An official website of the United States government
NIA solicited broad input on innovative approaches to reward exceptional mentorship in the aging research field, recognizing that scientific research mentors are often "squeezed thin"-that is, they are overextended and lack adequate institutional support despite their critical role in professional development. This effort was conducted in late 2024 and early 2025, generated substantial community engagement and revealed both significant challenges and promising opportunities for enhancing mentorship practices across the biomedical research enterprise.
NIA received 103 responses, predominantly from Research 1 institutions, with full professors comprising the largest respondent group (43%), followed by assistant professors (30%) and associate professors (16%). Responses suggested there are institutional barriers to effective mentorship. While 58% of respondents indicated their institutions consider mentorship in tenure and promotion decisions, fewer than one-quarter (22%) reported receiving teaching release time or additional resources for dedicated mentoring activities. The majority (94%) of respondents believed their institutions would view an NIA mentorship prize favorably.
Thematic analysis identified four core dimensions of effective mentorship:
- Qualities of a good mentor
- Effective mentorship practices
- Barriers to effective mentorship
- Strategies to facilitate mentorship
Qualities of a good mentor included commitment, intrinsic appreciation for mentoring, vulnerability and authenticity, responsiveness to feedback, and mutual respect with mentees. As one respondent noted, "You have to care about mentoring and about the career of the person in front of you. This is the innovative idea - mentors have to really care."
Effective mentorship practices centered on establishing a structure (including regular communication and clear expectations); providing balance, both between guidance and independence and between skill building and career development; and offering individualized support through tools like Individual Development Plans (IDPs).
Barriers to effective mentorship included lack of protected time and/or institutional recognition for mentorship, absence of formal training, and sustainability concerns as current approaches rely heavily on individual goodwill rather than structural support. A quote from a respondent illustrates these barriers: “… taking time to mentor when there is no support can inadvertently hinder one’s career because the time spent mentoring is not spent on grant writing.”
Strategies to facilitate mentorship focus on incentivizing excellence through dedicated funding, protected time, formal training programs, and expanded mentorship models that extend beyond traditional one-on-one relationships to include peer and group mentoring approaches.
Lastly, NIA solicited input on the key questions and issues that will need to be addressed if a mentorship prize were to be developed. There was near-equal support for two major approaches: requiring demonstrations of currently effective mentorship practices (74%) and including plans for disseminating future best practices (73%). Notably, 35% of respondents recommend mentee-submitted applications, emphasizing the importance of centering the mentee experience in evaluation processes.
Respondents emphasized the need for accessible, transparent processes with mentee-centered evaluations. They emphasized building upon lessons learned from existing programs, like the K24; paying attention to long-term impact and sustainability; and developing mechanisms that both reward exceptional mentors and support widespread dissemination of best practices.
NIA is grateful to the research community for the thoughtful and thorough feedback provided through this public input process. The insights collected will inform the design of future mentorship programs that not only honors excellence, but also fosters a broader change in how mentorship is valued, supported, and sustained in the biomedical research landscape.
Training