Erroneous data are the result of either fraud or mistakes. They are deleterious because they require time and money to address and send investigators in unproductive directions. For clinical studies they can result in morbidity or even mortality. Paradoxically, they also may play a vital role by acting as “mutations” that can be useful in advancing revolutionary conceptualizations as in the sense described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Erroneous data mitigate the overwhelming pressure to conform in the biomedical research community to some degree by providing alternate visions. The example of Gregor Mendel’s garden pea study, which initiated the field of genetics, is presented since it has been considered to include falsified data. The forces that impose conformity and the pressing need to allow for distinct ideas to be considered are discussed.