Unnecessary redundancy: “At present, X is still unknown.”

Here is a common semantic problem that all writers have to deal with whenever they scribble a sentence: unnecessary redundancy.  I say unnecessary redundancy because sometimes redundancy is both necessary and useful, and sometimes it is unavoidable because it’s idiomatic. Take, for example, the idiom to write something down. The word down is unnecessary. All that’s necessary is to write something. But if I say something like I like that idea. I think I’ll write that down, I mean that I’m going to take my pen or pencil out and scribble it on a piece of paper right now. The two sentences I like that idea. I think I’ll write it, doesn’t express the immediacy of write that down. One would say I’ll write it in response to a question such as Who will write the grant proposal for our next study? or when saying something like this: Let’s put on a Christmas play for the department. I’ll write it, you design the costumes, and the rest of our group can act it. Without the word down, the verb means something different. To write down is a two-word phrasal verb that means something slightly different from the one-word verb to write. 

Here’s a sentence from a biochemistry paper that contains two unnecessary redundancies. Can you guess which are the offending words and why?

"At present, the mode of action for APETx2 is
still unknown."

Here they are: At present and still.

 At present, The mode of action for
APETx2 is still[Verbose: at present and still are synonymous in this
context. In addition, when you say that something is unknown, the notion that it is unknown at present and still unknown is contained in the word unknown. Therefore, both terms are
unnecessary] unknown.

All that’s necessary is "The mode of action for APETx2 is unknown."