Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

People Hate Daylight Saving. Science Tells Us Why.

News Feed
Monday, March 11, 2024

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Something is awry about the way we mark time. Can research and policy changes help us reset the clocks?

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.

As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.

In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.

Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.

Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)

Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).

The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.

“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”

The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.

In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.

Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.

When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.

The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.

In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.

However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.

Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.

“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”

Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.

Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.

In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.

Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.

“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”

Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.

Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.

In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.

And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.

In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.

“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.

Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.

The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.

But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.

In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.

To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.

Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.

People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.

“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)

Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.

In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.

Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.

The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.

The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.

Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”

The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.

In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.

A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.

Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.

Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.

Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.

And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.

And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.

Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.

Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.

It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

See Vaccine Recommendations Backed by Science in These Handy Charts

These graphics will guide you through science-based vaccine guidelines for children and adults

Vaccines are a marvel of modern medicine: the carefully tested and regulated technologies teach people’s immune systems how to fight off potentially fatal infections, saving both lives and health care costs.But for as long as vaccines have existed, people have opposed them, and in recent years the antivaccine movement has gained visibility and power. Now the Department of Health and Human Services is led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—an environmental lawyer with no medical training and a history of antivaccine activism. And these lifesaving medical interventions are coming under threat.Access to COVID vaccines this fall is already expected to be limited to people aged 65 years or older and to those with underlying health conditions that make them more vulnerable to severe disease. And in June Kennedy dismissed all 17 sitting members of a crucial vaccine oversight group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which, in the past, has made independent, science-based recommendations on vaccine access for people in the U.S. The dismissals came just weeks before the panel’s next scheduled meeting; Kennedy appointed eight new members in advance of the meeting, which is still set to begin on June 25.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.As a public resource, Scientific American has created graphics outlining the vaccines recommended by ACIP as of its final meeting in 2024.Vaccine recommendations have always been in flux as new products have been developed and continuing research has suggested better practices: The COVID pandemic required brand-new vaccines for a novel virus, for example. And in the U.S., the stunning success of the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine led to its recommendation for everyone aged 26 or younger, meanwhile the oral polio vaccine was discontinued in favor of the inactivated injected vaccine.But traditionally, these decisions have been made by scientists based on solid research done within the confines of accepted ethical practices. These principles mean, for example, that a vaccine’s side effects are carefully monitored and evaluated against its immune benefit and that potential replacement vaccines are tested against their predecessors, not—as Kennedy has proposed—an inert placebo that would leave people vulnerable to an infection that doctors already have the tools to combat.Kennedy’s decision to replace ACIP wholesale and the comments he has made about deviating from standard vaccine policymaking practice suggest that new recommendations won’t be backed by established vaccine science—hence our reproduction of the vaccine recommendations as of the end of 2024.Note that these are generalized recommendations; people should talk with their health care providers about individual risks and needs, as well as how to proceed after missing a dose. Pregnant people can consult additional resources from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for vaccines recommended during pregnancy. People planning to travel internationally should also check what vaccines are recommended for their destination and consult with a health care professional more than a month before departure.Vaccines Recommended for ChildrenJen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Birth through 6 Years