Just because an article sounds like something informative and good to read, does not mean it is:
At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.
You don't find that conclusion informative and interesting? I did, much like I find Godel's incompleteness theorems or the Halting theorem very informative and interesting.
Not every instance of "I dunno" is equal in impact or insight to Gödel's theorems. In fact, almost none of them are. This is because the interesting part of Gödel's work was not the "dunno" aspect, but the positive knowledge of what is and is not possible in mathematics.
The halting problem, likewise, exposes exposes a fundamental limitation in computing. It is not simply "I dunno," but "This cannot be known."
If the article proved the origin of viruses to be unknowable, that would be quite interesting and surprising. But asking a difficult question and then answering it with "I dunno" is a much simpler and less interesting accomplishment. I could do this with any number of things.
There recently was a more interesting article on viruses in the news. Because a virus relies on DNA codons having the same meaning (i.e. maps to the same amino acid) for the host organism, you could engineer an organism immune for all viruses. Sort of like switching to another CPU architecture with a different instruction set.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/editing-genome-0715.html
At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.