Tabooing words is a tool, not a mandatory exercise. They weren't relying on the word "unscientifically" to do the work for them.

For example, here is the first instance of the word I spotted upon looking at the article again:

de Grey also casually rules out the contributions of non-oncogenic epimutation to aging through “guilt by association” misrepresentation. He groups together nDNA mutation and epimutation, provides grossly insufficient evidence to rule out nDNA mutation as important in aging, and then declares epimutation is ruled out as well without providing any supporting evidence [8, 35]. There is no logical or mechanistic reason for this. In fact, references are available that suggest that epimutation might be common and problematic with advancing age, possibly even more so than nDNA mutation (for example see [36-38]). Furthermore, other known molecular pathologies, such as unrepaired DNA damage in post-mitotic tissues, as well as largely uncharacterized and undiscovered damage and pathologies, are dismissed altogether as contributing to aging (for one example, see [39]). This is baseless and unscientific conjecture.

It seems clear that they're not relying on the word in an inappropriate way. Tabooing is useful sometimes, but requiring others to taboo any subject of conversation is not productive and adds an unnecessary mechanism for biases to influence us.