I think what they've shown is that there's a lot of value in doing this basic research. Even their literally crappy additive created "much better electrocatalyt

I think what they've shown is that there's a lot of value in doing this basic research. Even their literally crappy additive created "much better electrocatalytic properties" than nondoped graphene. The plethora of research papers, with a large amount of information non-collated and hard to search through, seems to be the problem. It's clear that there's a lot of problem space to search through. Many teams have created "Positive" results, but because each is it's own research paper, it is challenging to determine which result is the "best", and which results are deserving of further study. What I would take from this is that there's a need for a "standard" experiment in this space, and for many formulations and differences to be mapped, graphed, and compared. One paper encompassing a few hundred formulations, chosen in advance to explore the problem space and find directions, would be more useful. Follow-up papers would employ a search-pattern, increasing and decreasing the concentrations of dopants and hill climbing until optimal points are found or property-curves can be established.