I hope they're doing more than just arguing over whether it works or not.
Assuming there is enough information in the paper to replicate the experiment, then the proper course of action would be re-run the experiment and see whether the counter-hypothesis that this won't or can't work is true or not.
Of course, other groups should also do the same. I just hope this isn't another case of "we can't afford to do a replication of the experiment because that doesn't get us grant money" - which I have read about elsewhere is a big deal right now in scientific research (that is, new research is not being replicated - thus science isn't really being done properly).
This research, if it does turn out to be valid, could or would be world changing.
Assuming there is enough information in the paper to replicate the experiment, then the proper course of action would be re-run the experiment and see whether the counter-hypothesis that this won't or can't work is true or not.
Of course, other groups should also do the same. I just hope this isn't another case of "we can't afford to do a replication of the experiment because that doesn't get us grant money" - which I have read about elsewhere is a big deal right now in scientific research (that is, new research is not being replicated - thus science isn't really being done properly).
This research, if it does turn out to be valid, could or would be world changing.