Abstract

The present paper argues against the popular notion that scientists who commit fraud are simply betrayers of the truth. 'Truth' is negotiable in both means and ends. 'Fraud' can therefore be a useful probe for investigating how scientists assess and certify knowledge claims. The controversy surrounding Franz Moewus and his place in the origins of molecular biology is illustrative. Moewus anticipated, in his claims made in the late 1930s and 1940s, much of what was later regarded as the foundations of modern microbial and biochemical genetics. I briefly examine Moewus's work in microbial genetics, how a discourse on fraud emerged and what kinds of criteria were used to judge the validity of his claims. I argue that Moewus's major discoveries were eventually discounted on the basis of an ensemble of social and intellectual criticisms. These included his perceived involvement in the Nazi regime, statistical criticism of his data, and the inability of others to reproduce his results: the rejection of his claims did not require a disproof of the 'truth' of any specific observation, experiment or idea set forth in his publications