Tutors and project directors are the initiators, directors and managers of scientific research and innovation. Among them, tutors have a far-reaching influence on the shaping of graduate students' scientific research and innovation ideas and the cultivation of their skills; The project director is very important for the new postdoctoral to further improve their research and innovation ability. Obviously, in order to ensure the sustainable development of scientific research and innovation and the emergence of talented people in scientific research and innovation, we should not only establish a set of effective methods to select and cultivate potential postgraduates and postdoctors; Moreover, there should be some practical norms or requirements to identify the comprehensive ability of tutors and project managers in shaping and cultivating graduate students' innovative ideas and skills in scientific research, and promoting the growth of postdoctoral students. Up to now, we seem to have a basic consensus on the selection of high-quality postgraduates and postdoctors, and strictly screen them through various means (including written examination, interview, academic information and recommendation letters). However, there is little systematic evaluation on the comprehensive ability of tutors in shaping and cultivating graduate students' innovative ideas and skills in scientific research, and project managers in promoting postdoctoral growth. Although theoretically speaking, the choice between tutors and project managers, postgraduates and postdoctors is mutual or fair, the balance in reality is seriously biased towards tutors and project managers. In other words, with a variety of testing methods, academic information and recommendation letters, tutors and project managers in the selection of future postgraduates and postdoctoral students, like wearing a pair of penetrating X-ray glasses, have a clear view. On the contrary, due to the lack of objective judgment on the intelligence and ability of tutors and project managers, many postgraduates and postdoctoral students often make the most important decisions in their life when they choose future tutors and project managers. Now, I will review my experience and experience in overseas doctoral study and post doctoral research, and combine my understanding and experience to talk about the characteristics of an ideal or capable tutor and project manager, so as to provide some reference and basis for graduate students and post doctoral students in choosing future tutors and project managers.

My mentor. After I graduated from China, I went to the University of Melbourne to study for a doctorate in parasite immunology. My doctoral research tutor is a person with international vision (born in India, 7 years old, moved to New Zealand with his British parents, completed his bachelor's degree there, then went to Australia for a doctorate, then returned to a university in New Zealand for two years as a lecturer, and then worked in the University of Melbourne in Australia). He has a lot of scientific research talents and achievements (published a lot of high-level articles, and carried out 2-3 funded projects at the same time), And a sense of security (as a reader, equivalent to associate professor). For a long time, it has been believed that animals can produce specific immunity only through Taenia infection. The tutor designed a very ingenious experiment (release the larvae from the eggs of tapeworms artificially, put them into a sieve like tube, and then implant them into the small intestine of sheep, so that the larvae can grow in the small intestine environment of sheep, but can not enter the sheep to complete the infection procedure) to prove that animals do not need to be infected, as long as they are exposed to the secretion / metabolites (or antigens) of the larvae, they can produce specific immunity. This important breakthrough was published in nature in 1971 (the tutor was the first author and corresponding author), which laid a solid theoretical and material foundation for the development of the world's first highly effective parasite vaccine by genetic means (the result was published in nature in 1989, the tutor was the corresponding author). My doctoral research assistant tutor is an Australian born and raised doctor of immunology. After graduation, I worked under my tutor. The assistant tutor has certain scientific research talent (no nature or science articles of the first author or corresponding author), fair results (when I first arrived, he didn't study parasites for a long time), general sense of security (as a research fellow funded by the project), and has given me useful guidance in immunology technology. At the end of my doctoral program, my assistant tutor used some of my experimental results to publish a research report as the first author (I am the second author and my tutor is the third author). Then, I wrote three manuscripts (I was the first author, the assistant tutor was the second author, and the tutor was the third author) with my own experimental results, and sent them to the tutor and the assistant tutor for review. After reading, the tutor gave feedback quickly; The assistant tutor didn't reply until I graduated and left school, so I didn't submit a manuscript (the price of abiding by the rules). When I mentioned it to my tutor, he shook his head, but he had nothing to do. Considering that my two junior brothers (one from Denmark and the other from Switzerland) published two articles respectively at the end of the doctoral program (the assistant tutor is the second author and the tutor is the third author); In addition, Australia is a "red neck" country, and the "White Australia" policy was abolished in the 1970s; It seems that the Deputy tutor's failure to review my manuscript for the reason of being too busy is purely a pretext. After the completion of my doctoral dissertation, my tutor went to a higher position in a scientific research institution, and the assistant tutor inherited the tutor's project; As for whether the assistant tutor will become more enlightened in the future, I don't know; Because I changed to molecular microbiology after graduation, and there was no intersection with parasitology. From this point of view, it seems that the vice tutor's behavior of harming others but not himself, killing 1000 enemies and harming 800 oneself has succeeded; However, it was his narrow mindedness and prejudice that gave me the opportunity to test the three innovative strategies I summarized during my doctoral program in the field other than parasitology; It also inspired my great drive to set a benchmark for future generations in the breadth and quantity of biomedical book editing.

