I read TFA and it struck me that this is the invention of salesmen who are working very hard to find a rationale for their product. The two examples they came up with, where the benefits of their system are supposed to be maximally evident, are just not convincing. In the case of the mice who are kept awake at night: Wouldn't the test group and the control group of mice both be equally affected by the noise? If the thing being tested for really was making a difference, shouldn't that difference still be visible? This sounds an awful lot like: We went into the experiment knowing what results we wanted, and we twiddled knobs and kept discarding "bad" data under the thinnest pretenses, until we finally got them. And that's not how you do science.
When it comes to the researchers whose polymer was being degraded by UV photons from normal daylight... I'm sorry, they just don't sound very smart. I have to wonder if their situation would have improved if they had installed this monitoring system. What would it have told them? "Your experiment is occurring at room temperature, earth gravity, normal daylight, air of terrestrial composition, yadda yadda." Are the salesmen suggesting that these bumbling scientists would have looked at all this "data", slapped their foreheads and yelled: BY GOD, WE JUST LEARNED THAT OUR EXPERIMENT IS OCCURRING IN NORMAL DAYLIGHT!