In the United States, we are at a crossroads where science and politics are at odds once again regarding daylight saving time (DST). Most of us remember “springing forward to DST” and “falling back to the standard time”. Now, with the passage of the Sunshine Protection Act in the Senate, the move is to make DST permanent. However, the bill has yet to pass in the House of Representatives. This pause gives us the opportunity to use available research and make the informed decision that standard time should be permanent rather than DST.
Scientific evidence shows how changing the clocks affects our health adversely. Our bodily processes run on a 24-hour circadian rhythm that is dependent on the movement of the sun and follows standard time. In changing the time, our internal clock gets out of sync with our external clock for 238 days of the year.1 This change significantly increases the rates of heart attacks2, insomnia, traffic accidents3, suicide, and mood disorders. A late sunrise will lead to more light in the evening, which will make insomnia worse and affect work productivity. For the proponents of energy savings, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, “There is surprisingly little evidence that DST actually saves energy”.4 As a result, multiple sleep research organizations have pushed to make standard time permanent in the United States, which contradicts the Sunshine Protection Act.5
The Sunshine Protection Act veers away from science. I agree that time change is an antiquated practice and should be abolished, yet I fail to understand why we keep falling back from years of scientific research. Isn’t the United States a beacon of medical research? Isn’t it more beneficial for lobbyists to have more daylight in the evening so that people can be outdoors more and spend money to boost the economy? Is it the right price to pay against the greater good of a society where we can strive to have better health and productivity? We can undoubtedly shape this by heeding science once again and not letting petty benefits take precedence.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author reports no conflicts of interest.
Citation: Bansal A. The science and politics of time change. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(7):1383.
REFERENCES
- 1. Roenneberg T , Wirz-Justice A , Klerman EB , et al . Why should we abolish daylight saving time? J Biol Rhythms. 2019. ; 34 ( 3 ): 227 – 230 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Janszky I , Ljung R . Shifts to and from daylight saving time and incidence of myocardial infarction . New Engl J Med. 2008. ; 358 : 1966 – 1968 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ferrazzi E , Romualdi C , Ocello M , et al . Changes in accident & emergency visits and return visits in relation to the enforcement of daylight saving time and photoperiod . J Biol Rhythms. 2018. ; 33 ( 5 ): 555 – 564 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kotchen MJ , Grant LE . Does daylight saving time save energy? Evidence from a natural experiment in Indiana . Rev Econ Statistics. 2011. ; 93 ( 4 ): 1172 – 1185 . [Google Scholar]
- 5. Rishi MA , Ahmed O , Barrantes Perez JH , et al . Daylight saving time: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine position statement . J Clin Sleep Med. 2020. ; 16 ( 10 ): 1781 – 1784 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]