A setback, yes. Huge for those who wasted their time? Maybe.
But compare it to, say, Lysenkoism. That was a huge setback for Soviet biology.
As someone pointed out above, in fields where you collection and analysis times are measured in years if not decades you could run into trouble, but for chemistry and biology where you are at significantly shorter collection timescales, it isn't that big of an issie
Wait, is this a separate scandal? What's with all this bogus crystallography?
As such, they're way easier to falsify than papers in even really closely related fields. I've spent plenty of time pulling structures from ICSD and other databases populated off Acta Cryst; my PhD was in computational mineralogy - but a raw simulation isn't a publishable result in the way data hot off the diffractometer can be.
By the way, if anyone here gets the chance to visit a neutron source (eg Isis, isis.rl.ac.uk), take it! Amaaaazing machines.
The results were certainly different but perhaps the lab is the same. I'll check when I'm not on my iPhone.
Essentially, people wasted 2 months of distributed computing time trying to use the data from a fake crystal structure. Unsurprisingly, these were unsuccessful. Hundreds of thousands of compute hours were wasted and people were diverted from making real discoveries because the structure was already 'solved'. This is a huge setback, in my opinion.