TABLE 1.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Strategies for Selecting Mentees

Strategy	Pros	Cons
Elite mentoring—Mentoring provided to an elite group of investigators with early successes	High success rate among participants likely via investment of resources in individuals with proven ability and record of success. A less-intensive targeted approach may be adequate. High likelihood of retaining of alumni in HIV research. Participation may become highly coveted as an indicator of “star” status.	May be “preaching to the choir,” with little impact on outcome. Likely to contribute little to expansion of diversity in investigator pool. Reinforces existing strengths of the research unit. Duplicates efforts that institutions, funding agencies, and societies prioritize to “star” candidates.
Open mentoring—Mentoring provided as an open model for persons expressing a desire for mentoring	Provides services to self-selected group that likely is representative of early career investigators interested in HIV research within institution. Good setting for peer-to-peer interactions because group is likely to have varied experience and achievement.	Requires a program that can be tailored to each participant's needs, with combinations of formats and strategies and flexible mentors. Could duplicate some institutional efforts. Impact will vary with participant; overall success rates may be lower than for program that selects “stars.”
Nonlinked or struggling investigators—Mentoring provided to investigators who may not have achieved success and may not understand the value of mentoring	Targets resources to individuals who are “at risk” in an effort to retain them in the research enterprise. A focused approach is possible. Effort could be provided to members of groups that are feeling less linked to the enterprise such as persons who are underrepresented in medical research based on gender, race, ethnicity, physical challenges, or sexual preferences. If successful, impact would be high.	Participation in mentoring may be perceived as stigmatizing rather than expanding. Overall success rate may be low. Methods not proven. May require more investment with time and finances than initially planned.