I'm sorry, but is this really news or what is it? Criticism against RCTs are in biological sciences too. I don't see how criticism against RCTs is news. Is it t

I'm sorry, but is this really news or what is it? Criticism against RCTs are in biological sciences too. I don't see how criticism against RCTs is news. Is it that the prize winners are just being more scientific about RCT and getting headwind? Is it that mentioning the Nobel is always news? In the Ebola vaccine trial, they did away with the control groups the moment they realised that the vaccine was effective, sacrificing their nice full statistical analysis for (in this case sensible) common sense. So there are always exceptions to RCTs and there are always cases where they are not the suitable method from the outset. Is the point of the article that economists are not rigorous enough and that Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer try to be more rigorous, bringing RCTs into economics where they are traditionally more in the biological sciences?