Well, in science you actually usually get bonus points for "surprising" results, so while I'm glad they published it I think the same incentives that encourage scientists to publish some findings and trash others are still at play here.
I think the title of this paper does a real disservice to the much more carefully written abstract. The abstract is very careful to point out the limitations of this study and flesh out why the main conclusion should be considered cautiously.
It's supposed to be science, not am opinion piece.
You underestimate the value of surprising and unexpected results for one's academic career.
Validation is everything.
Validation rarely happens nowadays for many many results.
In biology, if you don't have validation you aren't getting published in Nature. Maybe other fields play faster and looser, but this field demands evidence for claims and support from other sources validating these findings before they are seriously accepted by the community.
How is the validation done?
If you discover a brand new biological phenomenon, are you saying you can get it published unless someone else does the same experiment and gets the same result?