The controversy over daylight saving time: evidence for and against

Abstract

Purpose of review Biannual clock changes to and from daylight saving time have been pervasive in many societies for over 50 years. Governments are considering abandoning this practice and choosing a single permanent time. Recent findings Our endogenous circadian clock follows our photoperiod, which changes over the year. The acute disruption caused by changing our clocks can affect safety (motor vehicle and on the job accidents), health (cardiovascular disease, drug overdoses, suicide), and human behavior (sport performance, generosity, and procrastination). Although abandoning the clock change could help avoid these acute harms, choosing the wrong permanent time could lead to chronic circadian misalignment, which could have even more profound implications for health, safety, and human behavior. Summary Ceasing the biannual clock change may be a good choice, but governments need to be mindful of which permanent time to adopt. Many regions of the world already follow the wrong time during standard time, and circadian misalignment would be amplified by moving to permanent daylight saving time. In many regions, Standard Time better aligns with our circadian clock, thus providing a more natural light cycle that minimizes circadian misalignment.