7

Taking Stock:
Takeaways from Day 1 and Launching Day 2

To begin the final day of the workshop, planning committee vice chair Timothy Akers, Morgan State University, summarized key issues he heard from the previous day. He then facilitated a discussion with Michael Drake, president of the University of California, who shared perspectives with Akers and other planning committee members as a well-established scientific leader.

RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS SESSIONS

Akers began by noting the common theme of building relationships across the workshop. He urged consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion as an important aspect of scientific leadership, as brought up by several presenters. As underscored in the first session with scientific leaders (see Chapter 2), raising awareness about the need for responsible conduct of research (RCR) is pivotal, beginning with young scientists. He noted that in his own experience, some research leaders educated him well on RCR and others did not. He also brought forward the point that effective leaders and teams will create tensions that must be dealt with and not dismissed.

Focusing on RCR in the context of cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, he noted the presenters in Session 2 shared many worthwhile efforts, but the challenge remains in how to make them sustainable and institutionalized (see Chapter 3). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine may have a role in building a base to

do so, he suggested. He also observed, throughout this and other sessions, the discussions about best practices, rewards and incentives, and involvement of historically underrepresented groups in RCR through leadership and mentorship.

Culture can be influenced and propagated from the top, as raised in Session 3 with federal agency representatives when they described funding several large-scale and transdisciplinary projects (Chapter 4). Institutionalization of professional development for leaders is needed, which he commented, speaking as a research administrator, concerns how to put policies, procedures, and methods into practice. This calls for bringing the social and organizational sciences into the fold, as discussed in Session 4 (Chapter 5). He noted the point about distinguishing between leadership and management, as well as the importance of theories of leadership. As discussed in Session 5 (Chapter 6), core values, including honesty and integrity, drive RCR. Scientific leaders must connect their activities with these values.

When he asked fellow planning committee members for additional comments, Susan Wolf, University of Minnesota, asked colleagues to think about next steps after the workshop. She reflected interest in the National Academies in advancing awareness of the issues facing leaders at different scales, noting that some resources already exist. As the number and complexity of expectations for leaders increase from funders, regulators, and other sources, she said determining a role for the National Academies would be exciting.

WHAT’S AT STAKE FOR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND THE BROADER ENTERPRISE

Akers then welcomed Michael Drake in an online conversation. Drake began by concurring with the importance of talking about research integrity and how leaders can model behaviors and create the institutions that support and keep integrity at the highest level. Akers asked him about creating a culture of excellence and integrity so that people from all cultures, disciplines, and career levels feel part of a team. In his own experience, Akers related, the enthusiasm and dedication of the leader of a lab made the experiences most successful. He said he often hears from graduate students that they value being respected, and he noted the importance of site visits by funders for junior scientists. Drake agreed that these visits excite the members of a lab. Related to respect, he suggested that young researchers want to know they have a pathway to their future. Students who are dis-

couraged early on, especially those who come from less research-enriched backgrounds, often change their pathways. He criticized the attitude that if a person is struggling, they are unworthy, which is what can come through in barrier courses that “weed people out.” Students from underrepresented backgrounds must be welcomed into new places with the message that they will be successful. Furthermore, the message that a person of color or from an underrepresented background who is interested in research is an anomaly is not encouragement, he commented. Akers agreed with the imperative not to let students fall through the cracks or to use courses as gatekeepers to keep them out. When students feel they are involved and have mentors, they become excited and can become the research leaders of tomorrow.

When Akers asked for examples of how diversity can contribute to research excellence, Drake recounted the value when a diverse team goes on medical rounds in getting a fuller view of a patient. As an instructive analogy, he described an exercise at a team-building retreat in which the facilitator flashed 50 images on a screen for a few seconds. Each person could remember six or seven images—but, significantly, everyone saw something that no one else had seen. The whole could see far more than the individual members. This applies in a lab setting, he added. A group looking at a problem from different perspectives and experiences will see things in a different way. Young people often ask particularly provocative questions, he added, since those more experienced may be less willing to ask these types of questions. Diversity makes the lab experience more exciting.

Akers asked about how leaders can positively impact younger researchers. Drake commented on a recent meeting with University of California graduate students. An agenda item was on the importance of mentorship, including how to encourage effective mentorship. He observed that the students come from diverse backgrounds, which is positive for labs, institutions, and broader society, and most do not have full self-confidence when they start something new, including joining a lab. Imposter syndrome is normal, he tells them, and should occur when one is stretched. Mentors can help show the path forward when they are invested in student success. Drake commented that he did not have Black leaders to look to as he developed in his career. Now young people and emerging leaders have more diverse leaders to see as they develop their own pathway, whether in academia, in industry, in the community, or elsewhere.

Opening the discussion to the rest of the committee and participants, Wolf acknowledged there will be failures of research leaders in any system. Emphasizing the role of modeling good behavior, Drake distinguished

between two types of failure. There are major failures that are career- or institution-damaging but also smaller failures that are necessary to learn. How small and early failures are treated is important for innovation and moving forward. Without encouragement and guidance, when those who feel they are not “normal” in the laboratory space have these smaller failures, they may feel they are not suited for the work. That is the type of failure that must be redirected. For big failures, such as through a lapse of integrity or ethics, mentoring is critical. He recalled advice from one of his medical school mentors: be a good colleague and build relationships and friends, and do not commit acts of moral turpitude, as they will derail your career. He has watched both pieces of advice play out over the years.

What the National Academies can do, Drake suggested, is to find ways to model these principles and behaviors. As an analogy, as university president, he spends time on First Amendment issues. In a meeting with the university’s Free Speech Center, the need to continually reinforce and model what the First Amendment allows and does not allow was stressed. Similarly, the National Academies, through monographs, symposia, and other means, must continually reinforce the importance of research integrity and the pathway to achieve it, he suggested. One participant observed that some leaders who behave badly but are well funded seem to be protected. Drake commented that he has seen this challenging situation but posited that systems are changing. He noted that these leaders often get leeway and may be more feared than respected. He suggested there may be fewer of them than a generation ago, in part because diversity is helping build better organizations. This generation is modeling more inclusive behaviors than the more sink-or-swim mentality of the past, he said.