me to have a specific identity scientifically that really formed the basis for my subsequent career. So the lesson I learned from that was, as you'll see where I'm going with this, is that as a mentor now, I feel very strongly that my commitment to my mentees is number one, ensuring that I have a deep understanding of what their long-term goals and aspirations are and to ensure that their experience under my mentorship is one in which that there's always a line of sight to what their long-term goals are. Yes, there are expectations in terms of what you will deliver to the group that I lead, and those are also clearly articulated, but at the same time, there's also an understanding that that experience has to have a clear long-term goal and a clear transition. So very early on in my conversations with anybody who I mentor is a discussion about what do you want to do next. It almost seems strange having that conversation on day one, but the reason why it's important to have that conversation on day one is because it actually sets the goals and the parameters that will define what that experience will be. So that's my initial response to your question. Thank you. So, AJ, do you have further questions? Sure. So I have one for Dr. Abel. What is your most crucial mentoring lesson, and how has it proven invaluable? Yeah, so what is my most crucial mentoring lesson? So there are a few. So I think that number one, an important lesson has been listen to your mentees, listen to your trainees, because oftentimes, especially if you have an environment where open communication is encouraged, that your mentees or trainees will actually bring really interesting ideas to the table about the work that you're doing. And oftentimes, they will bring it to you either as a sounding board or to get your feedback. Oftentimes, as a mentor, you may have a particular view of an area. You also know what the budget is, right? So you kind of have this somewhat defensive mode, which is like, I'm going to shut down most things that come that don't align with where I think the lab should be going. But if that is sort of your primary goal, the unintended consequence of that is in fact one that sometimes squelches innovation. And so I think that having an open mind to the input of those that you mentor is important. Now, it doesn't mean that you will agree with everything that they bring to the table, right? And it doesn't mean that you won't have good and sometimes hearty conversations, right, around the pros and cons of a new idea or the pros and cons of going in a certain way or potentially even, this is really interesting, but we actually can't do it right now because you have four other things that you need to finish first, right? But the point being that having that space to have that conversation has benefit not only to the person that one is mentoring, but actually ultimately to even just the direction that in my case as a researcher, the direction that a big part of your research program might actually go. So I think that for me has been a crucial lesson as a mentor. And then finally, I would say that another important lesson is, especially if you have multiple mentees, is to ensure that not only is there a clear overarching vision of where you want your group to go, but more importantly, that you monitor the interactions and the collaborations between those that you're mentoring, right? So that there's no individual in the group who feels that they are receiving different treatment or any particular preferential attention or anything like that, because your trainees actually spend a lot more time with each other than they spend with you. And I think that what can be very damaging in certain circumstances is if in fact amongst the trainees, there's this feeling that they are more favored and less favored, et cetera. And so I think as a mentor, that's also a very important lesson, which I think has been very important in ensuring that everyone within the group, in fact, feels valued. Yes. So at the beginning, you mentioned that this is the grandfather, the sons, and the granddaughter. So do you have any question to one of your son or daughter? One of my offspring, yes. So I actually do. And so my question to AJ is, could you describe three, and I'm saying three because we don't want to hear five or six, three, could we describe three attributes that you were looking for in a post-doc mentor when you made that choice? He knows me well. So there's really interesting, right? One is looking for compassion. The other was looking for a zest for the science. And the last was looking for always willing to challenge and bring out the best in you. So there was an and. Okay. Thank you. That was very succinct. Yeah. Surprisingly. Yes. I see a hand over there, please. I'm a very difficult person, and someone has to be willing to challenge and be able to really handle how I am, so it's really important. The other thing is having a love for the science, because a lot of times the things that I think are really crazy. And then the first thing is compassion, because again, I live differently, and so I have to have somebody that's kind of open to how I live, how I do my life, and I got all of that in my postdoc, and it was absolutely fabulous. Lindsey? Can you just also speak to the fact that you didn't say big papers, and so that people will be getting advice about what they need to look for in a postdoc, and your categories are perfect for you, but they're not maybe the advice that everyone needs. Right, so y'all know Vanderbilt's like a top five school, and I didn't care about papers, and the reason being is because I cared about the training. So in Dr. Abel's laboratory, it's about how you think, how you're able to craft a story, and how that thinking will lead down towards mechanism or lines of research that you can take for yourself, and I really wanted to know how a business model that's been successful for a long time could run, and how to be able to manage people. So I was really looking for things that would take me to the next level, and sustain me, and continual mentorship, because again, nobody at Vanderbilt is able to really mentor me except for my chair, so I'm always still meeting with Dr. Abel, and my lab does too. We go to his lab meeting, and so it's a continual relationship. So I'm high risk, high reward, as we all know, and so that's why. And yes, I had great papers, and I still have other papers to still come out, and I have a lot of ingenuity, so I use a very powerful technique that's really expensive, but because of the training that I have, and the willingness that he was able to give me, I went to Mayo Clinic for two years, and he paid for that, to acquire the training. So I got like a second post-doc out of it, right? And so that was for me, was really I was trying to pick up skills that would take me to the next level, and he also gave me a network that I can tap into, like I know the people that are like at his level, I mean, all over, I've had conversations with him, he's taught me how to handle conversations with the difficult people in the field, versus the ones that are not, so those are the things I think that are invaluable in post-doc, and just for you all to think like, oh, he's saying that because he doesn't have stuff, I have 70 papers, so half are in research, half are in DEI mentoring spaces, and I'm funded pretty well, I have a CZI grant, that's over a million dollars, two, I have an EHS grant, and then she has an EHS grant, and then also a Bureau's Welcome Fund, Cassie Award, I was like, I forgot, so there's stuff, and then we're working now on an NIH grant, so those are things that are my next target, so I've been successful, and all of my post-docs are funded in my lab, but I'll let Heather speak for herself, because she's very well-funded as well, that's it. So great, any other further questions in this topic? Okay, so I want to ask a question to Heather, consider your role, how long before the end of your PhD did you start to think or look for post-doc mentors? Actually, I started very early during my graduate studies, I started going to conferences right after candidacy, so right after second year, and everyone I identified as a mentor very early on, and so as I began to think long-term, because I wasn't the typical student that came directly from undergrad, I took three years off after undergrad and worked in my field for a few years, and then I went back and got a master's and then eventually my PhD, and so I was very strategic about how my, well, careers aren't linear in science, but how I thought I wanted the career to go, so I started very early on, around year two and three, thinking about mentors, like the question that Dr. Abel had for Dr. Hinton, I was thinking about what characteristics I needed in a mentor, and also certain things that I needed that would help my career as it progressed, so I started very early, about