The OP is wrong on this, the guy is a JOURNALIST not a scientist. (He may have a science degree but he acts as a journalist).
If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute. Any of the following would be enough to disgrace a practicing scientist (I am one):
1- carrying out research on human subjects without approval of the study by an independent review board
2- asking people to undergo a study that he knew before hand that was not beneficial to the subjects, in fact could likely be the opposite (this would mean he'd never get approval of the study)
3- lying to people about his affiliation and credentials in the paper
There are a lot of other problems with this "study", but it surely was not done by a scientist.
What it does reveal is that people cannot rely on popular press stories about science as journalist pay no attention to the important details of publications and fall for any hype. Unlike what the guy says, journalist can never be "peer" reviewers of any science... their role is different and yet they are not doing it properly.