Scientists are like anyone else, pick the low hanging fruits, pr and funds, and let the nerds do the rest.
It is the same way tourism evolves, backpackers first and then the business starts from there?
I think this is a very unfair view of scientists.
First, scientist choose their research topics primarily based on their (or their supervisor's) personal scientific interests and the potential to achieve scientifically significant results. PR potential is rarely the top criterion. Funding is important of course, and that's why scientist spend a lot of effort in trying to convince funding agencies that what they want to research is worth funding.
Second, science takes time. The recent Nature paper mentioned above was published in March 2014 but submitted already in October 2013. The research very likely started months earlier, well before the first post in this thread, and quite likely some of the authors first became interested in the topic some time in 2012 if not earlier. There are likely other research groups currently studying Zachariae but have not reached a publication stage yet. Others are probably watching with interest but do not currently have the resources for a new project or are waiting for more data before starting a project. We just don't hear about these because scientists do not seek publicity for unfinished research.
Third, there are good reasons why scientists "flock" to the same glaciers. If you develop a new glacier model or a new technique for analyzing glacier data, what you want to do is to demonstrate that your new method is in some way better than previous methods, so you apply your method to a heavily studied glacier.
Sorry for this outburst. You may have guessed that I am a scientist myself though not in a field that has anything to do with glaciers or climate.