Ah, so it's one of those moments when there are contradicting studies and without getting a PhD on the subject one can't have a meaningful opinion. I just wish there was a good way of settling such situations.

Actually in this instance that is not the case. It is the case of misrepresenting the actual data and making a more sensational misleading headline.

See the editor's note in the original Scientific American article. It simply confirms the statements made by CEJournal.