Nature’s mentoring awards are open for nominations from India.     Recommended articles The lives of female scientists in India are being chronicled online India’s Commitment to Science Begins to Pay Off   Maria Mitchell, the first woman to become a professional astronomer in the United States, was one; so was materials scientist Mildred Dresselhaus, the ‘Queen of carbon science’. In common with many scientists, they desired to be mentors, guiding the next generation with no expectation of return. The concept of a mentor, indeed the word itself, can be traced at least as far back as Homer’s Odyssey. In the ancient Greek epic, the wisdom goddess Athena took the form of a man called Mentor to assume the guardianship of the young prince Telemachus while his father, Odysseus, was away fighting the Trojan War. Athena’s Mentor was not only Telemachus’s protector, but also his educator and guide. Mentoring is one aspect of good research supervision. But it doesn’t always happen, as a 2018 Nature survey on laboratory life showed. A majority of the survey’s respondents wanted more support for mentoring and managing. The lack of mentoring is also among the reasons for the global rise of organized doctoral-training academies, where PhD candidates learn in groups, and where they can access scholarly experience and expertise in addition to that of their main supervisor. Some employers recognize mentoring: a number of learned societies have formal schemes that assign mentors to trainees, for example. So do scholarly publishers, through their global trade association, STM. Nature gives its own annual awards for excellence in mentoring. These awards, now in its 15th year, are again open for nominations for two prizes: one for a mid-career mentor and the other for a lifetime of achievement in mentoring. Each year, the awards recognize mentors from a different country or region; the 2019 edition invites nominations from India, which produced 24,300 PhD graduates in 2014, the fourth-highest number in the world after the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. The deadline for applications is 6 October. There’s no set formula for mentoring, as past winners of Nature’s awards have themselves said. Furthermore, the needs of young researchers are evolving as their environment changes. Many relatively new skills needed in research careers, such as the ability to conform to performance-management systems and run multidisciplinary research groups, would not have been relevant to some mentors earlier in their careers. But there are a number of ways in which researchers can benefit from the experience of mentors. In addition to being a sounding board, all good mentors should be willing, where they can, to provide learning opportunities — including the chance to learn from failure. Mentors and trainees must both appreciate the value of celebrating success and of constructive criticism. And neither should see the role mainly as a ticket to prestigious speaking invitations, or to boosting publications and impact scores. At all times, the relationship needs to be one of trust and mutual respect, and of open and transparent communication. That mentors should not expect to benefit makes outside support for mentoring all the more important. Funders and institutions would do well to invest more in mentorship training. Mentoring and mentorship could also be formally recognized as part of researcher evaluation. For recipients of mentoring, the opportunity to share successes and talk through challenges with an experienced professional can be invaluable. For mentors, it is an opportunity to promote scholarship through the generations. Acquiring the skills to become a good mentor takes time, an ever more precious commodity in researchers’ lives. But for mentors and would-be mentors, investment in learning will be worth the effort.   If you have a career story that you'd like to share, then please complete this form, or send your outline by email.

Academic staff disagree on the merits, and the downsides, of scrapping a common year-long probation scheme. Academic researchers and administrators in India are debating the benefits of adopting a tenure-track system similar to that of the United States in Indian research institutes and universities. A few, including the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, are already using the system, whereas others, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, have a probationary-period process. Under that scheme, the performance of new faculty members is assessed after one year by a review committee, often comprised of department heads and institutional administrators. Some scientists are calling for the nationwide adoption of a five-year tenure-track review structure. After around five years, research faculty members are reviewed on the basis of their publications and funding received. Teaching ability and service to the institution usually have a supporting role. If the candidate is granted tenure, they receive a permanent appointment. If they are not, the appointment is terminated. Under the probationary system in India, research faculty members who receive a positive assessment at the end of their first year are given permanent positions as assistant professors. After another five years, they can apply to become associate professors — a position with higher rank and pay. If they are unsuccessful, however, their appointments are not terminated. Faculty members can stay at their institutions as assistant professors until they retire. Those who endorse the tenure-track system say that the probationary system allows low-performing researchers to remain in their posts. “How do we ensure that quick appointments to a very well paid, highly privileged and permanent position does not encourage complacency?” asks ecologist Vishwesha Guttal, who was awarded tenure in 2016 at the Indian Institute of Science, five years after he was hired. The issue of tenure-track versus one-year probation has sparked discussion and debate among academic scientists in India, partly in response to an interview published in June in the newspaper Hindustan Times with Jayant Udgaonkar, director of the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research in Pune. In the interview, he advocated adopting the tenure-track system nationally. His comments followed the release of a draft policy in May by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which oversees higher education in India, recommending a gradual national adoption of the tenure-track system. The ministry could not be reached for comment. Udgaonkar, a biochemist, says that it is difficult to properly assess a researcher’s progress in a single year. He thinks that the tenure-track system provides scientific accountability and allows a candidate who has been given strong support and regular feedback to receive a comprehensive assessment at the end of five or sometimes seven years. But many do not agree. Theoretical physicist Arvind, director at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research campus in Mohali, says that a five-year tenure track will increase job insecurity and put pressure on new faculty members to pursue only short-term research goals during that period. “Academia requires stability,” he says, adding that there is a paucity of fallback options for candidates who don’t make the cut. India has few second- or third-tier research institutions where a scientist whose bid for tenure is rejected elsewhere can seek another appointment, and few commensurate industry positions. Institutional support, easy access to equipment and resources, and timely disbursal of government grant funds have long been sore points in Indian academia; they have also been a talking point in discussions about adopting a tenure system. Gagandeep Kang, an academic gastroenterologist and executive director of the Translational Health Science and Technology Institute in Faridabad, says that institutions and government need to improve access to funding and resources to level the playing field for researchers who are up for tenure and allow for a more-rigorous review process. Ramaswamy Subramanian, a structural biologist and director of the Bindley Bioscience Center at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, says that if tenure is adopted, the process will need to be uniformly objective and fair. Subramanian, who has held tenured positions in Sweden and the United States, points out that tenure-review committee members in India, usually senior scientists and administrators, are likely to lack personal experience of the process. A nationwide system is unlikely to be adopted soon, predicts Arvind. “Each institution is autonomous,” he says. “There may, at best, be suggestions that the governing boards of individual institutions can then consider.”   If you have a career story that you'd like to share, then please complete this form, or send your outline by email.