LAUSR

‘See one, do one, teach one’ is an adage passed down through generations of physicians and surgeons, perceived as a central tenet for achieving clinical competency in medicine. Attributed to William Halsted, the first professor of surgery at John Hopkins Hospital, it follows the premise that the replication of good clinical practice under the supervision of experts will provide sufficient training for future generations of clinicians [1]. Singled out as a visionary in 1890, Halsted advocated that mentored training “. . . will not only produce surgeons, but surgeons of the highest type. . . who will stimulate the first youths of our country to study surgery and devote their energy and lives to raising the standard of surgical science” [2]. As one of the first proponents of the ‘clinician–scientist,’ his model of training laid the foundations for the establishment of academic centers of excellence in large university hospitals across the USA. So substantial was his contribution to mentoring and sustaining talent that his obituary described him as ‘one of the few men who really count’ – a most fitting accolade for any mentor. Almost a century has passed since his death and his model of deliberate repetition remains an important part of skill acquisition. The popularized concept of 10,000 hours that now encapsulates the length of most training programs has often been considered to be the mandatory minimum requirement to make an expert in fields outside of medicine [3]. However, in an era of rapid technological evolution that has provided innovative approaches to the integration of medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions through the use of evidence-based medicine, is the apprenticeship model still fit for purpose? [4]. Medical practice appears to evolve at an exponential rate where job opportunities today are almost unrecognizable from the careers of those a decade ago. In this evolving landscape, is there still a role for an academic mentor to guide a young investigator’s career path? And if so, what attributes are necessary to make a good one? Our advice to individuals at the beginning of their journey in academic medicine is to focus on what sort of support and help is needed to take their career forward. Clearly not everyone in clinical research requires a mentor for guidance at the start of their career, as many young investigators who engage in research will have the self-motivation and drive to achieve their goals without investment from third parties. But even intelligent and ambitious researchers will require help in professional problem solving at some point in their career and this is where a mentor can play a valuable role. One of the major interventions that young investigators require assistance with is in securing grant funding where, of note, inadequate mentorship is cited as a major reason for rejection [5]. Unfortunately, the changing demographic of academia has led to a loss of effective mentors resulting in a significant decrease in external funding for young investigators that subsequently deters them from pursuing long-term academic careers [6]. Surprisingly, despite numerous publications on the critical importance of mentoring in academic medicine, few studies have demonstrated whether mentoring actually makes a difference and even fewer have been conducted on how to choose a suitable mentor [7–9]. Fundamentally, the choice of a mentor is a personal one often influenced by a young investigator’s professional relationship with senior colleagues. To provide some guidance for aspiring young investigators, we have highlighted some of the important attributes demonstrated by mentors who have helped develop our own careers.