in the close confines of a cluster, the most massive stars quickly evolve and go supernovae. The less massive main-sequence stars with longer lifetimes may get thoroughly irradiated early in the cluster's history, but eventually conditions will settle down and they will have a chance to evolve life. Early in a cluster's history, conditions may be hostile for the origin of life, but in old clusters, (and the globs are OLD!)things have been pretty quiet for a very long while.

We know elements heavier than iron are only formed in supernova explosions,so it is likely the earth (solar nebula) was exposed to all sorts of cataclysmic events, and yet we know life evolved here.
It just arose later, after the neighborhood settled down..

And all those novae will have scattered a lot of metals into the environment. But the article does have a point, in open clusters, biogenesis may not occur until the older cluster stars "evaporate" into the disk population as galactic tidal forces disperse the cluster. The article may have a point about the early cluster environment not being optimal for biogenesis, but its conclusions about our uniqueness are almost certainly wrong.

Life probably did not arise on earth until after Sol was ejected from its parent OC. The GCs are more gravitationally bound, hence longer lived. But they are older, more massive, and much larger (hundreds of thousands vs thousands of stars).

I certainly haven't worked out the details, but I would guess the biggest constraint on biogenesis in any cluster is the metallicity of the cluster. As long as there is some metal in the cluster interstellar medium, life is possible.