What would you find more plausible, the discovery of a moral fact or a new subatomic particle?

Question

There is a major press conference at the some University. A group of distinguished researchers from psychology, sociology, philosophy, and biology have all gathered to announce an important discovery: the clear and confirmed discovery of a moral fact. Would you find that more or less plausible than the announcement of a similarly distinguished group of researchers from the physics department that they have discovered a new subatomic particle?

Answer 1

Considering that there have been subatomic particles discovered in the past ... and what the heck is a "moral fact" anyway?

Answer 2

The particle would be a more clear-cut question, and emotionally neutral.  I'm not sure what they would mean by a moral fact.  You could say that murder (taking an innocent human life) is morally wrong because God says so.  Discovering that is as simple as reading the Bible.  Or you could say that murder is wrong because research has showed many ways in which a society where murder is prevalent is inferior, or more damaging to people, than one where murder is not prevalent.  Perhaps this is what you're thinking of.