I'm glad (not surprised) to know that actual forensic scientists are looking at reports like this in a positive light to figure out how to improve their work. Everything you say about science's constant need to improve is true.
I actually think, though, that worst parts of the article aren't really a result of the report itself. Here's the quote that is probably the most troubling:
One option would be to permit anybody convicted on the basis of biological evidence to subject that evidence to DNA analysis—which is, after all, the one form of forensics that scientists agree actually works. But in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that convicts had no such constitutional right, even where they can show a reasonable probability that DNA analysis would prove their innocence.
There is a big problem that we think the job of the courts is to convict people, not to come to the truth. It's also important to realize that this article is from the US where this problem seems to be much worse. In theory we should be just as happy when a court case exonerates a person as when it convicts them.
Take someone like Charles Smith. His results consistently showed what the police and the Crown Attorney's wanted them to show: that there was a bad person who needed to be arrested and convicted. It is not a leap to think that this is why he became responsible for conducting the majority of investigations into suspicious deaths of children.
There is a lot of pressure in the system to get results, and results don't mean the truth. While I don't doubt that the majority of the people in the field are there to do the best science they can do (they probably genuinely like doing science) there are always going to be some that are there to catch the bad guys CSI style. It is not the fault of the former that prosecutors are more interested in the opinions of the latter, but it is still a huge risk in the system.
So when I hear that bite mark analysis doesn't work, I'm not at all surprised. The system is not set up to incent good science.