Old, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Jen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Children 7–18 Years Old, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Vaccines Recommended for AdultsJen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Adults Aged 19 Years and Older, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Infections These Vaccines Protect AgainstRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV): This respiratory virus hospitalizes an estimated 58,000 children and 177,000 older adults each year in the U.S. Annually in the country, it kills between 100 and 500 children under five years old and about 14,000 older adults.Hepatitis A and B: Both of these viruses cause liver infections. Severe cases of hepatitis A can require liver transplants, while chronic cases of hepatitis B can lead to other liver problems, including liver cancer.Rotavirus: This common gastrointestinal virus causes diarrhea that is sometimes severe enough to require hospitalization. Infections are most common in children under three years old, and the virus can withstand handwashing and common hand sanitizers.Diphtheria: This bacterial infection has become rare in the U.S. through vaccination; before the vaccine was available, case rates could be as high as 200,000 annually. The infection can manifest in the respiratory system or the skin. Half of untreated people die; children under age five and adults more than 40 years old are most vulnerable.Tetanus: Sometimes called lockjaw because an early symptom is muscle pain and spasms in the jaw, tetanus is caused by toxins from a bacterium. Doctors don’t have a cure for tetanus, and the infection has become rare in the U.S. only through vaccination.Pertussis/whooping cough: This bacterial infection is sometimes nicknamed the “100-day cough” for its most characteristic symptom. U.S. infection levels have generally run between 10,000 and 20,000 diagnosed cases per year; the disease hospitalizes more than one in five infected children under six months old.Haemophilus influenzae type b infection: This bacterium—unrelated to the influenza virus—causes a host of infections, including mild cases in the ears and lungs but also severe cases in systems such as the bloodstream and central nervous system. Before the vaccine was developed, the U.S. saw 20,000 severe infections annually in children under five years of age, and one in 20 of these cases was fatal.Pneumococcal disease: The bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae can cause a range of infections, including so-called invasive infections that tend to be more serious. Pneumococcal disease can include pneumonia—pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalizes more than 150,000 people in the U.S. each year. But other types of pathogens also cause pneumonia, and pneumococcal disease can manifest anywhere in the body.Polio: This virus most frequently causes asymptomatic infections, but symptomatic infections can have quite severe symptoms, including paralysis of one or more limbs or even of the muscles involved in breathing. Polio can also trigger new symptoms many years after the initial infection in what’s called postpolio syndrome.COVID: In the five years since COVID emerged, this disease has contributed to the deaths of more than 1.2 million people in the U.S.; weekly death tolls remain in the hundreds. The virus also causes lingering and sometimes debilitating systemic issues known as long COVID, including in children.Influenza: This respiratory virus is most prevalent in North America between October and May. Although many cases can be treated at home, flu infections can be very serious, particularly in young children and adults aged 65 or older, as well as people with immune issues and other chronic conditions. During the 2023–2024 season, the CDC reported 34 million cases of flu, 380,000 hospitalizations and 17,000 deaths.Chickenpox: The varicella-zoster virus causes a characteristic itchy rash of small blisters that appear in conjunction with a fever, headache and other mild symptoms. Severe cases can cause more systemic infections, pneumonia, brain swelling and toxic shock syndrome. Adults who did not have chickenpox as a child are more vulnerable to serious infection.Measles: Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to experts, and historically most children contracted it before the age of 15. Doctors have no cure for measles; they can only treat its symptoms. About one in 1,000 cases causes brain inflammation; even rarer complications can occur years after the initial infection. The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine has dramatically reduced caseloads in the U.S. since the late 1960s, however.Mumps: Mumps is a viral infection characterized by the swelling of certain salivary glands, but other organs can also be affected, including the testicles, ovaries, brain, spinal cord and pancreas. Mumps can also trigger miscarriage early in pregnancy.Rubella: Sometimes called German measles, rubella is a viral infection that is unrelated to measles but also causes a rash. For most people, rubella is a mild illness, but it triggers serious birth defects in as many as 90 percent of cases in which the virus infects someone during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.Meningococcal disease: Infection of the blood or the membranes of the central nervous system by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis kills 10 to 15 percent of people who are treated; cases that aren’t fatal can include a range of long-term issues.Human papilloma virus (HPV): Infection with this virus leaves people susceptible to cancer, particularly cervical cancer; nearly 38,000 cancers per year are attributed to the virus.Mpox: The virus that causes mpox was first identified in 1958 but more regularly infects animals than humans. In 2022 it began spreading in people worldwide, however. The infection is characterized by a painful rash and flulike symptoms. The vaccine is only recommended for people who are likely to be exposed to the virus.Dengue: Dengue is a mosquito-borne illness that is most common in tropical regions. In severe cases, it can damage blood vessels and interfere with the blood’s ability to clot. Vaccination is not available in the contiguous U.S., but it is available in U.S. territories and freely associated states for children aged nine to 16 who have had the disease before and live in a region where the infection is common.Shingles: This infection is caused by the same virus as chickenpox, which remains in the body after a chickenpox infection. When the previously dormant virus reactivates, it can cause shingles, a painful localized rash that is most common in people aged 50 or older and can lead to ongoing pain, vision issues and neurological problems.