My project director. After my doctoral degree, I have done three different scientific research projects in research institutes, universities and biotechnology companies, and have dealt with at least three project directors. The first research project was carried out in a Research Institute of a state government in Australia. The project director is a parasitologist and microbiologist of Chinese origin from Singapore, who has certain scientific research talent (no nature or science articles), good results (published many articles, two funded projects are carried out at the same time), and sense of security (as principal scientist). I had contacts with him at previous parasitology conferences. During the interview, he asked me, your doctoral dissertation seems to have many results to publish. Why do you have only one article by a second author? I told him the truth about the Deputy tutor's failure to reply; He said that in case of such a situation, the manuscript should be revised again and sent to the tutor and Deputy tutor to remind them that if they do not reply within a certain period of time, they will agree and submit the manuscript directly. So I did. As before, the tutor gave a quick reply, but the Deputy tutor still didn't hear from him. Subsequently, I submitted these manuscripts separately, and received and published them one after another. Using the results of my doctoral research, I published a total of 7 articles in a short period of time (I am the first author and corresponding author, the tutor is the second author, and the assistant tutor is the third author). Relying on the innovation strategy summarized by the doctoral research and the full support of the project director, I made a key breakthrough in 8 months and achieved the main goal of the project ahead of time. Two years later, the project director took up his post elsewhere, and the administration of the project was transferred to the director. The director does not have much research talent, not many articles, and general sense of security (acting director); He "corrupts" several articles from the research projects I have done through means, helping him to find a new job later. The second research project was conducted at a university in the southern United States. As a Native American southerner, the project director is a microbiologist who lacks scientific research talent (no nature or science articles), general achievements (few published articles, and each article or project is hard won), and no sense of security (as an assistant professor, some achievements are needed to be promoted to associate professor). Here are some examples to illustrate the lack of scientific talent and sense of security. First of all, the foundation of the original project design was not stable. After detailed discussion, the project director agreed to adopt my ideas, which enabled me to achieve the main goal of the project within six months. Within two years, I submitted 10 articles (8 of which were published), applied for a patent, and wrote a new project. Secondly, the project director has no clear concept of whether the research report can be accepted or not, thinking that the more things piled up, the more likely they are to be accepted. At that time, I isolated the specific genes of six genera of Listeria. I was looking for more strains (5 strains in each genus, but 15-20 strains are needed) to verify the specificity of these genes before I could publish an article. The Project Director suggested that I put the specific genes of six genera into an article. If there are many things, there is no problem in receiving them. I told him that it takes 15-20 strains to verify the specific genes of a genus, whether they are put together or separated; In this case, why don't we separate and publish six articles? He said, it seems that you just want to post more articles. I answer, is there a mistake in multiple articles? Later, his father, who was a professor at another university, came to see him and invited the lab staff out for lunch. His father joked that if you can make two articles out of one article, it's a real skill. I said to his father, your son wants me to turn six articles into one article. I asked his father, is your son like his mother? His father was stunned at first, then came back and said with a smile: Yes, yes. In addition, I wrote an article to evaluate the pathogenicity of Listeria by percentage. The project director thought that I would challenge the golden standard [half lethal rate (LD50)] which has been used for nearly 100 years with the percentage of middle school students, which was a bit too much for me. He suggested that I should not contribute to the paper, so as not to lose my identity and face. According to my three innovation strategies, this article is 66% likely to be accepted, and I am not moved. The project director couldn't persuade me, and suggested that people who understand statistics in the hospital should review it. I replied, is that not necessary? Because the review result is good, I will vote; If the review result is not good, I will also vote; It's a waste of time and a waste of favor. So, I said, if you are afraid of losing your identity and losing face, I can take down your names. As a postdoctoral, I have neither much identity nor much face to lose. To my surprise, this article with me as the single author was sent out for about three weeks and received directly. After I read the acceptance letter from the magazine editor to the project director, he said awkwardly, you are right again this time (last time I correctly judged that his original project design could not get useful results). Thirdly, in order to promote associate professor smoothly or for the reason of "red neck", the project director changed the first patent applicant from my name to his own without consultation when examining and