This is in the fourth paragraph. This is clearly a hit piece against not just science but the very idea that truth can exist.
"Science" isn't a helpless creature that can be hit or needs to be defended. It's a collection of knowledge and techniques. No technique is invalidated solely by knowledge of its origins, but an awareness of the goals and constraints under which a technique is developed can give us insight into its uses and limitations now.
The idea that we shouldn't pursue those paths of knowledge, out of a responsibility to preserve the myth of science's purity from political considerations, is a radical ideology. Attempting to hide these ties, or refusing to address them, does not serve the ideals of truth that you're implying compel you.
Also, what are the issues with statistical significance? The article just says it has some connection with eugenics and leaves it there.