I remember a funny shirt I once saw at a physics conference - it gave 10 tips on what to do when "everything else fails". Here is the list:
10. Subtract Infinity
9. Add heavy fermions
8. Set all fermion masses to zero
7. Invent another symmetry
6. Throw it on the lattice
5. Blame it on the Planck scale
4. Recall the success of the SM
3. Invoke the Anthropic Principle
2. Wave hands a lot, speak with a strong accent
1. Manipulate the data

I believe the list is incomplete - the article "Auto-Concealment of SUSY in Extra Dimensions" just appeared on the arxiv, by Savas Dimopoulos et al., seems to add at least one further important element: 11. Hide it in the bulk.

What I am talking about is Supersymmetry, and how to reckon with the fact that it has so far eluded all searches, having been proven non-existent in all the previously preferred places where it was predicted to be, "around the corner". In the course of the past 30 years Supersymmetric particles have been sought at half a dozen particle colliders, in all sorts of production modes and final states, and the answer has always been the same: there is no hint of anything similar in the data.

Now the paper by Dimopoulos seems to explain the absence of a signal by a compression of the spectrum of SUSY states in the "brane" of a multi-dimensional space, the one we are sitting on, with the lightest particle decaying into a tower of states in the "bulk" of the extra dimensions.

The result is an "auto-concealment" mechanism which could explain why we are not finding any supersymmetric particle signals at the LHC: all the mass states accessible in our brane are pushed up and compressed, and the experimental signatures are significantly weakened. Less missing transverse energy, lower momenta. A thorough downgrading of all experimental limits. It looks like the authors have taken the bull (experimental limits) by its horns, and rather than pushing the preferred mass of SUSY particles up, redefining what "around the corner" means, they have found a way to weaken the evidence of the data against light SUSY.

The paper is actually quite well written and readable, and I recommend it: I am an avid science fiction reader. I of course do not believe it describes the physical reality - I remain attached to Ockham's razor and am thus led to dislike complicated explanations for simple phenomena - but who knows, maybe Nature has decided to surprise us this time...