Critical analysis of research is science. I'm perpetually frustrated with articles like this that seem to portray science as a failure by citing faulty studies, ignoring the fact that everything is working as it should.
You missed the point in the name of semantics, but I'll bite. Finding flaws in a scientific paper my be taking part in the scientific process, but it is by no means a science in itself - e.g. as a stats person, I can point out when a p value is misapplied, but I would never claim I just 'used science'.
>I'm perpetually frustrated with articles like this that seem to portray science as a failure by citing faulty studies
It's worth separating the philosophy of science from its application. This article is purely about the application and what has gone wrong. This is why I think this article is important for the STEM crowd: we are taught that science is an infallible philosophy (which I agree with), but it's easy to forget the garbage-in garbage-out nature of experimentation.
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).