Maybe the word "fad" is better than "politically correct", although today they mean about the same. A lot of science these days is "political correctness" to get funding. All you have to do is look at the high level of fraud in the global warming science. Not saying there is nothing to global warming, just that there was a lot of fraud to get funding, recognition, and to make political points.
Now to your story. Think a little about the science as explained in the article, it says that daylight effects melatonin, in laboratory conditions. It does not at all explain what other triggers effect melatonin and it does not explain what other body functions light effects. So how do we know there is a net effect? We don't, but it gets even worse, see below.
One of the actual research papers by one of the authors listed in the article is at:
From the study:
"The lack of a consistent and adequate method of quantifying light makes it challenging to replicate experimental conditions or to compare across studies." This means its still just research, not scientifically proven.
Oh and then there is this from the study.
"There are limitations to the data presented here. First, each study employed young adults. Results from studies with older adults would differ significantly due to age- related differences such as ocular media transmission [61,62]. Second, although each fluence-response curve was developed with a complete within-subjects study design, three separate cohorts of subjects were studied. An ideal comparison of the potency across three lamplights would have employed the same subjects for all three curves. That is logistically challenging, however, due to subject compliance and drop out. No published human neuroendocrine studies yet have provided three full-range fluence- response curves within a single subject cohort. Finally, the light exposure technique involved constant 90 min full retinal field exposures. Such exposures are optimum for comparing the potency of the three types of lamplight. When used in daily applications such as the home, workplace or spaceflight environments, exposure conditions rarely would be full retinal field or continuous. Studies in a variety of architecturally illuminated spaces are needed to define the optimum illuminances and irradiances that support vision as well as the biological and behavioral efficacy of built-in lighting."
Maybe, if you have melatonin problems already, this might have some benefit, but it just was as well could be a placebo effect for normal humans, living normal lives, in normal lighting conditions, on earth.
The Scientific American article is an extrapolation of their research, not scientifically proven effects on late night computer users. The Scientific American article is about getting funding, not presenting science, because its
not science when it
cannot be replicated and compared across studies.
