As the clocks are set to go forward this Sunday, many of us will be dreading losing an hour of sleep.
Now, top scientists have called for an end to Daylight Saving Time (DST) amid fears it fuels a rise in cancer, traffic accidents and sleep issues.
Dr John O’Neill, a cellular rhythm expert at the Cambridge–based Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, said there are ‘small but significant’ risks associated with the time change.
‘It does not really serve much of a benefit to anybody these days, whilst exposing us to a small but significant series of risks,’ he said.
‘It is like everybody in the country gets an hour’s jet lag, all at the same time.
‘You see an increase in incidence of heart attacks and strokes, and you do get an increase in the number of road traffic accidents for a few days after clocks change.’
Dr O’Neill is calling for the century–old tradition to be abolished, as polling in recent years show the majority of Brits agree.
‘I’m sure it was extremely useful for our forebears 100 years ago,’ he said. ‘But there is quite a strong argument for just having permanent daylight saving these days.’
As the clocks are set to go forward this Sunday, many of us will be dreading losing an hour of sleep. Now, top scientists have called for an end to Daylight Saving Time (DST) amid fears it fuels a rise in cancer , traffic accidents and sleep issues (stock image)
The practice of changing the clocks was first introduced in 1916 in a bid to improve workforce productivity by making the most of daylight hours in the summer months.
It means the clocks go forward by one hour at 1am on the last Sunday in March, and back one hour at 2am on the last Sunday in October.
The argument is that as the days get longer, shifting our schedules forward gives people more sunlight hours during their working day.
But Dr O’Neill said this can negatively impact our health – for example by increasing the chance of a heart attack or stroke – as our physiology is not primed and ready for the sudden shift.
‘If you place all of those burdens and demands on, for example, the cardiovascular system, an hour earlier, then it is just not quite as well prepared to satisfy the demand,’ he said.
‘So in people that are a bit older or a bit less healthy, it increases their risk of an adverse event, a heart attack or a stroke,’ he said.
Losing an hour of sleep when the clocks move forward can result in the whole population feeling more tired than usual.
Some studies have suggested that the risk of fatal traffic accidents increases by around six per cent following the spring daylight savings time transition.
Many people hate losing an hour of sleep when the clocks go forward. Experts have warned it can have ‘small but significant’ impacts on health
Dr Katie Barge, a chartered psychologist, has partnered with workplace experts at Protecting.co.uk to highlight the risk of increased fatigue.
‘Even small shifts in sleep and circadian rhythm can have a measurable impact on cognitive functioning,’ she said.
‘When the clocks change, the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm) becomes temporarily misaligned with external demands, leading to reduced alertness, slower reaction times, and decreased accuracy in attention and decision–making.
‘From a psychological perspective, this is linked to increased sleep pressure and reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for executive functioning, impulse control and risk assessment.
‘As a result, individuals may be more prone to lapses in concentration, errors, and subtle increases in risk–taking behaviour, particularly in tasks requiring sustained attention or quick responses.’
She explained these effects tend to be most pronounced in the first few days, with most people readjusting within three days to a week.
‘However, individuals in safety–critical roles such as shift workers, drivers, and those in manual or operational environments may be more vulnerable, as their work often relies on precision, vigilance, and fast decision–making under pressure,’ she warned.
‘For these groups, even mild fatigue can significantly increase the likelihood of mistakes or accidents.’
There is a growing – although somewhat contested – body of evidence that a mismatch between the sun and our bodies can have severe long–term health impacts.
Studies have shown that those living in the West of a time zone – where the mismatch between the sun time and our body clocks is greatest – have higher risks of leukaemia, stomach cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer.
Since this mismatch is very similar to those experienced when the clocks go forward, some scientists say daylight savings might be having a similar impact.
While many are calling for the practice to be abolished, others disagree.
Finn Burridge, Science Communicator at the Royal Observatory Greenwich, has previously said: ‘Moving the time ahead reduces the burden on the energy grid as the need for artificial lighting in spring and summer is reduced.
‘It is also better for tourism and provides a boost to “PM” activities as the extra daylight in the evenings allows for people to do more after work.’
Other experts argue it is ‘too soon’ for a decision to be made.
A team from the University of Kent recently reviewed 157 studies from 36 countries that had analysed the effects of clock changes.
The review revealed that when clocks ‘spring forward’, the shift is associated with an increased number of heart attacks and fatal traffic accidents but also with less crime involving physical harm.
On the contrary, when clocks ‘fall back’ by an hour in the Autumn, all–cause mortality and workplace accidents appear to reduce, whilst crimes involving physical harm increase.
Despite the number of studies reviewed, the researchers found the evidence within them was limited.
Writing in the European Journal of Epidemiology, they emphasised the need for more robust research before firm conclusions can be made about the cost–benefit of Daylight Saving Time.
Lead author Dr Aiste Steponenaite said: ‘Public debate often frames daylight saving time as either clearly harmful or clearly beneficial but our findings suggest the reality is more nuanced.
‘Policymakers deserve evidence that reflects both risks and benefits — not assumptions.’
