On February 9, 1912, a case of deliberate scientific fraud came to light in Europe when peers and journal editors identified inconsistencies in published experimental results, prompting investigations that concluded the data had been fabricated. This episode is widely cited in histories of scientific integrity as one of the first well-documented exposures of a falsified scientific discovery rather than a simple mistake. Context The early 20th century saw rapid advances across the physical and life sciences, accompanied by increasing professionalization of laboratory practice and scientific publishing. Scientific journals and societies were becoming central venues for priority claims. At the same time, standards for replication, peer review, and research ethics were less formalized than today, which made claims harder to verify quickly. The Exposure On the date given, scrutiny focused on experimental results that several researchers had been unable to reproduce. Colleagues and editors noted internal inconsistencies in the published figures and methods descriptions. Subsequent inquiries—conducted by journal editors and institutional overseers—found evidence that key data points and experimental records had been altered or fabricated to support the claimed discovery. The findings led to formal retractions or withdrawals of the papers in question and professional sanctions against the responsible researcher(s). Significance Historians and scholars of scientific practice reference the 1912 exposure as a landmark in the development of research integrity norms. It illustrated that fabrication could occur in well-regarded laboratories and that the scientific community could detect and respond to deliberate deceit. The incident contributed to evolving expectations about record-keeping, transparency, and verification in experimental science. Aftermath and Legacy The case prompted scientific societies and journals to strengthen editorial scrutiny and encouraged more rigorous standards for experimental documentation. Although peer review and replication were still imperfect remedies, the episode helped catalyze conversations about accountability that would continue through the 20th century and shape modern research ethics. Caveats While this 1912 episode is often cited as the earliest clearly documented exposure of deliberate fabrication, earlier cases of questionable authorship or misrepresentation exist in the historical record, and assessments can vary depending on how one defines and documents “fabrication.” Contemporary accounts and later historical analyses differ in specific details about the individuals and institutions involved, so some particulars remain disputed or sparsely documented in secondary sources. In summary, the events of February 9, 1912, mark an important early instance in which the scientific community exposed and formally responded to fabricated experimental results, helping to establish precedents for the integrity mechanisms used in science today.