Hey everyone, frnic is right---don't downmod on account of his French. The photoshopped pictures aren't actually anywhere on Apple's website; they are from rumor mills and third party sites.
As usual, the most insightful and informative comment is at the bottom where it won't be seen; the most sensationalist and factually inaccurate comments are at the top modded to +5.
Sounds reasonable to me. The article says that a lot of the Lithium settled into the core of the star via diffusion. The reason the deuterium abundance measurements are not affected by this is that they are not done in stars, but in distant absorbing systems.
Peer review is fine. The problem is that there isn't enough reviewer guidance, nor are there enough pots for money for "high risk, high reward" situations. Government agencies are too afraid of "wasting" their money. These things can easily be remedied by having changes at the administrative level such that money is set aside for risky projects. Peer review can then go on the same way with revised criteria.
Also remember, for every story like the miracle cancer medicine that couldn't get funded for years but then became a runaway success, there are say 10-100 rejected projects that wouldn't have gone anywhere. What if there isn't any objective way to tell apart that 1-10% from the failures? Should we fund all of them? I don't think so as there is still much to be gained from "incremental" science.
"To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum of interoperability among some of their equipment." -- Harv Masterson