`  :::Many scientists think the lab's work was pointless at best. But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific? - This, to me, doesn't support even that claim. In general, questions are not claims; furthermore, this is a rhetorical question, used to transition to the next paragraph. Finally, this is a news article by a journalist writing for Nature, not a research paper or letter from a scientist. The same article says, ``Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect.`` Should we reference these in counterpoint? (``A journalist implied that parapsychology is scientific, but many scientists disagree.``) It would just be too much POV pushing. I think it makes the most sense to leave out that sentence. Like I said before, the article is better without it.   `