Carl Djerassi's "Cantor's Dilemma" appeared right around the time of the "cold fusion" controversy, some 20 years back. The novel's examination of the issue of scientific fraud was thus timely, and remains so now, as a way of examining the potential lengths that scientists may go to get the results that they hope to get. In that sense, scientists are human just like other people, in seeing at times what they want to see. It should be noted that in this scenario of fictional scientists like Isidore Cantor and Jeremiah Stafford, in work that is ground-breaking enough to lead to a Nobel Prize, it is never explicitly stated that one of the parties in the scientific work actually committed fraud in the lab. However, there's enough ambiguity to leave one wondering through the whole story, which is part of Djerassi's point, after all.
The novel reads breezily and goes down easily, even when it expostulates on the fictional tumorigenesis cancer theory. Djerassi is skillful enough to write such that any science doesn't overwhelm the intelligent lay person who isn't necessarily a scientist. However, while the topic is important and worthy of discussion by all people, scientists and non-scientists, to me at least, this novel is not "great literature", by any stretch of the imagination. The prose style is fairly pedestrian, almost journalistic in its straightforwardness. Any deeper resonances come from the dramatic situations and the continually teasing ambiguity of just what happened with respect to the key experiments.
In short: if you read this novel, it'll be for the "big idea" under discussion here, in Djerassi's self-coined genre of "science in fiction", and not because this is a "great novel", which it isn't.