How to allergy-proof your home

According to data from the Allergy and Asthma Network, 1 in 5 Americans have been diagnosed with environmental allergies, and over 50 percent of allergy sufferers say allergies impact their daily quality of life. Environmental allergies can include pollen, dust, mold, pet dander, and poor air quality. Your home should be a sanctuary, but allergens […] The post How to allergy-proof your home appeared first on Popular Science.

According to data from the Allergy and Asthma Network, 1 in 5 Americans have been diagnosed with environmental allergies, and over 50 percent of allergy sufferers say allergies impact their daily quality of life. Environmental allergies can include pollen, dust, mold, pet dander, and poor air quality. Your home should be a sanctuary, but allergens can make it a house of horrors. We rounded up a team of experts who provide practical tips and advice to help you allergy-proof your home and turn it into a comfortable and healthy place that you and your family can enjoy. Consider your flooring According to Dr. John McKeon, CEO of Allergy Standards Ltd., flooring is one of the largest surfaces in your home and can significantly influence your indoor air quality (IAQ)—especially if you have allergies. He explains that different types of flooring materials can either contribute to the buildup of allergies and pollutants or help maintain a cleaner environment. “Flooring can trap dust, pet dander, pollen, and mold, which can become airborne when disturbed, and if not regularly and thoroughly cleaned, these allergens can accumulate and negatively affect IAQ.”  McKeon notes that hard-surface flooring, like wood, tile, or vinyl, may not trap allergens as easily, but says it’s still important to select materials that are easy to clean and maintain. “Also, sticky allergen particles can be more difficult to remove from some types of flooring during cleaning,” McKeon warns. Here’s something else to consider: MeKeon says many flooring products and any associated adhesives or chemical treatments can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. “Exposure to these compounds can cause respiratory irritation and trigger allergic asthma.”  And if your flooring absorbs moisture, it can encourage mold and mildew. “Mold spores are a major concern for individuals with allergies and asthma, as they can easily become airborne and trigger allergic reactions or asthma symptoms,” McKeon says. However, he admits that the lack of strict regulations around health claims on household products has led to a flood of marketing terms, such as “eco-friendly,” “green,” and “low VOC,” making it difficult to know which products actually support better indoor air quality (IAQ). “I recommend choosing flooring that has been independently tested and verified,” McKeon says. Encourage shoe-free zones Studies show that it’s a good idea to take your shoes off when you come inside, and Lisa Sternfeld, interior designer, environmental health and wellness expert, and founder of WLLW, tells me there’s a good reason why.  “Shoes carry a wide range of contaminants, including pollen, dirt, and dust,” Sternfeld says. ”By removing shoes at the door, you’ll keep allergens out and prevent them from spreading to other areas.”  Tribesigns Shoe Cabinet Tribesigns Put this Tribesigns Shoe Cabinet near the entryway. It holds two dozen pairs of shoes and also has storage space for keys and other items on top.  Consider the impact of paint Paint can affect the appearance of your home, but it can also impact your IAQ. “The release of VOCs can irritate the respiratory system and exacerbate allergy symptoms,” McKeon warns. “It is advised that people with sensitivities to certain chemicals and those impacted by asthma and allergies limit exposure to VOCs as much as possible.”  However, considering their potentially harmful effects, McKeon says everyone should limit exposure to these chemicals. Even paint products that claim to be ‘low-VOC’ or ‘non-toxic’ may not necessarily meet the requirements to ensure safety. “Third-party certification is crucial because many paint manufacturers don’t fully disclose their ingredients, often to protect intellectual property,” McKeon explains.  However, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to make smart decisions. “A trusted certification label helps bridge that gap, guiding consumers toward wiser choices for better IAQ,” McKeon says. Step up your laundry game Washing your bedding, clothing, and soft toys can play a crucial role in reducing allergens, especially dust mite allergens and pet dander. We at PopSci firmly believe in saving money and energy, and washing laundry in cold water is one way to save both. However, if you need to allergy-proof your home, you may need to turn up the heat.  “The most effective allergen removal occurs when washing is done at high temperatures [at least 131°F/55°C], as this temperature kills dust mites and removes their allergens from fabrics,” McKeon says.   LG washing machines LG However, McKeon warns that not all washing machines can maintain a consistently high temperature throughout the wash cycle effectively. If you’re in the market for a new washing machine, he recommends one that has undergone third-party testing to ensure that it can reach and maintain those high temps.   Also, McKeon recommends fragrance-free laundry detergents. “Many fragrance chemicals are sensitizers and increase the VOC emissions off-gassed by the detergent,” he explains. “An effective laundry detergent should have the ability to remove allergens from fabrics, any chemicals present should be non-sensitizing and non-allergenic, and VOCs should be at such low levels as to not be a concern.”   Tide Free & Gentle Laundry Detergent Tide Melanie Carver is the chief mission officer at the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA). She recommends changing and washing any clothes that are worn during outdoor activities. “And dry your clothes in a clothes dryer or on an indoor rack, not on an outdoor line,” she advises. Change your shower routine You may be the type of person who likes to shower in the morning. However, if allergies are a concern, Carver recommends showering daily before you go to bed. “This will remove pollen from your body and hair and keep it off your bedding,” she explains. Use air purifiers We’re big fans of air purifiers because we know how important they are in maintaining a healthy living space. From the best air purifiers for asthma to the best air purifiers for smoke, we continually research and evaluate models. “Surprisingly, the air inside our homes can often be more harmful to our health than the air outside, as it contains a variety of pollutants and irritants that may cause allergies,” McKeon says.  “Everyday activities like cooking, VOCs emitted from paint and cleaning products, and even burning fuel (and candles) release particles and chemicals into the air.” And when you add common allergens like pollen, pet dander, and dust mite allergen, he says it’s clear that IAQ can have a serious impact on your health. Levoit Core 600 Air Purifier Levoit The Levoit Core 600 Air Purifier is one of the best air purifiers we’ve tested. Keep in mind that an air purifier with a higher clean air delivery rate (CADR) can clean the air faster than one with a lower CADR. In addition, Sternfeld recommends air purifiers with HEPA filters, such as the Levoit. They are effective at trapping airborne pollen, dust, and mold spores. “Place air purifiers in the bedroom or living area, or near high-traffic areas for maximum impact,” she says. Vacuum and clean with HEPA filters Sternfeld recommends regularly vacuuming with a vacuum cleaner that has a HEPA filter. “HEPA filters trap microscopic particles, including pollen, pet dander, and dust mites, she says, adding that the American Lung Association also recommends using vacuum cleaners with HEPA filters. Clean high-traffic areas more frequently and vacuum more often, especially if you have pets, to reduce dander buildup. Shark Status Upright Vacuum Shark The Shark Status Upright Vacuum has a HEPA filter and can clean hard floors, carpet, upholstery, ceiling fans, and more.  Damp-clean surfaces regularly If you tend to dust and clean with dry materials, here’s another change you may need to make.  “Wipe down surfaces with a damp cloth to capture pollen, rather than allowing it to become airborne,” Sternfeld advises. “Research shows that dusting with a damp cloth is more effective at trapping allergens compared to dry dusting, and this is particularly important for surfaces like furniture, counters, and window sills.”  