How Light at Night Affects Preschoolers' Sleep Patterns (Video)

The effects of light and dark on adults' Circadian rythym has been studied over and over, but there hasn't been much research done on how light at night affects young children's sleep patterns. This is the topic of Lameese Akacem's doctoral dissertation, and is a study being carried out under the aegis of the Sleep and Development Laboratory at the University of Colorado, Boulder, under the direction of Assistant Professor Monique K. LeBourgeois. Aside from the inherent value of this research, which may help parents decide whether (and how much) they are messing up their children's sleep patterns by letting them view screens such as TVs, tablets or smart phones near bedtime, its funding is unique; the money for this study is coming, at least in part, from crowdfunding. The crowdfunding itself is an experiment. This study is one of a small, select group of projects the University of Colorado at Boulder has in its pilot crowdfunding program. Its crowdfunding time window closes next week, so if you want to help sponsor this experiment, and help learn how different kinds of light can affect how (and how well) small children sleep, you need to act within the next six days. (This is a two-part video. Part one runs today. Part two will run tomorrow.)

Comments

Re:Lameese

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as I saw the pictures I assumed that this thread would include the usual cadre of people who could not see past the gender of the principles. I do not know why I even bothered to click through - the first two posts were pretty much what I expected. How about we admire competent people and let their work speak.

Crowdfunded Science Not Unique

[Kunedog]

What made the editors to go to all the effort to post even one article about this?

its funding is unique; the money for this study is coming, at least in part, from crowdfunding.

This isn't unique. In fact, three times I've submitted news of a crowdfunded, already completed, ground-breaking scientific discovery published in Nature Chemistry, and /. couldn't be bothered to run it. But somehow, this study gets the "deluxe" Slashdot video treament, plus a pointless second article, plus a call to action to "pitch in."

So, would /. rather read about a major discovery in the hard sciences or about this unfinished (unstarted?) study asking all of us for money?

repost that sums it up (don't feel like typing it all again):
-----

I know how it sounds to complain that your one submission (out of the many /. receives) didn't get accepted, but I've tried submitting this recent scientific discovery (published in Nature Chemistry) a few times. IMO it's perfect material for Slashdot: an interesting new hypothesis (about a supposedly "well-understood" reaction) put to the test via regularly evolving experiments and apparatuses. And it was even largely funded through Youtube viewers (who the lead scientist thanks in the paper) and documented with (at least one) well-done video.

But /. never ran it. I can't help but think that part of the problem is that the scientist is Dr. Phil Mason, aka thunderf00t, who is known for his vids that expose Atheism+ and anti-Gamergate types as fools. Think about the lousy submissions that do often make it on the front page, especially those that push an agenda.

This is why things like Gamergate (and Slashdot's atrocious coverage of it) matter, even if you yourself don't personally care about videogames; it is a fight against neo-puritans who want to filter ALL types of content (not just games, comics, music, movies, etc) you're allowed to see, and refuse to acknowledge the work of those who don't buy into the "narrative."

P.S. Clearly I'm biased, so if any of you think that my article submission is unworthy for some other reason, let me know (seriously).