year two, three, and then I started to have a lot of conversations with my grad school mentor about what I needed as far as competencies and things to be competitive for a really great post-doc at an R1 institution, that was my goal. Well, a question for Joshua, you were mentee at one point of your career, now you are a mentor, what are the things that you carry out from your mentors that you are applying as now a mentor for your mentees? I guess that works. Hello, how's everybody doing? Feeling good? Feeling great? All right. So once again, I'm Joshua Joseph, and I'll try to broaden the conversation just a little bit, I'm a clinician and a scientist, so maybe I'll view it more from the clinician's side, since we had a lot of the science pieces, and so I've had many mentors, so one kind of first thing I think that we all talk about is that when we use the word mentor, there's really a plural to that, right? It's mentors, right? We all have many mentors, and I've been blessed and fortunate to have a number of great mentors over time. Using the example of one, I was just with Dr. Shreeta Golden, who many of you may know at Johns Hopkins, and she was the mentor during my clinical and research fellowship when I was at Hopkins, and so from her, Shreeta's a very gracious person, a very caring person, she listens, and then provides a lot of feedback, and I think that as a mentee, we're all critical thinkers and evaluators. We get feedback, but then we have to decide what are we going to do with it, and so one of the things that I've really learned from Shreeta is the ability to listen, right? Listen as a mentee, right? And then to Dr. Abel's earlier point, listening as a mentor, and trying to, you know, decipher all the nuggets, because you'll spend time with mentors, and they're throwing out nuggets the whole time. You don't realize it, but you're like, they're just throwing out these little small nuggets, you know, throughout, and so as a mentee, when you kind of listen, pay attention, process, you know, I would even write things down over time that I wanted to make sure that I would remember, and so I think I try to be the same type of mentor to my mentees, you know, try to listen, try to throw out nuggets, try to ensure that I have their best interests at heart, kind of going back to one of the other comments of Dr. Abel, you can see that there's a lot of like mentoring, like, you know, Dr. Abel's one of my mentors too, right, so I pick that up over time, right, and, you know, kind of keeping the mentee at the center of that relationship is very, very important to me as a mentor. So maybe I'll stop there. That's great. Yes, there's a question right there. I have a couple of questions. I keep hearing about the idea of how you want to be a mentor, and there's a lot of people who have said, you shouldn't be a mentor, you shouldn't have mentors, right? So Dr. Abel, Dr. Abel's right, he said that a mentor, a mentor should be Sure. So, you know, you made a very interesting comment when you said, you know, a mentor-mentee relationship is transactional. And I would say that it should not be exclusively transactional. No, I might have, but I think my point is that it ought not to be exclusively transactional. So first of all, I think a good mentor, and I recognize that, you know, particularly if you're in doing research or something very focused, yes, your mentor who are, you know, your principal investigator is a person who has the resources, who probably has set a certain direction. And that's partly the reason why somebody may come to work for you. And so, yes, there is some transaction there in that there's stuff I need to get done. You're coming. You're going to get it done. And in the process, you will actually get training. So I think that's one part of the equation. However, as I also said, was that, you know, part of the approach is to figure out what you want to do and where you want to get to. And so it's incumbent upon me as a mentor to actually introduce those who I am mentoring to other people that they need to get to know. And so there are a number of reasons for that. First of all, if you are going into a certain field, people need to know you because they need to sort of figure out what you're doing in terms of your work. They need to actually figure out or they need to potentially become supporters, whether they're writing letters for your promotion, letters for your first appointment, identifying opportunities for you to be nominated for awards or whatever. And that can't happen in a vacuum. I mean, I've had situations where individuals haven't necessarily taken that effort and then they get a job and like, oh, my gosh, I'm scrambling to get three people to write me a letter for my promotion. But that shouldn't happen. Right. And so and so, you know, effective mentorship should not be intimidated by having other people get to know you and to get to know what you're working on. So that's the first point. No. The second point is that mentorship inevitably, you know, is is in some ways an act of generosity. Right. Because if it was just transactional, like exclusively transactional to be you come to work for me, here's a piece of paper with the list of what you're supposed to do. Thank you very much. Come back and talk to me with this list to show me where you are on that list. Right. I mean, that is like the the most extreme example of a totally transactional relationship. Right. And so, you know, there's an element of of generosity. And so when you're speaking about mentors who aren't necessarily involved in the specific area of research, then what do they contribute? So they contribute things like. There are, you know, as a woman, for example, there are things that another woman can mentor you in that I can never mentor you in. Right. There are things that might be might be, you know, related to institutional advancement and so forth. That is better coming from the person who actually oversees that process. Right. There are things that, you know, relate to transitioning to another geographical area, for example, that that that a person elsewhere can give that input. And so the point then is, is that over time you actually get to know individuals. And I like to use the term, you know, disinterested third parties or somebody who doesn't actually care about what you're doing scientifically. I mean, they do. But, you know, that's not their area. That's not their field. Right. But they care about you. Right. They care about what you're going to become. And then and so you can figure that out as you get to know these individuals, because then you can actually ask them questions that, you know, you could never ask me because they might actually say, you know what, I think it's about time that you leave that lab. Right. No, that's I mean, if I'm telling you that, that means I'm firing you. Right. Whereas whereas, you know, if they are telling you that, then it's like there's something that they are seeing either in the dynamic of that relationship or seeing in terms of what you need to do to get this recognition or to get another experience, whatever the reason is, or to even be in an independent position so that you can actually apply for a grant. So the reviewers don't think that well, it's Abel's idea. Right. Then you have to listen to that because they are doing that not because and they might be my good friend. Right. But they might still tell you, you know what, it's time. Right. And so that is the other aspect, which I would really encourage everybody to to really begin to identify who those people might be. And, you know, really a good place to start is with your mentor. A good mentor will help you do that. Now, you may say, well, my mentor has no interest in helping me do that. And I can say, well, maybe you need to be somewhere else. But if you can't, then, you know, you will have to then really begin to use networks like this and other networks which which are growing and overlapping to begin to identify individuals who can serve in this role. And there's a plug again for FLIR. Right. So one of the things that we do in the FLIR program is we do exactly just that. Right. That we actually help to identify individuals. You know, we leverage just the power of the membership of the Endocrine Society. Twenty thousand members. I mean, some amazing people are in the endocrine society. And we leverage that to actually help to actually match you up with individuals that we know are going to spend the time, are going to talk to you, are going to actually give you that kind of advice. So so I recognize it as as a as a trainee in particular. And what level are you in your career right now? Exactly. So it's a grad student or a postdoc. Sometimes, you know, and especially as a graduate, you got to get your you got to get your thesis done. Right. And so and so your focus is just on the experiment and getting through, you know, everything