BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XII

Ethics and Useful Letters of Reference

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea.

Scenario: PI Jones in an offhand manner asks a technician, Susie Queue, about the lab citizenship of his graduate student, Millie Molar. In saying “thank you,” he mentions that he has just written a letter of reference for Millie Molar and wanted to include this information. Susie then tells Danny Boie that their boss wrote a negative letter of reference for Millie Molar so she’ll never get a good postdoc. Each begins to wonder what will happen to them when their turn comes. Another graduate student asks about other letters of reference that this PI has written and the rumors escalate. The entire lab becomes unhappy, mistrust begins to build, and the PI wonders what is going on that he does not understand. A while later, at lab meeting, Millie announces that she was offered a postdoc in each and every lab to which she applied. She thanks the PI profusely for writing such a strong letter on her behalf. The rest of the lab is stunned as the PI and Millie exchange high-fives.

There are at least two bioethical issues inherent in this scenario: potentially inappropriate information exchange between the PI and technician and rumor-mongering on the part of the students.

Should the PI have asked the technician about the lab conduct of the student? One might argue this either way, but I believe that most would say that the PI has a right to know what is happening in his lab when he is busy in his office. It was a request for information, pure and simple, as long as no judgment was meted out in the process. What was inappropriate and potentially inflammatory was the statement by the PI of what he was going to do with that information because it crossed a professional boundary. Although the request was innocent, knowing how the information would be used effectively cornered the technician into “ratting” on the student. A smile, a thank you, and an “I’ll talk to Millie” would have done the trick.

Clearly the lab personnel did not understand what a good letter entails, and both the PI and his personnel have an ethical and professional responsibility to initiate this conversation when the information is needed. The lab personnel collectively made several assumptions: (1) that the PI was looking for negative information to put in the letter; (2) that the PI would act maliciously toward them because of what they assumed he was saying about Millie; (3) that only praise is included in letters of reference; and (4) that they could or should not discuss their concerns about the situation with the PI directly. The situation spun out of control because it went on for a long time and spread to the entire group, another unprofessional dynamic. It takes ethical individuals acting in a professional manner to put a stop to unprofessional group situations. Learning what a good letter contains and how the PI viewed their performance (keeping it a one-on-one exchange without rumors or hearsay about others) would have created a wonderful opportunity for learning and prevented the downward spiral.

At the risk of repeating parts of Bioethics X, a useful letter of reference

• explains how the letter writer knows the candidate and for how long
• provides the context of the significance of the science for a general audience
• focuses on the strengths of the candidate
• shares assessment of the candidate’s weaknesses or where the candidate is not as strong
• discusses the candidate’s work habits and work ethic
• explores the candidate’s level and source of motivation
• elaborates on the candidate’s professional interests
• shares a bit about what the candidate is like as a person
• compares people directly if recommending more than one candidate for the same job
• takes care to match forms and checkbox evaluations to prose in the letter.

A sugary-sweet letter is not taken seriously because no one is perfect. An entirely negative letter is not taken seriously because it is clearly biased. Balance, including a frank assessment of what environment a student needs to succeed and what they could do better, always makes for a useful letter.

Next: To be announced

Dina Mandoli
University of Washington, Seattle
mandoli@u.washington.edu