I will begin by making an exaggerated claim which shows that I do not understand the scientific research at issue, nor indeed do I understand science at all, nor am I aware (because I hardly bothered to read the article) that it was written a year ago.
Second, I will link to and quote a portion of the article that shows the reporter is also a scientific ignoramus.
In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".
I will follow up with an arcane reference to a British science fiction tv series that hasn't aged well, but assume readers will get because I enjoyed the show when I was a child.
Finally, I will state that the reporter's ignorant summary of the scientific research supports my moral and political prejudices, denouncing those who disagree with me as morons whose beliefs endanger the world, or society, or children, as proven by science.
At the close of my post, I will write a brief, three letter word attached to a hyperlink (perhaps "Via") through which I grudgingly admit that I did not find the article myself (because who has time to read newspapers?), but got it from a more popular blogger.