Eh. These aren't random idiots. They are graduate students. Typically they know more about the nuts and bolts than the PIs. They are trying to show the absurdity of the current system. I for one heartily applaud their efforts.
The frustrating issue with science in academia, and I say this from 3 years of graduate work and 5 years of post-graduate work at major research universities, is that the process has become just another lame industry. The purpose of modern publicly funded laboratories is to churn out papers. Yes those papers are peer reviewed. But that doesn't make the science any more sound, it just insures the arguments in the paper are internally consistent. I've seen people repeat an experiment 20+ times, then publish the results of the SINGLE experiment that happened to give the numbers that matched their model. That doesn't mean the experiment worked that time, it just randomly gave a value that a reviewer would accept.
Frankly, Chemistry is among the easiest of the physical sciences. I say this as the physicist who was tasked by the chemists to fix their gear when it broke down. Their papers are almost universally set forth as an over glorified recipe. If you look across the fields chem majors have a higher percentage of publishing as undergrads, because the papers are so damn easy. You mix your bits, filter and then quantify the results. Boom, paper. Yes I'm oversimplifying, but not by much. The joke goes that if you want to make a breakthrough in modern chemistry you'd better find a physicist. If you want a breakthrough in modern physics you'd better find a mathematician.
The overarching problem is that the system pushes for papers period. Not worthwhile science, not correct science, simply papers. This has been passed down by the NIH to whom it was in turn handed to by congress and the public at large. People demand some mechanism to quantify how the tax dollars are spent, and papers became the most convenient metric. Thus the number of papers have ballooned astronomically, while the value has plummeted. People think they're so damn clever when the talk about how our pace of innovation accomplishes in months what used to take generations. They're just bullshitting themselves. Yes, there are *some* papers that are absolutely fantastic today, but the signal to noise ratio is far lower than it was even twenty years ago.