Make bedding a priority Bed linens are a prime place for dust mites and pollen to accumulate, according to Sternfeld. She recommends laundering sheets weekly in hot water to help wash away irritants.  “Encase pillows and mattresses in dust-mite-proof covers, and wash sheets weekly on hot water as it helps wash away irritants more effectively than cold or lukewarm water,” Sternfeld advises.  Investing in bedding and mattress protection can also provide allergy relief. “Dust mites, which thrive in the warm, humid environment of bedding, produce waste that is a key allergen,” McKeon warns.  To reduce exposure to these allergens, he recommends using scientifically validated dust mite-proof encasings for mattresses, pillows, and duvets. “These encasings prevent dust mites from passing through, and thus minimize allergen exposure.” In addition, McKeon recommends quality, breathable bedding products that are tightly woven with no weak points at the seams or zippers. “Furthermore, the fabric must be able to withstand frequent washing, as regularly washing bedding in hot water (130°F/55°C) further reduces allergen levels.” SIJO AiryWeight Tencel Sheet Set Stay cool and dry when sleeping on the SIJO AiryWeight Tencel Sheet Set, which is also hypoallergenic. Wash soft furnishings frequently In addition to washing sheets, blankets, and pillows regularly, Sternfeld says you should also wash cushion covers and other soft surfaces regularly, as they can trap allergens and harbor dust mites. “A weekly wash in hot water can help eliminate allergens,” she says.  In fact, McKeon recommends choosing either non-fabric furniture or covering fabric furniture with slipcovers that can be removed and washed weekly. Maintain your HVAC filters  While your HVAC keeps your home at a comfortable temperature, HVAC filters keep you comfortable in another way. “HVAC filters play a crucial role in improving indoor air quality by trapping airborne particles like dust, pet dander, and pollen, McKeon explains. “These particles can circulate throughout the home if not effectively captured by the HVAC system’s filter, exacerbating allergy symptoms.”  He recommends a higher Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating, as this indicates the filter is more effective at capturing airborne particulate matter. It’s also important to change your air filters regularly, which can be anywhere from 1 to 3 months, since dirty filters will recirculate dust and other allergens.  Filtrete Allergen Defense Filters Filtrete Filtrete Allergen Defense Filters capture a variety of allergens for cleaner air. (And don’t forget your furnace filters, either.) Control humidity If you keep your home’s humidity levels under 50 percent, Sternfeld says this can help prevent mold and mildew from thriving. “Place dehumidifiers in areas like basements and bathrooms to help control moisture,” she advises. Mold thrives in damp environments, and keeping humidity in check can significantly reduce mold-related allergy triggers.  Carver notes that those warm and moist bathrooms are also prime growing spaces for mold. “Run your bathroom’s exhaust fan or open windows during showers and for 15 to 20 minutes after to allow moisture to escape,” she says.  And here’s another tip from Carver: Don’t let damp towels pile up. Allow them to dry completely when you step out of the shower or bathtub.  On the other hand, don’t let humidity levels get too low. McKeon warns that low humidity can lead to respiratory irritation and trigger allergic asthma or dry skin, which could make your symptoms worse. Frigidaire 50-Pint Humidifier Frigidaire Keep humidity levels within a safe range with the Frigidaire 50-Pint Humidifier, which features three speed settings. Avoid attracting insects If you leave water and food sources out at night, Carver warns that you may be attracting cockroaches.  “A cockroach allergy is a common trigger of year-round allergy and asthma—if you are allergic to them, they can trigger asthma attacks,” she warns. Rubbermaid Brilliance 14-Piece Food Storage Container Set Rubbermaid Keep insects at bay with the Rubbermaid Brilliance 14-Piece Food Storage Container Set, which is airtight and stackable. The post How to allergy-proof your home appeared first on Popular Science.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about Democracy

