EDIT2: This comment has started a bit of an unrelated debate, so I would like to quickly clarify that my original complaint in this comment was more of a semantic issue that I had with the author repeatedly saying "science" when he meant psychology/medicine specifically. This is something that I've seen a lot from people in some fields more than others and it is a pet peeve of mine.

Original comment:

It's important to note that this is an indicator for social sciences like psychology, but not really for harder sciences like Physics/Astronomy/Chemistry. It always annoys me that people just say "science" when talking about soft sciences as if the shortcomings there apply to the hard sciences as well.

This shows that when studying people, it's very easy to do it wrong and to get bad results and false positives. This does not say anything about harder sciences. This doesn't mean that things like climate change could just be a placebo effect. Human biases don't change thermometers, but they might change more the subjective criteria of a softer science field.

EDIT: The important thing that needs to be remembered here is that these fields operate differently. In these softer sciences (especially psychology) the only evidence comes from "doing things to people and watching what happens". The problem here is that people are very complicated, and it's easy to fuck it up and accidentally include a bias. With harder sciences, we know more about the system, can get a more solid mathematical / theoretical foundation that can predict things, and can approach situations from a larger variety of observational vantages to get a fuller picture.