to get your paper, your thesis. And in a sense, that becomes, you know, very kind of blinkered and appropriately so to the extent to which you have to focus to finish your work. But the price you pay a little bit, if that's how you spend all your mental energy, is that, OK, so you finish your work. Is that good? Then when do you begin to have the conversations about the next step? Right. And so I would say that part of your bandwidth has to be spent cultivating some of those other aspects. And just two cents to kind of sorry, you can go ahead. OK. I was in a similar situation when I was in graduate school. I didn't really know that you were supposed to have multiple mentors. I thought that my primary Ph.D. advisor was it. And what I learned as I developed throughout the Ph.D. study is my committee really filled in a lot of gaps. So you have to have a committee when you're doing your thesis committee. And a lot of them happen to be females, as Dr. Abel said. And so they filled in a lot of the gaps. I had a baby right after candidacy. So it was like crazy. Who does that? Right. In grad school. But I did that. And I had to lean on them like, oh, my gosh. I'm almost like, yeah, I had all my kids in grad school in postdoc. And so she became a mentor. And I didn't realize that it was mentoring, but it was definitely mentoring to help me know, hey, these are what you do late nights. This is what you're doing while you're trying to get these experiments out. So lean on your committee. And then also find time to talk to your mentor about the other things that you need to be successful. Because all of that is going to help you through that process. So try your committee also. And another thing is that just like how you're thinking about your committee, translate that as a postdoc. You need a mentoring team. And so as a postdoc, you get to be a little bit more selective of who gets to be on your team. So your PI should be kind of maybe the conductor for a while. But then as he or she or they expose you to their network, then you should start to fill in those gaps. So that's a mentoring map. If you Google a mentoring map plus Veronda Montgomery, you'll find this map that has all of these spaces that are listed that you're supposed to fill in. And so when you're at this conference, you could print that out. And then you actually could start to fill in those spaces with the email who they are. And then you contact them, you know, and maybe they're at a talk so you know that they're a mentor. So maybe you get like 5 to 10 minutes after with Dr. Abel to ask about like how do I select my mentors at my university and kind of go from there. Or if someone you see doing different things that you are inspired by, then that could be in your inspiration category. And then the last thing I'll just mention is that all of my people in my lab have mentoring teams. So Dr. Beasley has, Dr. Annette Carrabo, Dr. Selenstein Winanjala for things that I just cannot help her with. And then also from science standpoint, she has co-mentors because we kind of merged on the idea of doing mitochondrial structural changes in cancer, which is not my expertise. I have friends in those fields. So to help co-mentor her on the cancer side, I can do all the mitochondrial energetic things. And so that's kind of how you set up your team based upon your expertise and then also where you're trying to go. Josh, do you have a question for me? I was just wondering, could you comment a bit about sponsors, mentors, role models? Do your mentors need to look like you, think like you, et cetera? Kind of give us some meat in some of those categories. I think we can all weigh in on that. So you guys start first. So my opinion, they don't have to look like you. They can be very different. I've had nothing but male mentors for pretty much all of my graduate training. And I think that having a diverse group of mentors, especially not even just diversity and phenotypically how they look, but also in how they think, how they approach problems and in their actual disciplines. So I have a mentor that's in heart failure, which is not my immediate knowledge base, but it helps me think through some of the calcium signaling in my breast cancer projects. So there's different people in different disciplines that work for as far as role models and mentors. Now for sponsors, I have people that I may not, because they're as busy as Dr. Abel, maybe they're not able to spend that one-on-one time, but they can provide the advocacy for me in spaces that I wouldn't be in. So they provide the role of sponsorship. And in role models, there's plenty of people that I see here at the end of site and I'm like, oh my gosh, I follow you on Twitter or I've seen your work. I would love to have a chit chat with you. Can we have a cup of coffee? And so they become role models that eventually do become mentors. So for me, they don't necessarily have to look like you or even be in the same discipline, but just someone that's willing to take a little time. And then I take the initiative to engage in conversation. So to kind of clarify, let's put some like definitions to things. So a mentor we often think of as a one-stop shop, but just to kind of demystify that, a mentor does not have to be everything to you. You can acquire certain things from that mentor. So that may be psychological support during challenging times. It may be a certain technique. So you may not think of a core director as a mentor, but they may be focusing and training you on that technique. So that's one thing. A sponsor is someone just like what Dr. Beasley said is that they're not necessarily directly mentoring you, but they see that you're now ready for that next step. And so in the background, they're putting the pieces together kind of like Legos to build you a platform to be able to launch yourself into, right? That is why I think like you put a plug in for Flair again, like all of my trainees have gone to Flair, starting with my oldest, my staff scientists, Dr. Andrea Marshall, and then Dr. Beasley did it just because I thought that she was more ready at the time. And then I have two younger postdocs, very interesting, Dr. Zervu and Dr. Dominique Stevens, who are now in that phase of learning and trying to be more well-polished. And then also there's other language around other types of mentors. So there's shadow mentoring, ones that you pass, you know, just for a certain, you know, instance and they're helping you. And it's usually carried out through different casual conversations and there's allyship. And so that's an important point and I'll stop, is that allyship is important because individual doesn't have to look directly like you to be able to have a profound effect on you. And then also individuals from the same phenotypic background are very different, right? I'm black, Dr. Beasley's black, Dr. Abel's black, but we all come from different unique experiences. And so that actually allows for you to actually learn about an individual and cultivate certain things that you really wouldn't think about, right? So in my own mentorship, I think about now cultivating food as a way to bring people together. That was something I learned from Dr. Abel. And so that's just another example of how we have to kind of be open-minded to certain things. Yes, and the only other thing I would just add to that, really focusing particularly on the sponsorship aspect, right? People can sponsor you that you actually may not have even talked to, right? And so where that comes from is having that recognition within the networks of others that either are your mentors or even allies that will say, okay, there are things which come to my attention that require response. Like, you know, I get people who say, Dr. Abel, we want you to nominate somebody. And I can tell you I've gotten it from the Nobel committee all the way down, right? It's like, okay, let's see, right? And so, you know, there are people that you can say, this is a person and you can just drop the name right in, right? And then let the process run through. And then when they get some award, you know, you just sort of sit there and just sort of say, hmm, you know? So these networks are really important. And sometimes you may just have an interaction with somebody that might just be transient, but something might stick, right? And so, you know, don't discount those episodic interactions because you just never know ultimately what that could lead to at some point to be determined in the future. You can have a repeat request of the microphone, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess I'm just curious about how different mentorship styles can work for certain people but not for others. So when you're picking, so as a mentee, I'm thinking about picking up my mentors for postdoc. So I guess I'm wondering as mentors, because you have mentored so many people, mentees, have you noticed that certain