This is a significant (excuse the pun) development that is unlikely to be reported in major news outlets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, an academic journal, has banned authors from using null hypothesis significance testing procedures. This may seem like an obscure topic, but it has enormous implications for what counts as scientific evidence.
As a student, I was aware of growing criticism of null hypothesis significance testing. Strangely, when I raised these issues with faculty, most of them were unaware of the criticism. Even today, when I try to publish a paper using modern or non-parametric methods the reviewers will often either reject it out of hand or demand special justification.
peakmemory 
I’m a little weak in this area, but when I watched the video I wasn’t able to figure out the connection between it’s content and your comments in this article. Please clarify if you don’t mind.
I am sorry, this story might seem esoteric to some readers, but it relates to an important discussion going on in a number of sciences about appropriate research methods. Here is an article that explains some of the background:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jun/10/physics-envy-do-hard-sciences-hold-the-solution-to-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology