This is the Columbia Journalism Review. It's not saying science is stupid, it's saying that reporters are too quick to publish study results, when not enough research has been done on the subject topic.
JohnsonB's comment[0] draws the same conclusion I did. The article seems to suggest that studies aren't working and we need to start listening to anecdotal evidence. I could have misinterpreted that passage, though.
The idea that scientific research is infallible is exactly what the article is arguing against - in fact, it claims this attitude is a bigger problem than the scientists or the media.
Human-performed studies with limited budgets and unrealistic controls should not supersede expert opinion per se. When there is a disconnect between the two it is irresponsible not to question the scientific studies (in addition to the experts, of course).
[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5080094