personalities were benefited more or their approach were, I guess, more rewarded by your mentorship style, like if something comes to mind along those lines? Yeah, I'm going to start off with this because, I mean, I've been mentoring people for like a long time, like 25, 30 years, I'm old, right? And I can tell you I've had the entire range of personality types work, like the entire range, right? And so I don't select somebody on my perception of compatibility, right? Because in my view, that really ought not to be part of the evaluation in terms of what they bring. I try to use really objective criteria in terms of what they would bring. One of the things that I always did though, which is important, is that somebody who was coming into the group, as I mentioned earlier, the group is important as well, that not only did they meet me, I had them like spend a day with the group. Because I may get along with somebody, or I may not care what their personality, but it could be destructive to the group. And so it really becomes very important to me that it's really, you know, how will this, it's not just a fit between that person and me, but it's a fit between that person and the group. I'll put another plug in for FLIR, because one of the things on our FLIR curriculum is that we actually do a personality inventory exercise. And there are a number of ways to do this, but there are formal tools that you can use to actually evaluate how you're wired emotionally, how you're wired situationally, how you're think, how you problem solve. And what's really interesting, and sometimes these tools sometimes, you know, might try to distill things into like four groups of people, but really people are oftentimes somewhere in between two or three groups. But what's really interesting, every time I've done this, I've done this now, you know, like 11 times within the FLIR program, is you never ever see the whole group go into one corner, right? By the time we did that, we have basically people in four corners. And what's really fun is that we would then give them a problem to solve. And it's very interesting how certain personality types solve the problem, which are completely different from how another personality type solves the problem. The solutions are all fine, right? But the way they get there are just very different. And so I share that because one of the things that we then use that to do is to actually help people to understand that if you're working with somebody who isn't wired the same way you are, then you can actually understand how they will respond, whether it's distress or to conflict or to uncertainty or whatever, right? And what you then do with that knowledge is not to react to how they are reacting, but it's to actually understand why they are reacting in that way, and then to really address the way that you interact out of that place of understanding, right? And so, to your point that the issue of compatibility becomes perhaps less important as to how do you actually create an environment that somebody can thrive based on how they are wired. Yes, Lindsay. Can I just add something? Yes, please. So I guess I'll just add that it's really important, can everyone hear me? It's really important when you're looking for your next position to not be afraid to ask those questions to the people in the lab group and say, oh, you know, what's your experience? What's your mentor's style? And that kind of thing. And all the while, you're calculating, like, am I going to fit in this environment, right? So when I was looking for postdocs, I actually was interviewed by this big person, the Endocrine Society, I will not name, and the work is amazing, papers, just amazing. I was so excited that they were like, you know, I want you to come to my lab. Talk to the lab members. All of the males said, this is the best. He's so supportive. He's this, he's that. It's amazing. We do this, we do that. All of the women, 100% of the women were like, I want to shoot myself. Like I cannot. And I'm sitting there going, huh, I'm a woman. What's probably going to happen if I go there, right? I had this war, though, because this is a big person, this is fantastic work. I was so excited, but I knew that was not going to be the right place for me, because I fit a category where 100% of that category had issues. So that's something to keep in mind, like to not be afraid to try to dig, and maybe you get context clues. Maybe you talk to, I talked to former lab members who were also female, who also had problems, and they had to get out, and they talked about their exits and everything. And so I'm just saying, it's challenging, but don't think that you need to match someone's personality. You just need to know, I know what I am, I know who I am, and I know when I need to succeed, and who's going to help me get there. And I will also say that we talked a lot about FLAIR, but there's also for clinicians in the room, EXCEL, which is the complementary. It's like FLAIR 2.0 for clinicians, and it's amazing as well. So I just wanted to plug that also. Thank you. And one of the things that I wanted to say really quickly is that around that point is, I think the model that Dr. Abel set up is really nice, because I use it in my laboratory, where there's a lot of different personalities. And one of the things that works really well for us is because they know the baseline for some of the things that I have in my personality. So there are some times where there'll be one time a week, maybe twice a week, a meeting in the evening time to recap, to kind of let everything know what's going on. But also at the same time, when we have new people come to the lab, we give them a trial period. So I give a one-year contract, and then the first six months, we just listen and watch, even if we think that they fit into the system. And then as I'm collecting notes, my staff scientist is really intensely talking to them, befriending them, and then they'll think nothing of it. But then she gives me like an entire list, what time they come in, when they were there, how they interacted with other people, what is going on, how did they work at a conference. And she even knows, like somebody, like today, she told me somebody had a cold in the lab. They already got a hospital slip to prove that that's the case. And then she gave them like the weekend off. Like that's how intense she is. But it's great, though, because it keeps me organized, and it allows for me to run the lab very smoothly. And so I tell people that, right? And then she tells people, like, you will be doing technician work. You will get to do your capstone project where you think, after you've proven, that you can do work. Like she tells people that, like when they're coming in, and that's true. And so those are the type of things that I let people know up front. I tell them I travel a lot. I'm not traveling as much now. You know, these are my boundaries. Do not cross these things. And it's important to have those discussions. So just feel open and honest. That's the best thing. Hi, really wonderful session. Actually, I have a question to Dr. Abel as well as Dr. Hinton. So what are the points need to be considered when you are transitioning from mentee to a mentor? So these points are really important. What are the problems that may happen, and how to deal with those situations? What are those situations out there? So that's what I want to know. Thank you. So when you're transitioning, one of the things is to have exposure. So in postdoc, Dr. Abel allowed me to mentor a lot of undergraduates. So most of them were outstanding, and some of them were okay, but I had to learn how to cultivate their passion so that they could reach their mark. And we also talked about failed experiences, too, because I had some of those. And although the majority of all my mentees were extremely successful, winning awards, best undergraduate award at Iowa and all that, there were challenging times. And so we discussed those. So one of those things was talking with my mentor about mentoring planning and how to individually mentor each individual student, and what is the personality, what were the traits that made them ambitious or not so ambitious, what were their goals, and then how we created an IDP plan around that, an individual development plan, so that we could be able to make sure that they met their competencies in training, their personal goals, what were they good at, what were their lesser strengths. And I had a mentoring compact with each of them as well. It was verbal, but now in my laboratory, I make it as written contracts. And then as a mentor now, I still reach out to people that are my mentors to really kind of talk over some situations. And I have a strong personality, so sometimes I take a couple of days before making any type of decision. That's one of the things I had to learn when I was transitioning from postdoc to faculty. You take a couple