The article is more of historical interest to me. I don't think Buckminster Fuller's claims are more trustworthy than those of other people, and from what I've read they aren't any different from what others claim. So the basic criticisms seem to hold against his claims. And the evidence for polyphasic sleep is quite bad, so bad in fact that I am surprised and disappointed that so many rationalists take it seriously. I suppose it comes from wishful thinking, but I'm not sure. (My intention is not to be mean to people who take these ideas seriously, but rather to check if there's anything I'm missing. It seems to me that I know considerably more about sleep science than polyphasic sleep proponents, though I'm still not an expert.)

Google Books shows a small part of the article.