Huh, I was expecting Science to mean "science as a social institution," but he really is making the strong claim that science as a way of learning things is "failing us" because the human body is complicated. Where of course the problem is, "failing us relative to what?"
I guess one qualitative difference is the fact that drug companies now cut down on research, suggesting that area of science has passed the point where it can no longer pay for itself.
Something similar happened in particle physics: in the early 20th century experiments were cheap (and fit on a tabletop), yet the value of the discoveries was immense (x-rays, nuclear power). Nowadays the experiments needed to make new discoveries are staggeringly expensive (LHC, SSC), and they are not expected to have any technological implications at all (since the new science will only be relevant under extreme conditions). So investing in particle physics research went from being free money to being a net cost.
Jonah Lehrer has up another of his contrarian science articles: "Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us".
Main topics: the failure of drugs in clinical trials, diminishing returns to pharmaceutical research, doctors over-treating, and Humean causality-correlation distinction, with some Ioannidis mixed through-out.
See also "Why epidemiology will not correct itself"
In completely unrelated news, Nick Bostrom is stepping down from IEET's Chairman of the Board.