I have a background in economics and finance with a stronger-than-average focus in statistics (compared to my peers in these fields), and I agree with you that

I have a background in economics and finance with a stronger-than-average focus in statistics (compared to my peers in these fields), and I agree with you that statistical literacy (both in terms of application/interpretation but also an understanding of the mathematical foundations) are lacking in not only life sciences but really any field besides statistics. I am certain I must have done some bad-stats with the research I worked on too, because as the article also points out, it's hard to do it right and be certain you have a correct model with appropriate tests (even with so many eyes on it!) Increasing the literacy requirements is an option, but not realistically implementable. I think providing guidance and implementation support by actual practicing statisticians being involved in the data analysis sections of published research as a prerequisite is more realistic. A process in which experiments are conducted and data is collected, and the statisticians are involved in the interpretation in collaboration with the researchers is expensive in time and money, but I guess will produce much better quality analyses. Who wants to put this one to test?