This result could happen without any intentional conduct, so ironically you may have made a similar error as the original researchers.

While there are very real issues about reproducibility and motivation, rarely do studies actually claim what pop science puts in the headlines.

Popper has a better approach with the idea that evidence cannot establish a scientific hypothesis, it can only “falsify” it.

It is actually how we write computer programs in the modern era too.

The Scientific realism camp is committed to a literal interpretation of scientific claims about the world, but others like myself consider it confusing the map for the territory.

But that is the realm of philosophy and not science.

While the time scale and wasted effort from the flawed original paper is regrettable, this is the process working in the long run.

This paper's falsification is the process working, irrespective of some claims of 'ethics and morals'

Studies about humans will always be subject to problems, exactly because of ethics and morals, e.g the tuskegee experiments.