of days, you think it through, don't respond right away. And so that's really been really helpful. And the last thing I'll say is that leadership training and counseling really helps you to kind of figure out your stride for when you're able to become a mentor. So I would highly recommend those things. Yes, I endorse everything that AJ has said. I'm going to also add a couple of additional perspectives. I do agree that it is important as a mentee to seek out opportunities to do mentoring because as AJ said, you're going to learn things about yourself. Perhaps that's even more important than what you learn about others. But you learn about the things that are your sort of either pain points or trigger points or something like that that are going to happen. I can predict it will happen again, right, when you become a mentor. So I would say for all of the mentees in this room, even though your focus is on getting your work done, whether you're a grad student or a postdoc, you should also actively seek out opportunities to do some mentoring as well and actually use those as learning experiences that will then help you to develop your mentorship style. The second point I want to also raise is that that transition, say, from a postdoc to a PI, can actually be very traumatic at multiple levels, right, especially for those people who sort of have trained whether in a well-resourced lab or a well-resourced unit and then all of a sudden you get planted somewhere else and you have like four walls and benches and you have a view on the windows like, oh, I'm a PI now, right, and like, okay, right. And so during that or in the middle of that transition, it becomes even that much more important to reach out either to your prior mentor or your network because you're going to make some decisions early on and the likelihood of some of those early decisions not being the best decisions is probably a little higher early on than later on, right, and therefore, you know, don't try to be a lone cowboy about this, I'm a PI, I can make up, that's fine, you certainly can but, you know, be humble enough to realize that there is value in actually getting feedback from those that you trust that may help to sort of inform that decision and keep those lines of communication, particularly if something happens that is unexpected and now you have to either cope with it or deal with it, then I think, again, having those connections with others who have either had that lived experience before or can just give you some words of wisdom or something, I think becomes really important. So if I'm going to crystallize what I just said, especially as an early career individual, don't mentor alone because just as everything that we have said so far, you know, we are always on a journey, right, we've never ever learned everything that we believe that we should learn and similarly, you know, when you make that transition from mentor, from mentee to mentor, you're really at the beginning of a long process and you're also going to change in, you know, during that time as well. So I think it's important to be aware of that and then the last thing I'd say is, you know, there are formal mentorship programs, there are formal, and many institutions will have them, but there are formal programs that actually will help people who are aspiring to be mentors to be good mentors and I would say that I would encourage all of you to actually explore what those opportunities are within your local environment and sign up because you actually learn things that you weren't even aware of and certainly in my role as a, you know, department chief for a huge department, that it's pretty clear that there are individuals who just didn't get mentoring at all and oftentimes they come to your attention when something bad happens, like their dossier gets kicked back by the committee or, you know, they think they're ready for promotion, it's like, well, not really and so, in a sense, that's kind of on us to actually ensure that we need to really, you know, encourage the people who are at least on paper as their mentors to actually be doing what they're supposed to do and to ensure that they have the training to do it so that then the expectation of those who actually come and, like, trust themselves to you in various ways ultimately are fulfilled and accomplished. Hi, my name is Shafia. I'm just new to Endo. I'm into my second year of postdoc. I have this curious question of, I hear terms like postdoc. Then I hear terms like senior postdoc. So I would like to ask you, what is the timeline? Whom we call a senior postdoc? Like, what is the benchmark? Like, when does a mentor need to tell his mentee that, OK, you published four first author papers. Now you need to have your own independent lab. OK, what is the benchmark for that? Is it that the mentor should hope for, no, let's publish a CNS paper. Then you can be a separate, you can establish your independent lab. And what exactly decides that? Is it a person should be working as a postdoc? Or what are the benchmarks for that, that a person should, mentor, should realize that I should now push my son away? Or a son should tell his father, like, that I need to go out. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. I'll make a comment. I'm sure Aja has something to say as well. You raise a very good point about benchmarks. And it turns out that there really aren't, I mean, there are institutional boundaries around which they draw boxes around postdocs. It's not uniform across every institution. But there really are no benchmarks that will define who is senior and who is not so senior, et cetera. I mean, clearly somebody who's been around a long time is more senior than somebody who's been around less time. But for example, you'd have people coming into the postdocs with differing levels of whether experience, training, or accomplishment in certain skills. If somebody comes into the postdoc as really an excellent writer, for example, then they may have a publication written up and polished and ready to go after one year, right? Whereas there might be individuals who may need more development in that area. And so it actually takes them longer. So certainly in my group, I don't really use the term senior or early. I mean, because I think it's, you're a postdoc, you're a postdoc. If you're in it for one year or four years, that's where you are. To me, what's more important is what happens next. In many institutions, of course, they draw a box around this to make it no more than five years. So, you know, UCLA, University of Iowa, you could not be a postdoc for more than five years. And one reason why there are boundaries that are put around is because there's history of, I'm gonna say, just extensive abuse of human labor where people can be postdocs for almost like a career. Right? And really, you know, that is just not right. And that really violates the spirit of what being a postdoc is, which is really a transitionary time during which you're getting additional skills, perspectives, tools that will then prepare you for the next step, whatever that might be. Now, traditionally, this has been, okay, you're gonna go and become a professor or something in academia, but not necessarily. Because I think what many people sometimes don't realize is that if you actually look at the data from, say, the NSF, for example, that tracks this, that the majority of people who get PhDs and even the majority of people who get to postdocs, four, five, or 10 years later, are not necessarily in academia. But that doesn't mean that they have failed. Right? It just means that they have found the niche that actually really best exemplifies the skillsets and the experiences that they have. Right? But I guess, really, just to sort of answer your question, that, you know, somebody might say, yeah, someone's been in my lab for four years, is sort of senior. And sometimes in labs, it's like a hierarchy, because obviously, the more experience you have, then you can sort of, you know, become a mentor to somebody just joining the lab, et cetera. And, you know, those to me are informal expectations, that if you've been around a while and somebody's coming in, then yes, you should really help to orient the new person coming in. But I don't think it necessarily should create a hierarchy. I know that sometimes it does, and I've seen in certain situations where that can actually be a little bit destructive, because, you know, then you can have all these little, these little microcosms, these little kind of factions, and these little cliques, right? And especially in big labs. I mean, I've seen that happen, because I mentor a bunch of people, and they tell me stuff, right? And so I would say it really should be more informal and less structured. Some PIs actually will have a structure that's a little bit more rigid to say that, you know, we have a team of more senior people, and then we have a