Science is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about DemocracyScience is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.By Megha Satyanarayana Nestled in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the slash-and-burn playbook for the federal government that the Trump administration is following while saying it isn’t, is a call for American “science dominance.”There is no such thing. And what the project means by the term—turning the Department of Energy into a handmaiden of the coal, oil and natural gas industry—betrays not only the taxpayer but science itself.Science isn’t a winner-take-all, zero-sum game of flag football. Whether during the cold war or the era of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the bedrock of science has been international cooperation. People pursue scientific knowledge not solely for the sake of lording our spoils over everyone else. The monetary value of research is not the only reason why humans engage in asking why of the world around us.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Science breeds diplomacy. It counters division. It tells us what is, not what we want things to be. Science enables democracy. The way the Trump administration is approaching it, by cutting funds for projects that run afoul of conservative values, such as ones related to diversity, or calling for research into claims that have already been debunked, which is the case for the idea that vaccines are linked to autism, defies all this. If that approach succeeds, it will make us a poorer nation in every sense of the word.By halting federal funds to scientific research, canceling university grants and threatening to deport immigrant scientists, the Trump administration is restricting the flow of ideas. By trying to legitimize debunked scientific ideas and allocating taxpayer dollars to research into those debunked ideas, the administration sows discord and undermines the role of public health in preventing sickness and disease. By canceling global aid for public health projects, the administration is shunning the U.S. role in global health. And in their push for energy dominance, Trump and his allies are kicking years of negotiation over climate change to the curb.By becoming insular, by cutting out the world, we stand to lose our best and brightest minds in science and the exchange of ideas that leads to innovation. Our country is a scientific and economic powerhouse precisely because we have been so open and collaborative for so long. China’s academic scientific output, as measured by publications in Nature journals, has surpassed that of the U.S. How can cutting federal science funding help the administration’s intellectual war with China? How can the U.S. further its national interests if we shut out ideas and people? How does democracy survive if we stop research and the flow of information?In setting the stage for the role of the U.S. government in science, Vannevar Bush told President Harry Truman in 1945 that “scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” He noted the federal government’s role in supporting agricultural research and said, “The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.”From the 1950s on, the U.S. government has been the largest funder of scientific research in the nation, not to mention the world. Those dollars have helped develop countless drugs, and a wide assortment of military and domestic machinery, and they have paid the salaries of millions of researchers. Those dollars have saved people and helped industrialize nations the world over.American scientific research has also influenced policymaking. This is where the tie to democracy matters most: evidence-based policymaking allows the largest number of people in the country to be healthy, be safe and have a voice. This is what cutbacks to science threaten. This is how Trump administration–sponsored research into questions that have basically been answered, because officials don’t like the answer, threatens the ability of all Americans to thrive.When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the nation will know by the end of the summer what environmental factors cause autism and calls for the private medical records of autistic people as part of this push, this is a fishing expedition. Kennedy doesn’t like the answers that we already have—vaccines do not cause autism, and genetics influences the development of autism—so he wastes taxpayer money.Recently, a group of scientists from all over the world earned Breakthrough Prize for the work they did at CERN, a multinational facility that tests fundamental ideas in physics. With cuts to science funding, what will happen to projects like this, plans to improve our Antarctic field stations, and efforts like the evidence-driven Paris climate agreement? Such ideas underpin our grasp of the natural world and probe the technologies the U.S. needs. Scuttling science and shutting doors on the world will leave us in the dark. Domination will doom us to failure.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

