Welcome to the Rigorous Reproducible Responsible Research Integrity at UF (R4I@UF) website! Please visit each month for a new case that may be used as a framework for a brief conversation about best research practices in your lab meeting, research conference, journal club, or any research meeting.
October 2025 Case of the Month: Suspect Motives and Work Ethic
Aisha is in the final months of her three-year post-doctoral fellowship with Dr. Schaefer. Dr. Schaefer is a world-famous researcher who is often away giving lectures, and he frequently leaves Aisha to run the lab, design new methodological protocols, and generally take care of things. Fortunately, Aisha has an abundance of interpersonal skills in addition to being an outstanding young scientist. She is unfailingly pleasant and collegial, easy to work with, and highly productive. Not surprisingly, she has landed an appointment as an Assistant Professor at a nearby institution and is looking forward to an easy transition into his new role.
For those mentoring “A mentor is someone who takes a special interest in helping
another person develop into a successful professional. Mentors need to:
1. Assure proper instruction in research methods;
2. Foster the intellectual development of the trainee;
3. Impart an understanding of responsible research practices; and
4. Routinely check to make sure the trainee develops into a responsible researcher.”
– Office of Research Integrity, 2012
That is, until the new post-doc, Scott, is hired to replace her. Dr. Schaefer asks Aisha to provide mentoring to Scott as she introduces him to others in the lab, demonstrates procedures, explains ongoing studies, and informs him of lab standards.
From the beginning, Aisha feels an unaccustomed antagonism with Scott. As someone used to being thought of as a great mentor, Aisha isn’t sure where this undercurrent of hostility is coming from or what to do about it. She doesn’t like the way Scott hits on one of the female pre-doctoral students, or the way Scott is taking credit for her work. When she says something to Scott, he tells Aisha that they are dating. Aisha can’t believe anyone would regard Scott as a “catch.” Even making allowances for other people’s questionable motives and work ethic, and the inevitable adjustment period to settle into a new routine, Aisha is sure Scott is a bad apple.
The trouble is, in a couple of months, Aisha will be gone, and she can leave the problem behind. On the one hand, there seems to be little point in stirring up a hornets’ next when she has no evidence other than her own observations. On the other hand, how will Aisha look her own mentor in the eye when Dr. Schaefer gets back. She is bound to run into him and others in the lab who have close ties to the institute where Aisha is going and often hold joint colloquia. She doesn’t want this to spoil what has been a great situation for her as one of Dr. Schaefer’s stellar post-docs. She just can’t seem to see a way out of this quagmire.
What should Aisha do?
- What are the institutional resources that deal with post-docs where Aisha might find help addressing her concerns about Scott?
- What fears might Aisha have about taking any action to disclose her observations and concerns about Scott?
- How does the fact that Aisha will be working nearby and remaining in touch with people in Dr. Schaefer’s lab have any implications for how Aisha might respond if things go from bad to worse in Schaefer’s lab in the future?
- What sort of documentation might Aisha want to keep about Scott and how might she use it?
This scenario is copied from the ORI RCR Casebook: Stories about Researchers Worth Discussing. This case study is from the Office of Research Integrity “RCR Casebook: Stories about Researchers Worth Discussing“. For more information about mentoring, please see the Mentor & Trainee Responsibilities resources web page.
This website is a service of UF Research Integrity, Security & Compliance and the “RCR on Campus” working group. We believe that research integrity is not achieved by simply taking an RCR course and “checking the box” that training is done. Our vision is to maintain a research culture in our everyday lives as UF researchers and research trainees in which we naturally follow best practices to ensure that the research we do is responsible, rigorous, and reproducible.
To submit a “Case of the Month” for the R4I@UF website, please contact Wayne T. McCormack, PhD (mccormac at ufl.edu).