The attack vectors described in these "studies" have been discussed in the bitcoin community for years. It's also worth noting that despite a market-cap in the billions, these attacks have not been performed to any measurable degree. Nevermind the perverse incentives (the authors treat incentivization very myopically). These attacks are interesting to theorize about and should ultimately be insulated against for the long-term, but they're of little practical relevance.
You don't think the fact that Bitcoin is definitely not incentive compatible is an issue?
An incentive is a reward, and rewards are subjective.
We can argue all day about if miners make enough money or who gets the new coins and fees. None of that changes the fact that there will always be people out there who see things such as helping verify payments, having a fun hobby to play around with and generally contributing back to the web as an adequate incentive.
Even if you ignore all those things, and argue that there is absolutely no incentive, the conclusion of that is that it would be irrational to mine. There will always be people who behave irrationally.