The professor teaching the course
assigned us publications to present,
and when I read mine, I noticed
some of the Western blot images
had been reused and relabeled in
multiple figures. As a fourth year
Ph.D. student, I had spent years
producing those kinds of images
and I knew something was wrong.
I Googled “what to do if I suspect
research misconduct” and landed
on a web page that suggested I
reach out to a trusted mentor or to
my institution’s research integrity
officer—a completely foreign job
title to me at the time. I decided to
start with the professor teaching
the seminar. I stumbled over my
words as I tried to explain my con-
cerns. He reassured me that my sus-
picions were justified, adding that
he’d report them to the journal. A
few months later the journal posted a corrigendum, with
new figures in place of the old, suspicious ones.
Before this episode, I’d had no experience with wrongdo-
ing in science; my collaborators were all careful scientists,
and I trusted that the papers I was reading by others were
sound. But it was hard for me to believe the original figures
in the paper were produced by accident. Science wasn’t al-
ways honest, I realized—a sense that grew when I read a
slew of articles about scientists found guilty of misconduct.
It was clear to me that investigating these incidents was
important work; it helped strike fraudulent science from
the literature and clear the names of innocent people—
co-authors, grad students—whose careers were affected by
the actions of others. I noticed many people investigating
the incidents held Ph.D.s. The more I read and learned, the
more appealing a career in research integrity became.
I had already been exploring nonresearch careers, as the
grind of lab work and manuscript writing had left me de-flated. Reading about science still
invigorated me, but working nights
and weekends did not. I wanted a
9-to-5 job that would keep me en-
gaged in science and utilize skills
I’d developed during grad school.
As I was nearing graduation, I
applied for a fellowship that gave
Ph.D. graduates an opportunity to
work for the federal government. I
hoped for a placement within the
U.S. Office of Research Integrity—
and that’s exactly what I got.
It was a good fit. I liked that
my colleagues were all scientists.
I enjoyed learning about methods
for detecting falsified data. And I
found my mind being challenged by
the volume of details included in in-
vestigation reports, which read like
true crime books.
Since then, I’ve worked in re-
search integrity offices at two universities. I spend my days
looking into misconduct allegations, assisting investigative
committees, and developing training materials designed to
prevent misconduct. The job can be challenging at times.
For instance, it’s hard to tell scientists they’re under inves-
tigation, and I find it disheartening to uncover evidence of
misconduct and the various reasons behind it—including
the pressure to publish and toxic lab environments.
But overall, I enjoy the path I’m on. The work is varied and
intellectually stimulating. I appreciate having my evenings
and weekends free. And I like seeing positive outcomes of
my work. In the case of the altered Western blot images I
analyzed, for example, the clues I uncovered helped exoner-
ate a grad student and zero in on their adviser. To me, it’s
research—a different but still fulfilling kind. jJulia Behnfeldt is an assistant research integrity officer at the University
of Michigan. Send your career story to [email protected].“It was hard for me to believe
the original figures in the paper
were produced by accident.”
Keeping science honest
I
was sitting at my computer, poring over files my office had sequestered from a professor’s lab. We’d
received an anonymous tip alleging the lab had published fraudulent data. As a research integrity
officer, I was tasked with reviewing the data files, so I clicked on an image depicting the results of a
Western blot. Sure enough, it appeared to have been digitally manipulated: Parts had been cropped
and moved around in a manner that obscured the true results. The file’s metadata held a record of
who generated the altered image and when, a key clue in what ended up being a massive case of
research misconduct. These weren’t the tasks I would have ever imagined doing when I started gradu-
ate school. But it’s the right career for me, and I owe it to a chance assignment during a seminar class.By Julia Behnfeldt
ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER782 5 NOVEMBER 2021 • VOL 374 ISSUE 6568 science.org SCIENCE
WORKING LIFE