There is a story about NASA and the first US probes to Mariner Probe to Venus in 1962. At that point, NASA was still a bit naive and they put actual scientist in front of reporters to answer questions. The scientist reported high temperatures and high levels of Carbon in the atmosphere. Reporters began to speculate, "Could that mean there are volcanoes?", "Do the high temps and levels of carbon mean there could be jungles?". "What about life on Venus, could it be like the early earth?". The scientist, unused to the publicity and frankly intoxicated that anyone outside of their colleagues actually listened to them, were unwilling to stop from speculating. Instead of saying, "We just don't know", their responses were along the lines of, "Well... it's a remote possibility".
The next day's headlines in some papers were ... "NASA Confirms Dinosaurs on Venus".
If you're hearing about any kind of scientific study in a newspaper, particularly a tabloid like "The Daily Mail", don't depend on any interpretation that the reporters might inject into their stories. Dry, scientific reports don't sell papers, shocking headlines and speculative stories do.
