The press release kindly submitted here describes the experimental apparatus and protocol in reasonable detail, but acknowledges, "Researchers found that accuracy varied among the pairs, ranging from 25 to 83 percent." That means the method still needs a lot of work. The lab has strong external funding, it appears, and we should keep an eye on what further results it announces that are examined by independent science journalists.
But this is a press release, so it will tend to have favorable spin to keep the funding flowing. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. Not all press releases spin their statements as badly as the worst examples, but all of them should be compared to independent sources for a second opinion.
The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[2] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story.
AFTER EDIT: Feel free to let me know what you disagree about here (assuming that an early downvote was made to indicate disagreement). I don't have a direct brain-to-brain connection with anyone else on Hacker News, so I can't always be sure what people mean by how they click on posts.
They were expanding on preliminary research they did a year ago. The accuracy problem was on the 'visualization' end apparently, not the transfer/reproduction end. It's really not spun beyond recognition, just early days for this type of research.
But this is a press release, so it will tend to have favorable spin to keep the funding flowing. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. Not all press releases spin their statements as badly as the worst examples, but all of them should be compared to independent sources for a second opinion.
The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[2] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story.
[1] "The Science News Cycle" http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
[2] "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
AFTER EDIT: Feel free to let me know what you disagree about here (assuming that an early downvote was made to indicate disagreement). I don't have a direct brain-to-brain connection with anyone else on Hacker News, so I can't always be sure what people mean by how they click on posts.