New study reveals how cleft lip and cleft palate can arise

MIT biologists have found that defects in some transfer RNA molecules can lead to the formation of these common conditions.

Cleft lip and cleft palate are among the most common birth defects, occurring in about one in 1,050 births in the United States. These defects, which appear when the tissues that form the lip or the roof of the mouth do not join completely, are believed to be caused by a mix of genetic and environmental factors.In a new study, MIT biologists have discovered how a genetic variant often found in people with these facial malformations leads to the development of cleft lip and cleft palate.Their findings suggest that the variant diminishes cells’ supply of transfer RNA, a molecule that is critical for assembling proteins. When this happens, embryonic face cells are unable to fuse to form the lip and roof of the mouth.“Until now, no one had made the connection that we made. This particular gene was known to be part of the complex involved in the splicing of transfer RNA, but it wasn’t clear that it played such a crucial role for this process and for facial development. Without the gene, known as DDX1, certain transfer RNA can no longer bring amino acids to the ribosome to make new proteins. If the cells can’t process these tRNAs properly, then the ribosomes can’t make protein anymore,” says Michaela Bartusel, an MIT research scientist and the lead author of the study.Eliezer Calo, an associate professor of biology at MIT, is the senior author of the paper, which appears today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.Genetic variantsCleft lip and cleft palate, also known as orofacial clefts, can be caused by genetic mutations, but in many cases, there is no known genetic cause.“The mechanism for the development of these orofacial clefts is unclear, mostly because they are known to be impacted by both genetic and environmental factors,” Calo says. “Trying to pinpoint what might be affected has been very challenging in this context.”To discover genetic factors that influence a particular disease, scientists often perform genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which can reveal variants that are found more often in people who have a particular disease than in people who don’t.For orofacial clefts, some of the genetic variants that have regularly turned up in GWAS appeared to be in a region of DNA that doesn’t code for proteins. In this study, the MIT team set out to figure out how variants in this region might influence the development of facial malformations.Their studies revealed that these variants are located in an enhancer region called e2p24.2. Enhancers are segments of DNA that interact with protein-coding genes, helping to activate them by binding to transcription factors that turn on gene expression.The researchers found that this region is in close proximity to three genes, suggesting that it may control the expression of those genes. One of those genes had already been ruled out as contributing to facial malformations, and another had already been shown to have a connection. In this study, the researchers focused on the third gene, which is known as DDX1.DDX1, it turned out, is necessary for splicing transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules, which play a critical role in protein synthesis. Each transfer RNA molecule transports a specific amino acid to the ribosome — a cell structure that strings amino acids together to form proteins, based on the instructions carried by messenger RNA.While there are about 400 different tRNAs found in the human genome, only a fraction of those tRNAs require splicing, and those are the tRNAs most affected by the loss of DDX1. These tRNAs transport four different amino acids, and the researchers hypothesize that these four amino acids may be particularly abundant in proteins that embryonic cells that form the face need to develop properly.When the ribosomes need one of those four amino acids, but none of them are available, the ribosome can stall, and the protein doesn’t get made.The researchers are now exploring which proteins might be most affected by the loss of those amino acids. They also plan to investigate what happens inside cells when the ribosomes stall, in hopes of identifying a stress signal that could potentially be blocked and help cells survive.Malfunctioning tRNAWhile this is the first study to link tRNA to craniofacial malformations, previous studies have shown that mutations that impair ribosome formation can also lead to similar defects. Studies have also shown that disruptions of tRNA synthesis — caused by mutations in the enzymes that attach amino acids to tRNA, or in proteins involved in an earlier step in tRNA splicing — can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders.“Defects in other components of the tRNA pathway have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental disease,” Calo says. “One interesting parallel between these two is that the cells that form the face are coming from the same place as the cells that form the neurons, so it seems that these particular cells are very susceptible to tRNA defects.”The researchers now hope to explore whether environmental factors linked to orofacial birth defects also influence tRNA function. Some of their preliminary work has found that oxidative stress — a buildup of harmful free radicals — can lead to fragmentation of tRNA molecules. Oxidative stress can occur in embryonic cells upon exposure to ethanol, as in fetal alcohol syndrome, or if the mother develops gestational diabetes.“I think it is worth looking for mutations that might be causing this on the genetic side of things, but then also in the future, we would expand this into which environmental factors have the same effects on tRNA function, and then see which precautions might be able to prevent any effects on tRNAs,” Bartusel says.The research was funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Program, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The Real Reason Autism Rates Are Rising

Autism rates are rising, but RFK, Jr. is wrong about the reasons. Here’s what the science says