team of maybe earlier stage people. I think that could work if there are clear expectations, and it could also work if, you know, there's an understanding that it's not for the senior person to take advantage of the junior person, but really that this person is actually meant to be a mentor. So I would just look at that very carefully, whatever your circumstances are, to kind of understand what's the rationale for creating that hierarchy. Because I would argue that it probably shouldn't be that way, especially at the postdoc stage, when each individual person who's doing a postdoc really should be doing that, because they're getting on a runway that ultimately will define, you know, what they become next. And I left Dr. Abel's lab probably a year to two years too early. It was because I had a lot of accomplishments, but there were some things that were not where they needed to be for me to manage my team. So we came up with a mentoring plan to make sure that I would be effective at what I'm doing now. So, and there's always like tons of opportunities that come my way. And we even talk about like, is this the best opportunity for you now at this stage? Right? And so that's, I use the term senior postdoc, staff scientists, or general. I think you may be referring to maybe the Abra Kams presentation if you watched it. Like I have one general in the lab, then I have two like lieutenants per se. So Andrea is my general in my lab because she's a staff scientist and she's more senior. But then I have senior postdocs depending on how they are at the time. So it can change. So sometimes I have one person that's a senior postdoc. And when this individual doesn't do well, they get demoted. And they're not like the person that like I go to and depend on, right? And they know that, I tell them, you know? And so then there are days where other people are, you know, senior postdocs because they're reliable in a lot of different, you know, things or like they'll be reliable, get on a meeting to be able to do what needs to be done. So I will like, I'll introduce them. This is my senior postdoc. So my lab knows how I am. And I'm carefully telling them things without having to say too much. I've learned to use my words and the way that I do certain things as a way to let them know that they're doing well or they're not doing well. So for me, that's important because it lets them evaluate and think about things so that they can process what needs to be done. That is not the standard approach. That shouldn't be the standard approach for everybody. And then there are times where people may feel that they're ready, even when I know they're not ready. So I have two individuals in my laboratory that think they're ready to be on the faculty market and they have no clue what it really takes. it's just, it's not her. But there's much more than just having the science ready. And that is the part where it's clearly important to get the mentorship. And so that's what I'm trying to expose those two postdocs to now, because of the network, the political part is the most important thing. And then writing the grants are highly more important than anything else, because you can't use my name and you can't use Dr. Abel's name to get a grant. I also learned that also when I was in my own lab, I have many cry sessions with Dr. Abel about, well, this didn't work the way I want it to. And I caution you all that comment about well-resourced because it's very important, because I used to spend a lot of money in Dr. Abel's lab and just wouldn't even think about it. But now I think about every dollar, penny, cent, half a cent in my laboratory. So just think of it. I'm bankrupt now, by the way. I know. How can a mentee nurture the mentor-mentee relationship? Rukaiya, UTRGV. How can a mentor mentor the mentor-mentee relationship? You want to answer? Okay, so, nurturing, right? So, I think one thing that I would say is be yourself. So, if you're the mentor or you're the mentee, don't try to change who you are to bend. Because, like Dr. Abel said, he's had the whole spectrum. And if he tried to bend and be someone different for each person, right? Like, that's exhausting. And so, one thing that I've learned, and this has happened to me in my own situation, is where, you know, someone will come in and then you'll be like, I'm going to be this type of mentor because that person wants this type of mentor. And it's like, that didn't work. Because you know who you are. They know who they are. And if it's not a match, it's just not going to work, right? And so, one, be yourself. Two, they've been talking about listening. And so, the other part of that is communicating. So, your mentor can't read your mind. And as a mentor, you can't read your mentee's mind. If neither one of you are talking but also saying what you really feel and doing the listening part and everything, if you're not talking about it, if you don't tell your mentor, I want to be out in four years, and then they go, hmm, I don't know about that. But then there's a conversation, and you've started that conversation, right? And so, just making sure that you're being true to yourself, you're thinking about what you want, you're thinking ahead, and you're communicating that. And in a respectful way, even if you disagree, you're starting the conversations so that you can do that listening and you can do that. And that's how you nurture, right? And I think it's just connecting, like making connections. This is a long term. It can be a long term. I'm still very good friends. I still reach out to my PhD mentor. The first thing she told me when I met her was, we have the same birthday. And I was like, oh, my God, I love you. I want to work with you, right? So we still text each other on our birthday, right? And I still go to her when I have questions about things, even though she's retired, right? So she talks me through things when I have questions. And so, all you're trying to do is connect. It's not this big. When we talk about networking, when we talk about mentoring, you're connecting. You're doing this one-on-one thing. You're making a connection with another human that you can have for the rest of your career, the rest of your life even, you know? And so, just thinking about it in terms of that makes it less daunting, I think. 100% agree. I'd also, you know, be present, right? There's a presence to this nurturing as well, right? I mean, there are some people who like to keep to themselves. But don't keep to yourself to such an extent that your mentor has to start wondering, like, where is so-and-so today? Or what is so-and-so up to? Because the brain does funny things, right? And the brain starts to connect dots that it shouldn't be connecting, etc., right? And so, I think that having this presence, you know, figure out what you think is the right cadence of interaction, but don't be upset. Because you could be doing amazing work, but if that interaction isn't happening, if it's not sort of structured in a way, then it's much more difficult to actually nurture that relationship. I agree, and I will add to that also. As a mentee, I think this open line of communication is so important to echo what both of them said. I learned that there was some cultural humility that I had to gain because my grad school mentor was of a different culture. And so, his line of communication was not only being in the lab all the time, but also he wanted to know every detail, every single detail. Okay, if this didn't work, how did it not work? And so, if I didn't communicate where I fell behind, it was as if I was absentee in the communication. And once I realized that, then that effect of communication led to a better relationship. And I think so, as a mentee, we have to figure out what the mentor is relaying to us, even if it's not said. So, we have to understand it a little bit more. And then, so I use that same style when I mentor, like, our summer students that we have right now. What do you like in a mentor? Is it okay if we talk every other day, or is this off-putting for you? And so, I kind of gauge how they are, and you do have to adjust a tad, but two personalities, but it's still structured between all four of them that I have, that I'm making sure that we have this open line of communication. Tell me what worked, what didn't work. How can I better support you or reteach certain techniques so that you can feel confident to do it on your own? So, that's just my two cents. Sometimes cultural humility and competencies plays a role in that communication as well. Nurturing is kind of, I have, like, six postdocs and two staff scientists and a bunch of other people in the lab, and one of the things is I tried to immediately emulate what Dr. Abel did, but it's a little too much. But we've talked about downsizing. But anyway, the point is that when you're nurturing, sometimes if you don't have the time for somebody, I wouldn't ask for that