This is the paper in question: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/06/18/science.1252319 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/06/18/science.1..

This is the paper in question: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/06/18/science.1252319 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/06/18/science.1... Which appears (I can't tell, paywalled) to be an update or this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2910 http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2910 I don't have to time to read the article properly right now, but doesn't look like they did anything ridiculous in their choice of testing algorithm.