They failed to replicate the study over multiple attempts, 1 with four times the sample size.

Using the time reversal heuristic, if we flip the order, so the replication came before the original, how would you feel about Science publishing a paper with a positive result, when multiple studies--with larger samples and the same materials--had not obtained the result?

If you think the original should still be published in Science in that case, why? Since the original is published and highly visible, it's dangerous that Science won't correct the highly publicized, unlikely-true result.