person to be in my laboratory, so I'm right at my max capacity. And nurturing means in a team. So, I usually do things in a team. So, my lab knows that they can work in the morning, night, evening, and I don't care. I'll just call you to ask, like, during the week, like, hey, how did this go? Did you get back to this person? And that's kind of the extent of things. And then the only time I ask is when we're, like, doing papers. Like, everybody has a list of things that they know they need to do, and they just go down the list, and they tell me how their product's developing and things like that. So, there's not this pressure of trying to force them to do certain things. In some cases, I'm the bad cop in the relationship of the trainee. So, I have two people like that, and then I have another mentor that's the good cop. So, you have to know each trainee differently, and then what your expectations of are them. And it brings out the best in them, and then you're rooting for them secretly, like, even though you might be the bad cop. And it's actually a different thing than I'm kind of used to. So, each relationship is new, you know, and different. Because I've usually always been the good cop. Like, you can do it, but it's kind of fun being the bad cop. Oh, my gosh. Question there. and in a role as trying to develop as a mentor. And so I want to ask, because I recognize that this is primarily a group of minority professions, and so it's bringing a question that maybe is a totally different topic. But I have experience with, for example, a medical student that I was with that tremendous, this issue of microaggressions, and then a specific situation in which that individual was studying with a group and the little van that was going to pick them up. It was wintertime in Cleveland, Ohio, snowing, and he had to walk two miles because, obviously, the driver looked at him. And I've really been at a loss. Some younger peers of mine that are in other specialties have told me about significant barriers that they're encountering in our institution and that previous people have tried to address a systemic thing, and it's destroyed their career. And so it is this question of allyship and also in recognizing sometimes informally someone who's experiencing microaggression, whether there's any thoughts and suggestions there, both supportive as well as ideas of actions or things to suggest in an indirect way at our institution or department to address these issues. So I usually am not one to shy away from talking about any particular issue. First, thank you for your question. If you all do not know what a microaggression is, it's usually something that may be a stereotypical view that has been kind of set as a norm in society around a certain group, regardless of whether they're, you know, white, black, any particular color, ethnicity, race, or creed, or sexual orientation. So it may be something that is like that, and sometimes it's derogatory, or sometimes it can be kind of a small insult or directly aggression, which would be a macroaggression. So let's talk about that. So one thing that I think about is that you have to be willing to get in the game. And regardless of the context of is it going to hurt your career or not, I look at things in the form of excellence. If you're excellent, and everybody in your lab is excellent, and you hold your lab to that standard, I'm not a willing, I'm not afraid to fight for other people. So although Vanderbilt is an excellent institution, there are times where people come to my green chair and are talking about, you know, this professor did this, or this professor did that. And I go talk to that professor, but not to accuse, but to kind of have a conversation, right? And then eventually bring in that student and talk about it. And that may not always be the case for some faculty in here. So what are the lines of communication that you can do? One is you can get bystander training to be able to know how to approach the issue if you see it head on while it's there. That's the first thing. Then the second thing is, if in the context that you want to be more invested in culturally aware mentorship, that's what it's called. Angela Byers Winston and Kristen Funn do that, and that's through SIMR training. And so NMRN also has some resources. They used to grade mentors on like, you know, culturally aware mentor, like level one, all the way up to master mentor, which would be like around 10 years. So I would start with SIMR. NMRN's not doing that particular set of training anymore, particularly, but it's still good training. And then at your institution, the diversity office, the postdoc and graduate office, should have an ombudsman to be able to help navigate certain situations like that. And if they do not, that individual that's in that office is usually responsible for mitigating some of these challenging topics. Now, if you're not directly involved and it's the context of your trainee, that can be tough. So one of the things is to take a couple of days truly to think about the issue before approaching it, because there's always two sides to an issue, regardless if that person looks like you or feels a certain way, because you have to think about the political landscape. You also have to think about the impact of certain things and you need to pick a trusted person to talk to about those issues. And then I feel like I have a little weight only because of him. So sometimes like when I was in his lab, I would take a little bit more risks, but we would talk about why I took a risk. Now that I'm on my own, I take calculated risk. To what I think is calculated. And so it's a really hard subject and no one's gonna be perfect at it. And another thing, this is my last point. Hey, Melanie. That's one of my best friends in science. Sorry. And then one of the things is that you have to think about from an angle of microaggressions can happen to anybody. So us that are minorities, we also can have microaggressions towards individuals of the majority or a European background. So we also have to think about that as well. So microaggressions can go both ways. And so we don't want to guilt trip the sponsors that we may have in spaces that are around that are not like us. So we have to be calculated. So that's why it's important to have trusted people that you talk to about things before making an act of doing certain things. I would also just also add and this really ties back into what we discussed before in terms of having multiple mentors is that I think it's really important to have a safe space that you can actually describe the experience that you had for a couple of reasons. One, that space allows you to really hear what you probably couldn't hear elsewhere. Secondly, it also begins a process of trying to actually brainstorm around what the next step should be. One of the things that AJ said is sometimes the impulse to react and I completely understand that. And you also raised the issue of doing something that could be career destroying because then you could then be subject to retaliation depending on how you actually confronted that circumstance that sometimes really makes sense to have others that you can kind of talk through. And then I would also say that there is parts of these conversations actually can also become training in terms of how to begin to actually diplomatically learn how to address a microaggression in a way that is not your microaggressing back, right? In a way that actually will cause somebody to actually stop and think about what they just said or what they just did because of the way in which you provided a thoughtful response that got them to pause as you say, well, huh, I actually didn't, or whether or not they are able to do that, but they may at least think that. I actually didn't realize that what I was saying or doing was having this impact. But again, that is something that actually has to be learned and almost to a certain extent rehearsed because it cannot come across as reactive because oftentimes the reaction sometimes just plays into the stereotype of the angry than just fill in the blank, right? So I think that that's another word of advice that I can give in terms of really how to respond to these circumstances. I've been the victim of microaggressions in all kinds of very interesting places. And actually, I actually have fun now responding because sometimes I kind of mess with people's head and you can see that their head is like being bent as I'm responding and they're like saying, this person's responding like I thought they would have responded, right? And, but again, it just comes from learning not to like react when everything is telling you I could hit somebody right now, but it's actually not reacting, but responding in a way that somebody will immediately know what happened. Thank you. Nice, I just wanna put in a brief plug that AJ, Megan, Bethea and Shredda Golden did a session, an