approving the patent application I wrote. What's more, according to the experimental results I got, I wrote the main part of the new project application. The project director only wrote the school facilities part. When the final draft was finalized, he excluded my name from the project application. In addition, the project director has never published a paper on Listeria before. I have been here for 2-3 years, and he suddenly has more than ten related articles; So he used the results I got to apply for a fund project of the U.S. Department of agriculture to do Listeria protein research. In the first two years, the application for the project was required to supplement the experimental data, which I supplemented for him; In the third year, the project application was approved, and he invited a local American doctor to do it later; Three years later, because there were not many new things, nothing was settled. In fact, if he invited me to participate, I would suggest that he systematically study the protein regulation under the condition of systematically deleting transcriptional regulatory genes, and determine the quantity and function of the proteins regulated by the transcriptional regulatory genes. In the past few years, 30-50 articles (Listeria have 50 transcriptional regulatory genes) have opened up a new field. Since he is insincere, I should be silent. The third research project was carried out by a biotechnology company with less than 10 people in Australia. As an Australian of Lebanon origin, the project director is a molecular biologist who lacks scientific research talent (no nature or science articles), has average achievements (few published articles, and each article or project is not easy to get), and has no sense of security (working as the technology director of the company, but the small company may close at any time). In his first formal job talk with him, he took out a list of 4-5 tasks; After looking at it, I said that some of the tasks listed in this table do not seem to have clear priorities. He said that all the tasks of our company are equally important, regardless of priority; No matter what you think, the company's business, I say important is important, I say not important is not important. After listening to his reply, I was full of galloping horses in my heart, and realized that "I just got out of the tiger's mouth and entered the wolf's nest again". It can be imagined that a rigid and self righteous project director will not have much innovation achievements. His four-year Ph.D. and the subsequent seven-year project director's research (including his 5-6 highly educated employees) only shortened the key nucleic acid methylation process from six hours to three hours, and then stagnated. In 8 months, I used different ideas to reduce the process from 3 hours to 15 minutes. This breakthrough allowed the company to survive, because a molecular biological test method that required three hours of sample preparation time was completely uncompetitive. The more mediocre a project manager is, the more possessive he is. Sure enough, at the high-level meeting of the company, the project director did not hesitate to attribute the credit to himself and did not mention my contribution. Because I am not qualified to attend this meeting, the specific situation is still another person who attended the meeting. He felt that it was unfair and quietly told me after the meeting.

Ideal mentor and project manager with both ability and political integrity. According to my experience and understanding, the ideal tutor and project director with both ability and political integrity should be shown in the following aspects: (1) having scientific research talent [mainly reflected in the novelty of published papers; People with high scientific research talent have unique vision, clear thinking, and are good at getting the best out of the rough, leading the trend; People with a certain scientific research talent are not pioneers in the industry, but they have a clear mind. With a little hint, they will make considerable achievements in the follow-up research; People who lack talent for scientific research tend to be rigid and self righteous, unable to grasp the crux of the problem, leading to twice the result with half the effort, or even to return without success（ 2) Achievements [mainly reflected in the number of published papers, completed / ongoing scientific research projects, and the integrity of the technical platform; However, non first author or non corresponding author's papers should be discounted, and paid papers should be more discounted; As far as I know, there is a five member research team, which has published 25 articles in five years; Since they are all co authors, in terms of their resumes, each of them has 25 articles in five years. In fact, each of them has only five articles on average in five years（ 3) A sense of security [unstable position of tutor or project director may lead to anxiety and extraordinary possessiveness, leading to future competition for fame and fortune]（ 4) There is no commercial convergence [businessmen's eagerness for quick success and instant benefit can lead to profit and confusion, and businessmen's insatiable greed can lead to extortion, which is far from the rational thinking and selfless style necessary for scientific research and innovation]（ 5) Open mindedness [open mindedness is a kind of understanding of tolerance and putting oneself in one's place, while non open mindedness is mainly manifested in narrow mindedness and difficult to reason; The latter may lead to the occasional gold nuggets being discarded as scrap copper; Graduate students and postdoctors planning to study or work in "red neck" areas should take this factor into consideration. There is no reason why the scientific research and innovation in those areas is relatively backward.