The following is an assessment of Case 3.7, and the mentor/mentee interaction. The graduate advisor Ron Archer is a mentor for a predoctoral student named Gordon Polk. One day, Gordon approached Ron enthusiastically about his transformative findings of a enzyme’s properties. For the sake of credibility, Ron requested that Gordon redo the experiment. Later, Gordon reperformed the experiment, and returned to Ron with the same results. Before going forward with the findings due to their implications, Ron decides he needs an independent investigator for the findings. For that reason, Ron reaches out to another predoctoral student is his laboratory to repeat the experiment without notifying Gordon. The predoctoral student is ordered not to discuss
…show more content…
Ron should also order the pre-doctoral student from continuing the experiment that was assigned to Gordon. The two of them should then discuss where their relationship stands as a mentor and mentee, and deliberate why Ron initially made that decision. From here, Ron should oversee the experiment design to confirm Gordons findings. Once this is done, Ron and Gordon should reevaluate where they stand as mentor and mentee. This should be done so that trust can be rebuilt between the both of them. This approach is independent of my views, I personally support Ron’s actions. Although, they are unethical for mentorship, I understand his motivations. In some the mentor/mentee relationship it is implied that as a mentor you should up hold your mentee’s interest over the interest of the lab as a whole. Ron found that Gordons finding were novel enough to warrant a redo in experimentation. It is very reasonable to want verifications on findings that could have revolutionary impacts before they are announced. The last thing you want is an over zealous predoctoral student to be responsible for a loss in credibility and funding in your lab. One of Ron’s primary responsibilities is the integrity of his lab. His motivations to find reproducibility outside of Gordon is justifiable, his behavior to get this accomplished is what was unethical for
Ron should also order the pre-doctoral student from continuing the experiment that was assigned to Gordon. The two of them should then discuss where their relationship stands as a mentor and mentee, and deliberate why Ron initially made that decision. From here, Ron should oversee the experiment design to confirm Gordons findings. Once this is done, Ron and Gordon should reevaluate where they stand as mentor and mentee. This should be done so that trust can be rebuilt between the both of them. This approach is independent of my views, I personally support Ron’s actions. Although, they are unethical for mentorship, I understand his motivations. In some the mentor/mentee relationship it is implied that as a mentor you should up hold your mentee’s interest over the interest of the lab as a whole. Ron found that Gordons finding were novel enough to warrant a redo in experimentation. It is very reasonable to want verifications on findings that could have revolutionary impacts before they are announced. The last thing you want is an over zealous predoctoral student to be responsible for a loss in credibility and funding in your lab. One of Ron’s primary responsibilities is the integrity of his lab. His motivations to find reproducibility outside of Gordon is justifiable, his behavior to get this accomplished is what was unethical for