hour and a half session yesterday on navigating microaggressions. I don't know if it was recorded or not. AJ, can people review that afterwards? I don't know, but you can, it was? Okay, good. Cause I was gonna say, I can plug you to some papers and citations. Okay, so that would be a longer, you got the 10 minute version, but the hour and a half version is available too. Okay, yeah. I don't know, maybe a complaint. So, okay, so I'm a mentee, I'm a fourth year PhD student right now at Duke University. And currently, I have a great relationship with my mentor. That's not the case with other lab members. And some of them think that there is a little bit of discrimination. And I'm not sure why is that, because I have a great relationship, right? So it seems like you guys have a great relationship with each other. And I'm sure there might have been, like sure and might, that doesn't sound right, but I'm sure like there are, it's not always that all your students or mentees are happy with you. And we had another example. So I guess I want to say, is there a way, I know it's hard, but is there a way that things can be normalized a little bit more? I feel like everything after undergrad becomes so much just variable, depending on which lab you go into, depending on your personality, depending on which university you are into, what kind of science you are doing. It's just so many variables. And, but the matrix in which your worth is defined is kind of still the same. Mostly publications, grants, resources. So is there a way we can normalize things so that when you are looking for jobs or opportunities, it's not just like, oh, how many papers did you publish? What if you had zero publications? But it's not like you were not smart, you were not hardworking, right? It's just the situations were different. You had different variables compared to other people who you are, I guess, competing with. So are there like efforts being made in that field? I personally don't see much, but not that I have so much experience. So I don't know, it was not a question, it's just things that I'm noticing, not only in my lab, but in the whole department, not only in the department, in other universities. I have friends in US, in Israel, in India, in Germany, and everyone have just such different feedback, different experiences. Some of my friends who are also fourth years are graduating. I don't think I'll be graduating anytime soon. I know people who are in their seventh year of PhD and are like, huh, I really want to graduate, but I'm not sure. So, just. That was a lot of questions, but we'll go through each of them. Again, I don't know if it was a question. No, it's a great point. Yeah, I can answer, go ahead. Okay, sorry. Most of the mentors, they're like, oh yeah, I'm not perfect, but I'm trying my best. Is that enough? Also. Okay, let's start there with your questions. Let's start there. It's great questions, it's great questions. So, one of the things is, I know everybody hears a lot about the relationship that I have with Dr. Abel, but you know I'm not the best in his lab. I'm probably mediocre at best. I'm gonna be honest, because when I was in his lab, I would also hear about the other people that weren't in his lab that were excellent, but I got to experience the ones that were there that were extremely excellent. And he didn't treat me any different being in the middle of the pack compared to the others that were in the high, high tier category. And actually, some of the high, high tier ones that are in the category, they're my best allies, because it taught you to be humble. So, one of the things that I really like about Dr. Abel's laboratory, when I was in his laboratory, I feel like a little bit, I like to be in it still, but is that there was always discussions around excellence and how to achieve that and how we helped each other to achieve that. And then we learned from one another what it was like to be at a certain stage and then progress. So, to make it the preface to conversation is that you don't have to be the best person to be able to receive the same equal amount of mentorship from someone. And I think that it's also maybe kind of people are looking outward and comparing one another. You have to look with inward to be able to figure out what it is that you want to achieve. And that requires certain tools and mentorship, like an IDP plan, a mentoring contract. So, that's the first thing. I'm only gonna answer one question because, and then they'll answer other questions. Yeah. I'm just gonna say something here. So, we have been hearing a lot about how things were great at Dr. Abel's lab for years. I wanna hear what was not great and so you said you were probably better, which means there are people who would, you said people who were more excellent, but what are the characters that defines that and say. Right. Yeah, no. So, obviously, you know, one lab is not necessarily representative of all labs, right? And, you know, I think that what I think what I'm hearing you say is really there has to be a culture of, you know, mutual respect that, you know, one isn't valued on the basis of kind of who delivered what yesterday or who's working on the hottest paper, blah, blah, blah, but really that everybody brings value to the group. And, you know, speaking, for example, to what you described in your particular circumstance where I think you said that, you know, you have a good relationship with your PI, but others in the lab might not, right? Then the question then is, you know, is that a symptom of something, right? And, first of all, is the PI, I mean, I guess the PI must have some awareness of the fact that their relationships are not the same, number one. Number two, you know, what is driving that? And thirdly, you know, what is that doing to the dynamics within the group? And sometimes, again, it depends on the circumstance. I mean, it depends on the power dynamic, but it sounds to me that as a peer group of people in the lab that you kind of all know what's going on in terms of who is in good with somebody and who is not in good with somebody else. So, you guys know that, right? And so, the question then becomes, is there the courage to actually, as a group, have a conversation with PI, right? Not in an accusatory way, but really in an open-ended way to actually have those kinds of discussions. Non-scientific, it's not a lab meeting, it's not, you know, having a conversation about lab culture, right? But do it, I would say, in a group setting because then it's not, no single person theoretically can be like, you know, who instigated this kind of thing, right? So, you know, to the extent to which I think it's bothering you a little bit, that's because you have brought it up to this group of strangers, then, you know, I would say take the conversation around the water cooler that I'm sure all the trainees are having and really ask, okay, how can we sit down with the mentor and have a discussion about culture? It takes courage, but I think as a group, if there's kind of consensus, I would encourage you to have that. Well, it's time. Before we end, I want to mention several things. One is please attend to the minority mentoring poster reception that is just, it's W190, yeah. What? One W, so just on this corridor here? On this corridor, yeah, the other side, I think. Is that right, Nikita? 190, is that? 190? Yeah. Okay. This way. All of us follow each other. Yeah. The second thing that I want to mention is that if you see all the collegiality here is that we have something in common, all of us, or we're part of FLIR or guide in FLIR, so really thank you for the FLIR program. Thank you for the FLIR program, to all of the things. They are telling me in the back that please fill your evaluation that is in the table. It's very, very important. That's right. They got everything. That's right. Yes, please fill the evaluation. I was looking at hand signals. I was like, what did she think about? And before you go from here or during here to the reception, we need to have networking, so please take the email, social media, whatever, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter of one of your neighbors that you don't know because you don't know in the future where these people are going to be and probably that connection will help you, so please just try to get one person at least in this session, and I want to thank a lot to Lindsey, Joshua, Heather, AJ, and Dr. Abel for this amazing conversation. You can continue talking with them. Meanwhile, we're walking to the reception. Thank you. One last thing. Is your promotion official? Is it official, your promotion? Okay. All right. Bye.

mentoring relationships

support

encouragement

diverse mentoring teams

sponsors

career development

open communication

transitioning

individualized mentorship plans

inclusive environment

culture of mutual respect

individual goals

effective mentorship