Sure, but how much time, money, and effort to devote to such study is difficult to answer.
For example, a space program of some sort is often seen as producing good science. Studies of microgravity effects on human physiology, in general, are useful. The effects of microgravity on cheeto dust absorption of the skin maybe isn’t. But the effects of skin absorption rates of atmospheric contaminants? Could be quite useful.
Should we devote at least some resources to this particular method of sequestering carbon? Sure, if the results are reproducible.
Should we devote a great deal of resources to scaling it up? That’s a much more difficult question to answer though we have some guidelines to work with.
This is straying from a purely GQ thread, but the most effective ways of addressing CO2 are essentially the same ways we address household waste - reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Recycling, though still worth doing, is the least efficient and effective of those three for both household waste and for CO2, though it tends to attract attention out of proportion for that efficacy. For now, funding these small scale studies is worth it, as they aren’t terribly expensive or resource intensive in terms of people in the grand scheme of things. But in terms of effectiveness, we already have good evidence that methods to reduce CO2 production in the first place is going to have the bigger bang for the buck.
Putting that funding in seeking efficiencies in the CO2 intensive processes we have now will have a bigger bang for the buck than pie in the sky ideas that may or may not pan out years or decades in the future. Sure, continue studying the problem, but the consideration of what resources to devote and how to divvy those resources is not trivial nor should they go to the ‘sexiest’ attention grabbers.