Mentors and project managers are initiators, mentors and managers of scientific research and innovation. Among them, tutors have a far-reaching impact on the shaping of Postgraduates' scientific research innovation ideas and the cultivation of skills; The project director is very important to further improve the scientific research and innovation ability of new postdoctoral students. Obviously, in order to ensure the sustainable development of scientific research and innovation and the emergence of capable people in scientific research and innovation, we should not only establish a set of effective methods to select and train 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 Postgraduates' scientific research innovation ideas and skills and promoting postdoctoral growth. Today, we seem to have a basic consensus on the selection of high-quality postgraduates and postdoctors, and conduct strict screening through various means (including written examination, interview, academic materials and recommendation letters). However, there is little systematic evaluation on the comprehensive ability of tutors in shaping and cultivating postgraduate scientific research innovation ideas and skills, and project managers in promoting postdoctoral growth. Although in theory, the choice between tutor and project director and graduate and postdoctoral students is mutual or fair, the balance of reality is seriously biased towards tutor and project director. In other words, by virtue of various test methods, academic materials and recommendation letters, tutors and project managers like wearing a pair of X-ray glasses that penetrate everything when selecting future postgraduates and postdoctors. On the contrary, due to the lack of objective judgment on the talents and abilities of mentors and project managers, many postgraduates and postdoctoral students often look at flowers in the fog and make very important decisions in their life when choosing future mentors and project managers. Next, by reviewing my experience and experience in overseas doctoral study and post doctoral research, and combined with my own understanding and experience, I will talk about the characteristics of ideal or both moral integrity and ability tutors and project managers, so as to provide some reference and basis for postgraduates and postdoctoral students in selecting future tutors and project managers.

My mentor. After I graduated from domestic undergraduate, I went to the University of Melbourne in Australia to study for a doctorate in parasitic immunology. My doctoral research supervisor is a person with international vision (born in India, moved to New Zealand with British parents at the age of 7, completed his undergraduate course there, then went to Australia to study for a doctoral degree, then returned to a university in New Zealand as a lecturer for two years, and then worked at the University of Melbourne in Australia), with scientific research talent and fruitful achievements (published many high-level articles and 2-3 funded projects at the same time), And sense of security (as reader, equivalent to associate professor). For a long time, it has been believed that animals can produce specific immunity only after Taenia solium infection. The tutor designed a very ingenious experiment (release the larvae in the tapeworm eggs artificially, put them into a sieve shaped tubule, and then implant them into the sheep's small intestine, so that the larvae can grow in the environment of the sheep's small intestine, but can not enter the sheep to complete the infection procedure) to prove that the animals do not need infection. 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 (tutor is the first author and corresponding author), which laid a solid theoretical and material foundation for the later development of the world's first efficient parasite vaccine by genetic means (this result was published in nature in 1989, tutor is the corresponding author). My associate tutor of doctoral research is a doctor of immunology native to Australia. After graduation, I work under my tutor. The associate tutor has certain scientific research talent (there is no nature or science article by the first author or corresponding author), the results are acceptable (when I first arrived, he didn't study parasites for a long time), the sense of security is general (as a research fellow funded by the project), and gave me useful guidance in immunology and technology. At the end of my doctoral program, the associate tutor used some of my experimental results and published a research report as the first author (I am the second author and the tutor is the third author). Subsequently, I wrote three manuscripts with my own experimental results (I was the first author, the associate tutor was the second author, and the tutor was the third author), which were sent to the tutor and associate tutor for review. After reading, the tutor gave feedback quickly; The associate tutor didn't reply until I graduated from school, so I didn't submit a manuscript (the price of my compliance with the rules). When I mentioned it to my tutor, he shook his head, but there was nothing he could do. Considering that my two younger martial brothers (one from Denmark and the other from Switzerland) published two articles respectively at the end of the Doctoral Course (the associate tutor is the second author and the tutor is the third author); In addition, Australia is a "red neck" country, which abolished the "White Australia" policy in the 1970s; The assistant tutor didn't review my manuscript because he was too busy. It seems to be a pure excuse. After my doctoral thesis was completed, the tutor went to a scientific research institution to hold a higher position, and the Deputy tutor inherited the tutor's project; As for whether the associate tutor will become more enlightened in the future, I don't know; Because I switched to molecular microbiology after graduation and had no intersection with parasitology. From this point of view, the assistant tutor's behavior of harming others but not himself, killing thousands of enemies and damaging 800 himself seems to have succeeded; However, it was his narrowness and prejudice that gave me the opportunity to test the three innovative strategies I summarized during my doctoral course in fields other than parasitology; It also stimulated my great internal drive and set up an insurmountable benchmark for future generations in the breadth and quantity of biomedical book editing.