RFK, Jr. Is Wrong about Cause of Rising Autism Rates, Scientists SayAutism rates are rising, but RFK, Jr. is wrong about the reasons. Here’s what the science saysBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerResearch suggests that autism is between 60 and 90 percent heritable. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, struck an alarmist tone about new findings that one in 31 eight-year-olds in the U.S. have an autism diagnosis at a press conference today.Kennedy called autism a “tragedy” that “destroys families.” And his statements also included assertations that autism experts say are out of date, such as the idea that autistic kids “regress” around their second birthday. In fact, while autism is often diagnosed at this age, researchers have found brain differences as early as six months of age among kids who were later diagnosed as autistic. Some studies have also found subtle differences in motor behavior and social behavior, such as looking less at people than typically developing kids do, in babies who were later diagnosed as autistic.But Kennedy’s greatest breach with the scientific consensus was likely his insistence that autism is an “epidemic” that must be caused by an environmental exposure that has been introduced within the past several decades. In fact, researchers say, autism is between 60 and 90 percent heritable. And in up to 40% percent of cases, doctors can find a specific set of genetic mutations to explain the condition. While there are environmental risk factors for autism, such as air pollution, rising rates are mostly attributable to broadened diagnostic categories and more comprehensive screening.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“The problem from a science communication standpoint is that the causes are complex,” says Annette Estes, director of the University of Washington Autism Center. “It’s not like Down syndrome, where we can say, ‘There is one genetic change that leads to this syndrome, and everybody with this syndrome has these characteristics.’ Even though the amount we’ve learned is unbelievable, it’s also not a simple story.”The new finding that one in 31 kids born in 2014 are autistic comes from a newly released report from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM), which started tracking data in 2000. That year one in 150 eight-year-olds were diagnosed as autistic, and the number has been steadily rising since. Kennedy also cited numbers from the 1970s and 1980s that showed rates of autism that represented around one to three in 10,000 people.This period saw a number of changes in how autism was diagnosed, however. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which has lays out criteria for psychiatric diagnoses in the U.S., called autism “schizophrenic reaction, childhood type” in its first edition and subsequently referred to it as “schizophrenia, childhood type” until 1980, when the diagnosis changed to “infantile autism.” The criteria then focused on external symptoms such as delays in language development, resistance to change and attachments to objects. In 1987 the criteria widened and encompassed three categories related to social interaction, communication and restrictions in activities. In 1994 the diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder appeared, only to be subsumed into a broadened “autism spectrum disorder” in the DSM’s fifth edition (DSM-5) in 2013. That year was also the first in which autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could be diagnosed in the same child at the same time, Estes says. Prior to that time, an ADHD diagnosis would preclude a child from getting an autism diagnosis, even though researchers currently estimate that half or more of autistic people also have ADHD.Kennedy downplayed diagnostic shift as a minor explanation for the increase in autism cases, but researchers have found that changes in diagnosis probably explain a majority of the increase. A 2015 study on children diagnosed as autistic in Denmark, for example, found that 60 percent of the rise of autism among children born between 1980 and 1991 was caused by changes in diagnostic criteria and reporting practices. Another 2015 study examined students in U.S. special education programs between 2000 and 2010. The number of autistic children who enrolled in special education tripled from 93,624 to 419,647. In the same time frame, however, the number of children labeled as having an “intellectual disability” declined from 637,270 to 457,478. The shift of children from one diagnostic category to another explained two thirds of the increase in autism in this population, researchers say.Another piece of evidence for changes in diagnosis explaining a large difference in the prevalence of autism is that autism rates vary widely from state to state in the U.S. The state with the highest prevalence of autism is California, with a rate of 53.1 per 1,000 eight-year-olds, while the one with the lowest prevalence is Texas, with a rate of 9.7 per 1,000 eight-year-olds. That’s a huge difference. But according to the CDC’s own report, it’s likely linked to California’s intense push for early screening and assessment.“Because of all the hard work that everyone has done to come up with good approaches for supporting and teaching autistic kids, there are benefits of getting an autism diagnosis,” Estes says. “So people seek it out. And that, coupled with less stigma around autism, means more people want to understand their kids in this way.”Some portion of the rise in autism rates may be unrelated to better diagnosis. The likelihood of having an autistic child increases for older parents, and there is a societal trend toward delaying childbirth across developed countries. Children who are born prematurely are also at a heightened risk of autism, and improved neonatal care means many more of these children are surviving to childhood and beyond.There are also known environmental risk factors for autism. Among pregnant people, for example, infections that are accompanied by fever in the second trimester raise the risk of autism for their eventual baby. So does exposure to fine particulate matter pollution in the third trimester of development and the first year of life, according to a 2019 study. Laura McGuinn, an epidemiologist at the University of Chicago, who led a study that made the latter finding, says that particulate matter is inflammatory, and work is ongoing to understand how it might trigger the maternal immune system and potentially affect brain development.As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy promised “some” of the answers to the causes of autism by September. But his “start from scratch” approach largely ignores research that has already been done. For example, Kennedy told reporters the initiative would look at ultrasounds during pregnancy as a possible risk factor. But a comprehensive multisite study of more than 1,500 pregnancies that found no link between autism and ultrasound use was published as recently as 2023. And scientists definitively ruled out the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine as a cause of autism a decade ago (and again in 2019). In addition, the primary study that had suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism was found to have falsified data. Despite this, federal officials said in March that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will conduct a study to investigate a link between vaccines and autism. The study will be led by a vaccine skeptic who was previously disciplined for practicing medicine without a license.Work on untangling the complex environmental risk factors was ongoing prior to Kennedy’s tenure, including at federal agencies such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is developing a Web-based tool to help scientists make sense of the existing data on environmental studies and autism.“As scientists, I wish there was a way we could talk about this and really explain how amazing it is, how much taxpayer money has gone to creating this understanding of this complex developmental disorder and how to help kids and parents,” Estes says. “This idea that there needs to be one single cause, and it needs to be really scary—it’s just really taking us backward.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.