This is a nice article. There's a problem with a lot of science reporting that people just report the controversy. Most people cannot assess a scientific paper (if the article bothers to link to the actual research) and so it'd be great if media could do a breakdown - "suitable sample?" "randomised?" "controlled?" "peer reviewed?".

Some old reports:

Wildlife preserve not scientifically justified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm)

Significant impact on biodiversity and population numbers (but also that this is a polarised debate) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489)

Chernobyl birds have small brains (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...)

Insect decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm)