N※N

The impact the clocks changing has on you - what the science says

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. s-changing-has-on-you-what-the-science-says.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Saturday, October 25th 2025 at 1:39 GMT by The Scotsman

Sleep, health and the circadian clock

The core problem, according to the article, is that DST disrupts the body’s internal clock. A 2020 study in the American Heart Association journal found that the shift to “standard” time is associated with a 5–10 per cent increase in the risk of heart attack in the week following the change. A 2017 paper in Sleep Medicine linked the same shift to a 7‑day spike in sleep deprivation, which can impair judgement and increase the likelihood of accidents.

Health professionals in the UK have echoed these findings. Dr. Fiona Jones of the National Health Service (NHS) explained that the abrupt loss of an hour of sleep can lead to chronic fatigue, which in turn exacerbates conditions such as hypertension and diabetes. The article quotes a study from the University of Cambridge that found an uptick in self‑reported symptoms of depression in the two weeks after the clocks go back, particularly among those with pre‑existing mental‑health conditions.

Road safety and economic cost

Safety data is arguably the most compelling argument against DST. The article references the 2018 Transport Research Laboratory report, which documented a 15 per cent rise in road‑traffic accidents in the first 48 hours after the clocks were set back. The phenomenon is explained by the fact that drivers are more tired in the morning when the clock time does not match their circadian peak in alertness. The UK’s Department for Transport also released a 2022 cost‑benefit analysis, estimating that the increase in accidents and related health care costs outweighs any savings from reduced lighting needs.

Economists cited in the piece note that lost productivity during the adjustment period can amount to thousands of hours of work lost across the economy. A 2019 study in Journal of Economic Perspectives found that the cumulative loss of productivity due to DST-related sleep disruption amounted to over £20 million for the UK each year.

What the evidence says about the purported benefits

The article goes on to critique the usual arguments that DST reduces energy consumption or boosts evening activity. It points out that the 2005–06 UK government review concluded that the reduction in lighting use was negligible, and that any increase in evening exercise was offset by a decline in sleep quality. Moreover, a 2021 meta‑analysis in PLOS ONE found no significant difference in overall energy use between permanent standard and summer times.

Crime statistics, another popular argument for DST, were found to be mixed. A 2018 review in the British Journal of Criminology showed a slight reduction in petty theft after DST, but the effect was not consistent across all regions and was heavily confounded by seasonal tourism.

Moving towards a permanent time

The Scotsman report highlights that the United Kingdom is not the only country grappling with this issue. The European Parliament voted in 2021 to allow member states to decide whether to abandon DST, with the UK having announced a review in early 2023. The report quotes a spokesperson for the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, who said that the government was considering whether to adopt a permanent winter time, permanent summer time, or keep the current system.

The article also references a 2022 petition that has gathered over 200,000 signatures calling for the UK to abolish DST. The petition is linked to a separate study by the Institute for Work and Health, which argued that a single, permanent time zone would simplify scheduling, reduce stress for shift workers, and ultimately improve health outcomes.

The science consensus

Across the studies cited in the piece, a clear theme emerges: the biological cost of the seasonal clock shift is real and measurable. While DST has been defended on grounds of energy savings, reduced crime, and more leisure time, the evidence suggests that these benefits are marginal at best and outweighed by significant negative impacts on cardiovascular health, sleep quality, safety, and productivity.

The Scotsman article concludes that any future policy regarding DST will need to balance these complex trade‑offs, and that the growing body of scientific literature will be a key reference point for lawmakers. As the debate continues, it appears that the time‑keeping tradition that has been in place for over a century may finally be due for a comprehensive reassessment.