On being earnest: a mentor and her mentee's perspective.
On being earnest: a mentor and her mentee's perspective.
复制标题
关于真诚：导师和她的学员的观点。
DOI：
10.1038/s41390-023-02702-2
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Kjeldsen,CaitlinP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maitre,NathalieL;Kjeldsen,CaitlinP
最近的出版物提供了一个机会来反思分享负面结果的重要性，以及这为作为科学家和科学导师的成长带来的机会。我们同意这些观点，承认它们可能不能推广到其他研究团队。从导师的角度来看：每次当我到达一项实验或临床试验的结束时，我都会屏住呼吸等待可能需要数年才能获得的结果的分析--风险如此之高，以至于我经常要求进行三项独立的分析。有时，我会体验到一种超现实的解脱和兴高采烈的时刻，因为我的假设被证明是正确的--我以我想要的方式做出了改变。然而，有时我的假设是不正确的。我并不像人们可能认为的那样对此感到不安--这只是意味着一个不同的假设将是正确的。我知道安全措施是合理的，所以机构审查委员会和同行审查程序确保了即使这是一项临床试验，我首先也没有造成伤害。然而，在最初的重新评估之后，我开始担心如何说服一家杂志发表我的研究结果，以便其他提出同样问题的人可以从我的研究和答案中学到东西。最常见的情况是，出版体系倾向于积极的结果或成功的研究。但仍然有一些期刊发表了负面的结果，我很感谢他们的编辑，他们不仅帮助科学进步，还帮助我为我的学生树立了成为科学家的榜样。当我们发表负面结果时，我们证明了以下几点：1.对科学方法的正直--我们试图支持或驳斥我们的假设，但不能证明我们永远是正确的。我很感谢编辑，他们允许我发表了一项早期的负面研究，表明哭声的幅度并不能预测典型新生儿的伤害感强度。当我最初预测积极关联的假设是错误的时，我本可以对我的数据进行切片和切分，只关注新生儿可以区分感冒和疼痛的事实--这一发现令人兴奋，但却是次要的。虽然其他哭声特征可能被证明在评估疼痛方面是有用的(例如，基频)，其他科学家已经继续研究这些因素，但我们最初的研究表明，足月新生儿可以在没有哭泣甚至做鬼脸的情况下经历痛苦的躯体感觉刺激。1
Recent publications present an opportunity to reflect on the importance of sharing negative results and the opportunity this presents for growth as a scientist and as a scientific mentor. We share these perspectives, acknowledging that they may not be generalizable to other research teams. From the mentor’s point of view: Every time I arrive at the end of an experiment or a clinical trial, I hold my breath as I await the analysis of results that may have taken years to acquire—the stakes are so high, that I often ask for three independent analyses. Sometimes, I experience a surreal moment of relief and elation because my hypothesis turned out to be correct—and I made a difference in the way I intended. Sometimes though, my hypothesis is just incorrect. I am not as upset by this as one might think—it just means a different hypothesis will be correct. I know the safety measures are sound, so the Institutional Review Board and the peer-review process have ensured that even if this is a clinical trial, I first did no harm. After the initial re-assessment, however, I start worrying about how I will convince a journal to publish my study results, so that another person asking the same question might learn from my study and answers. Most often, the publication system is skewed towards positive results or successful studies. But there are still journals publishing negative results, and I am grateful to their editors, who not only help science progress but also help me model what being a scientist is for my mentees. When we publish negative results, we demonstrate the following:1. Integrity to the scientific method—we are trying to support OR refute our hypothesis, but not prove that we are always right. I am grateful to the editors who allowed me to publish an early negative study showing that cry amplitude did not predict the intensity of nociception in typical newborns. When my initial hypothesis predicting a positive association was wrong, I could have sliced and diced my data and focused solely on the fact that newborns could differentiate cold from pain—a finding that was exciting, but secondary. While other cry characteristics might prove useful in evaluating pain (eg, fundamental frequency), and other scientists have gone on to investigate these factors, our initial study showed that term newborns could experience painful somatosensory stimuli without crying or even grimacing. 1