My project manager. After graduation, I have done three different scientific research projects in research institutes, universities and biotechnology companies, and have dealt with at least three project managers. The first research project was carried out at a research institute affiliated to a state government in Australia. The project director is a parasitologist and microbiologist of Chinese descent from Singapore, who has certain scientific research talent (no nature or science articles), good results (many articles have been published, and two funded projects have been carried out at the same time), and a sense of security (as a principal scientist). I dated him at previous parasitology conferences. During the interview, he asked me, your doctoral thesis seems to have many publishable results. Why do you have only one article by the second author? I told him the truth about the assistant tutor's failure to reply; He said that in this case, the manuscript should be revised again and sent to the tutor and Deputy tutor to remind them that if they don't reply within a certain time, they will submit the manuscript directly when they agree. So I did it. As before, the tutor replied quickly, but the assistant tutor still hasn't heard from him. Subsequently, I submitted these manuscripts separately and received them and published them one after another. In a short time, I published a total of 7 articles (I am the first author and corresponding author, the tutor is the second author, and the associate tutor is the third author). With 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 objectives of the project ahead of schedule. Two years later, the project director took a post elsewhere, and the administration of the project was transferred to the director's name. The director doesn't have much research talent, doesn't have many articles, and has a general sense of security (acting director); He "misrepresented" several articles from my research projects by means of means to help him find a new job later. The second research project was conducted at a university in the southern United States. As a native of the southern United States, the project director is a microbiologist who lacks scientific research talent (there are no nature or science articles), has general achievements (there are few published articles, and each article or project is hard won), and has no sense of security (as an assistant professor, it needs some achievements to be promoted to an associate professor). The following examples can illustrate the lack of scientific research talent and sense of security. First of all, the original project design foundation was unstable. After detailed discussion, the project director agreed to adopt my ideas, so that I could achieve the main objectives of the project within 6 months, invest 10 articles (including 8 published articles) within two years, apply for a patent and write a new project. Secondly, the project director has no clear concept of whether the research report can be received. He thinks that the more things piled up, the more likely they are to be received. At that time, I isolated specific genes of six genera of Listeria. I was looking for more strains (there are 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. There are many things, and there is no problem receiving them. I told him that 15-20 strains were needed to verify the specific genes of a genus, whether put together or separated; In that case, why don't we separate and publish six articles? He said, it seems that you just want to post more articles. I answered, is there anything wrong with multiple articles? Later, his father, who was a professor at another university, stopped by to see him and invited the laboratory staff to lunch outside. His father joked that if you can turn one article into two articles, that's your 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, smiled and said: Yes, yes. In addition, I wrote an article to evaluate the pathogenicity of Listeria by percentage. The project director thought that I was a little overconfident to challenge the golden standard [half lethal rate (LD50)] which has been used for nearly a century with the percentage of middle school. He suggested that I should not contribute to avoid losing my identity and face. According to my three-point innovation strategy, this article is 66% likely to be accepted, and I am not moved. Seeing that I couldn't be persuaded, the Project Director suggested that I ask the people who understand statistics in the hospital to review it. I answered, isn't it necessary? Because the review results are good, I will vote; If the review result is not good, I will vote; This is not only a waste of time, but also a favor in vain. So I said, if you are afraid of losing your identity and face, I can take your name. As a postdoctoral, I have neither much identity nor face to lose. Unexpectedly, this article with me as the single author was posted for about three weeks and received directly. After I read the receiving letter from the magazine editor to the project director, he said awkwardly that you were right again (last time I correctly judged that his original project design could not get useful results). Thirdly, in order to successfully promote the associate professor or for the reason of "red neck", the project director