I am strongly anti-circ. I believe there are lots of compelling reasons not to circ, and no compelling reasons to circ. (Not "no reasons to circ." "No compelling reasons to circ.") I don't know all the details of the study, so I can't speak to how they tested penis sensitivity...but I'm thinking that in my personal (totally limited, totally nonscientific, probably totally irrelevant) experience--with circ'ed partners and with one circ'ed and one intact son--I don't know that decreased sensitivity is a universal and unavoidable hazard of circ'ing. My point is, if it isn't...so what? That doesn't detract an iota from the other, many and varied, compelling arguments against it. No, publicizing this study doesn't help. But only in the sense that it supports one lame point in the non-arguable position that circ'ing is totally fine. Concede to them the "not-necessarily-less-sensitive" point. It doesn't defeat the overwhelming arguments on risk, pain, trauma, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Remember how people used to firmly believe that smoking pot would make you absolutely insane? Well, no, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's healthy. Non-insanity is beside the point.