The religious group that funds it has a questionable relationship to science including and despite "Science" being in its name. (It was started as a 19th Century anti-hospital group. We'd consider them "proto-anti-vax" in today's concerns and terminology.) They may be unbiased in reporting the news, generally, but there's still concerns about their relationship to reporting science given their name and the known beliefs of their church.

> there's still concerns about their relationship to reporting science

Can you provide any credible examples of concerns regarding their reporting on science topics?

...being anti-hospital in the 19th century sounds fairly rational to me?

Sure, you can't fault them for not having some good reasons behind their beliefs, based on what they knew and experienced at the time. You can certainly fault them for calcifying those beliefs into an entire church with rituals/rites devoted to such beliefs that then became somewhat obstinate in the face of later scientific progress and technological advancement (and then because of that also complicit in later struggles of science versus pseudo-science and conspiratorial thinking).

Treating a hospital as an absolute last resort in the 19th century would be rational, but I'm not sure being "anti-hospital" would be.