You may want to justify why it is "bad science" and write a letter to the editor of Nature and Nature Protocols. Is the media interpretation of these studies misguided? Sure, but the popular science media is not doing the science.
I would be peeved if people called my research "bad science" because some pop. sci. article doesn't understand it.
Nature is hardly the top of the crust these days with regards to academic oversight.
I can recall quite easily that a while back they published an article confirming ESP, and then refused to publish a replication of the same paper stating no results.
Because the first one sells issues and the second one doesn't.
Nature does love flashy stories but the ESP stuff wasn’t them, it was JPSP.
Here’s the citation:
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Nature did publish a thing on “water memory” in the 1980s. To their (partial) credit, it was published with an editorial pointing out how unlikely the findings were.
I would be peeved if people called my research "bad science" because some pop. sci. article doesn't understand it.