changed the first applicant of the patent 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 obtained, I wrote the main part of the new project application, and the project director only wrote the school facilities. When the final draft was finalized, he excluded my name from the project application. In addition, the project director has never sent a paper on Listeria before. When I came here for 2-3 years, he suddenly had more than a dozen relevant articles; So, using my results, he applied for a fund project of the U.S. Department of agriculture to do Listeria protein research. In the first two years, the project application was required to supplement the experimental data, and I supplemented it for him; In the third year, the project application was approved, and he hired a local doctor in the United States to do it later; Three years later, it didn't end up because there were not many new things. 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 is carried out in a biotechnology company with less than 10 people in Australia. As an Australian of Lebanese origin, the project director is a molecular biologist who lacks scientific research talent (no nature or science articles), general achievements (there are few published articles, and it is not easy to get every article or project), and has no sense of security (serving as the technology director of the company, but small companies may close down at any time). During his first formal work conversation, he took out a table listing 4-5 tasks; After reading it, I said that some of the tasks listed in this table are not very clear about their priorities. He said that all the tasks of our company are equally important without priority (subtext: I cover the sky in this company; no matter what you think, the company's affairs are important when I say important, and unimportant when I say unimportant). After listening to his answer, my heart galloped and realized that "I just got out of the tiger's mouth and entered the wolf's nest again". It is conceivable that a rigid and self righteous project manager will not have much innovation achievements. The research of his doctor for four years and the project director for the following seven years (including his 5-6 highly educated employees) only shortened the key nucleic acid methylation transformation process from 6 hours to 3 hours, and then stalled. 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 detection method that requires three hours of sample preparation time is completely uncompetitive. The more mediocre the project manager, the stronger the possessiveness. Sure enough, at the company's high-level meeting, the project manager did not hesitate to attribute the credit to himself, without mentioning my contribution. Because I was not qualified to participate in the meeting, the specific situation was still another participant who felt unfair and quietly complained about me after the meeting.

Ideal mentor and project manager with both political integrity and ability. According to my experience and understanding, the ideal mentor and project manager with both political integrity and ability should be shown in the following aspects: (1) have scientific research talent [mainly reflected in the novelty of the published papers; people with high scientific research talent have unique vision, clear thinking, are good at eliminating the rough and picking the best, and lead the trend; people with certain scientific research talent are not pioneers in the industry, but they are smart enough to make considerable achievements in follow-up research with a little hint; people with lack of scientific research talent often have rigid ideas, think they are right, and can't grasp questions The key of the problem leads to twice the result with half the effort, or even return without success]; (2) be full of achievements [it is mainly reflected in the number of published papers, completed / ongoing scientific research projects, and the integrity of the technical platform; however, the papers of non first authors or non corresponding authors are subject to discount, and the paid papers are subject to greater discount; as far as I know, there is a five person research team, which has published 25 articles in five years; since they are all co authors, from the resume, Each of them has 25 articles in five years. In fact, each of them has only published 5 articles on average in five years]; (3) they have a sense of security [unstable positions of tutors or project managers may produce anxiety and extraordinary possessiveness, leading to fame and wealth in the future]; (4) there is no business gathering [businessmen's eagerness for quick success and instant benefit can lead to dizziness of profit, and businessmen's insatiable greed can lead to extortion, which is far from the rational thinking and selfless research style necessary for scientific research and innovation]; (5) enlightened [openness is a kind of tolerance and empathy, while non openness is mainly manifested in narrow and difficult to reason bias; the latter may lead to the discarding of occasional gold bullion as scrap copper; postgraduates and postdoctors planning to study or work in "red neck" areas should take this factor into account. There is no reason why scientific research and innovation in those areas are relatively backward].