At first I was incredulous that they would make this claim, since it makes it appear they either failed to follow the literature enough to notice other researchers made the remarkable discovery of this system three years ago, or are trying history revisionism to claim that discovery as their own. But I guess the operative word here is "human". The original research actually gets a small mention in the text body.

Another case of a small but valuable increment of research and nauseating treatment of the same by the spin department I guess.