After reading the MIT students\u2019 suggestions, three Brazilian researchers honored by the Nature<\/em> Awards for Mentoring in Science in 2021 reflected on what they consider good practices, highlighting the need to give students autonomy. Launched in 2005, the annual award recognizes researchers that offer \u201coutstanding scientific guidance\u201d to early-career researchers. Every year, a different region or country is chosen to receive the award. In 2021, Brazil was the selected location.<\/p>\n \u201cI delegate a lot of responsibility to my students, who have to take control of planning their projects from the very start. I give them ideas, I\u2019m open to dialogue, and I demand their presence in the lab, but at the same time I do not control their schedules. I encourage them to make their own decisions. Autonomy is essential,\u201d explains Carlos Menck, a geneticist from the Institute of Biomedical Sciences (ICB) at the University of S\u00e3o Paulo (USP) and one of the 2021 recipients of the Nature<\/em> award. Over the course of his 40-year career, Menck has supervised 37 doctoral and 14 master\u2019s students, in addition to 15 postdoctoral fellowships. He is currently advising 10 students. \u201cMutual respect is also essential. The advisor and advisee both need to feel that the relationship is working. It\u2019s a bit like a marriage,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Alessandra Filardy, head of the Cellular Immunology Laboratory at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), was another researcher awarded in 2021. She says that respectful relationships are based on an understanding that students should be treated as professionals, even if they are at the beginning of their academic careers. \u201cThat’s why I always try to contact them during business hours and avoid sending them emails at the weekend, as well as encouraging them to take vacations,\u201d she highlights. For Filardy, another premise of working together is autonomy, with advisees encouraged to carry out experiments several times until they get it right. \u201cI try not to interfere, so that they learn from their mistakes. I only limit their attempts if they start to become very costly,\u201d she explains.<\/p>\n Filardy is currently supervising three undergraduates, two master’s students, two PhD students, a postdoctoral fellow, and a nurse conducting scientific research at her laboratory. She holds individual and group meetings every week. \u201cIn individual meetings, I address the more specific technical issues and listen to problems or concerns about the future in the academic environment or the student\u2019s personal life. In group meetings, students present published articles and data that they intend to share at conferences, exchanging knowledge with their peers, which also helps advance their research.\u201d<\/p>\n The immunologist, who does not work in the lab on a daily basis, also likes to include advisees in discussions about administrative decisions, encouraging them to monitor the financial resources needed for their studies and what they spend on each project or piece of equipment. \u201cMy team of advisees is responsible for passing on technical knowledge to new students, while I focus on managing joint work. I\u2019m always there to solve problems, whether technical or administrative in nature,\u201d says Filardy, who tries to talk to all lab members before making decisions. She believes this type of dialogue encourages the development of a collaborative environment. \u201cProductivity at work derives from collaboration, not competition,\u201d she stresses. Another strategy she uses is to publicly praise her students, reserving criticism for private conversations to avoid embarrassment.<\/p>\n She also tries to encourage students to complete their education in the lab, even if their final objective is not a career in academia. \u201cI try to show students that scientific research is not only important to those wishing to pursue an academic career\u2014it also opens doors in industry and business,\u201d she explains. By way of example, she tells the story of a student she advised who planned to leave university after completing their master’s degree but changed their mind after receiving an invitation to continue in the lab to do a PhD. \u201cNow, this student is doing a postdoc under my guidance and is one of my main research partners,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n Currently supervising six undergraduates, five master’s students, 11 PhD students, and a postdoctorate, Waldiceu Verri, a pharmacologist from the Biological Sciences Center at the State University of Londrina (UEL), sees the role of an advisor as an active teaching methodology, an idea that facilitates dialogue with inexperienced students. \u201cThe amount of pressure I put on each student depends on their individual personality,\u201d says Verri, another of the Brazilian researchers awarded by Nature<\/em> in 2021. The pharmacologist monitors the experiments carried out by his students at the Biological Sciences Center\u2019s lab on a daily basis, occasionally taking the opportunity to discuss their successes and failures, in addition to the results.<\/p>\n When he cannot keep an eye on the experiments in person, he asks his advisees for regular updates. \u201cI like to be present, especially before and during the experiment, to ensure good planning and execution. I try to help my students develop their research path, but without imposing on their decisions. I think this helps them structure their own critical thinking.\u201d When experiments are unsuccessful, Verri suggests changing one element at a time before redoing them, to identify the cause of the error by process of elimination. \u201cI also encourage and support students to do a sandwich PhD, so that they can expand their repertoire and benefit from unique experiences,\u201d says Verri.<\/p>\n \u201cMany students complain about a lack of effective guidance in their academic career. The few studies carried out on this topic highlight supervision as a key issue in the graduate system,\u201d says Eliete Correia dos Santos, a linguist who teaches Archival Science at the State University of Para\u00edba (UEPB) and the Graduate Languages and Teaching Program at the Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG). In a study that identified and catalogued good practices in supervision on UFCG\u2019s Graduate Languages and Teaching Program, Santos revealed the key elements of the role. \u201cDefining a clear objective, planning activities based on the time available, being disciplined, focused, and committed, and giving students autonomy are some of the key points,\u201d summarizes Santos, who is also a professor on UEPB\u2019s Graduate Teacher Training Program. She emphasizes that student autonomy is linked to how responsibly they are supervised. \u201cIt is up to the advisor to monitor the advisee\u2019s progress, taking their weaknesses into account and encouraging them to face new challenges,\u201d she explains. With two undergraduates and eight master’s students, she holds weekly meetings to set delivery targets, which are updated by the students themselves every seven days. \u201cIf their activities are not systematized and continuous, there is a tendency for advisees to get lost. Given the issue of time, pursuing continuity across the various phases of a study, from data collection to analysis, is crucial to the effectiveness of the process,\u201d wrote the linguist in an article describing the results of her work.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/095-097_Carreiras_314-1-1140.jpg\")
Nat\u00e1lia Gregorini<\/span><\/p>\n