Coalition of sleep experts calls for end to daylight saving time
Jan. 27 (UPI) -- Experts say the political momentum is building to end the United States' more than 70-year-old seasonal time change, according to new information.
Daylight saving time is slated to arrive this year on March 9 and switch over again on Nov. 2.
"The switch to daylight saving time in the spring may seem harmless, but the reality is far more complicated," Jay Pea, co-chair of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time, wrote Monday in a release.
President Donald Trump, in December when he was a presidential candidate, called for the elimination of daylight saving time, characterizing it as "inconvenient" and "costly."
The U.S. Department of Energy found in 2008 that energy savings netted by the practice that year amounted to a minuscule 0.03% of saved electricity consumption.
According to Pea, adopting a permanent standard time would offer "a better solution for year-round well-being."
The practice was adopted during the second World War intended to preserve energy.
The coalition leading the charge includes the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, National Sleep Foundation, Save Standard Time, Sleep Research Society and the Society for Research on Biological Rhythm.
But many experts argue that health is the driving factor, and that standard time aligns more closely with the body's natural circadian rhythms.
A professor at Stanford Medicine advised to "consider that all the health data" that points to the benefits of trying to "lock the clock to [a single] standard time."
"It is best for kids, adults and elderly," Dr. Andrew D. Huberman, a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology, posted Wednesday on social media.
"Happy to go toe-to-toe with anyone on this," he added.
Moreover, seasonal change in time "disrupts our body clocks, affects our sleep quality, and increases risk of avoidable health and safety incidents, such as motor vehicle accidents, cardiovascular events, and even workplace errors in the days following the time change," stated Pea, also the president of Save Standard Time.
A recent AASM survey, meanwhile, found that roughly 50% of the American public supported legislation to eliminate seasonal time changes with about 26% diametrically opposed to the idea.
"Looks like the people want to abolish the annoying time changes!" Trump adviser and billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media platform X in November during a separate poll.
However, a YouGovAmerica Poll nearly four years ago went further than the AASM survey.
The 2021 YouGov survey suggested that 63% of the public was ready to eliminate the practice of changing clocks twice a year to account for daylight saving time.
"We've tried permanent daylight saving time before, and it didn't work," Pea noted. "This time, let's get it right by prioritizing health and safety with permanent standard time."
For the fourth time in five years, federal legislation was introduced in 2023 aimed to make daylight saving time permanent. Called the Sunshine Protection Act, it eventually stalled in committee like other similar efforts to address the decades-long time switches.
"The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn't!" Trump, 78, said in December.
Meanwhile, scores of lawmakers in recent years have advocated for the elimination of the practice although disagreement remains.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said weeks ago that "enough is enough" and it's "time to lock the clock."
It means "one less hour of daylight in the evenings, longer nights, and a rise in Seasonal Affective Disorder," the Alabama Republican, a Trump ally, posted on X in December.
The Illinois-based American Academy of Sleep Medicine provided tips to the public as the March 9 daylight savings time date looms.
In order to minimize sleep disruption, the AASM suggested at least seven hours of sleep, to gradually adjust bed times and the timing of daily routines, set offline clocks ahead one hour and "head outdoors for early morning sunlight the week after the time change," AASM officials wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
My 5-year-old survived cancer – twice. Don't put politics before medical research.
Few issues in American politics have consistently united both parties like the fight against cancer. While funding levels and strategies may differ, Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that cancer doesn't discriminate – and neither should our commitment to defeat it. Under the Biden administration, the Cancer Moonshot was relaunched to accelerate progress toward a cure. More recently, President Donald Trump announced his 'Stargate' initiative, which aims to harness artificial intelligence in detecting and treating cancer, including through personalized mRNA vaccines. In the United States, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease for children after infancy. Across the political spectrum, there remains a shared hope: that no one should have to endure the pain of losing a loved one or fight this deadly disease. Yet today, that consensus is showing signs of strain. State legislatures across the country are advancing bills to ban or severely restrict the use of – and further research into – breakthrough technologies like mRNA, a technology that is driving promising advancements in cancer. What should be a story of American scientific innovation is being twisted into a political talking point. And it's putting lives at risk. Opinion: Biden's diagnosis shows two things. Cancer hits everyone and some forgot that. If the politicians pushing these bans spent even a few minutes inside a pediatric oncology unit, maybe they'd understand. They'd see floors filled with sick children on small bicycles, pulling IV poles behind them. Children in hospital beds, brave beyond measure. And parents clinging to hope. I've seen it firsthand. I'm a mother whose 5-year-old daughter has survived cancer – twice. My daughter Charlie is one of a small percentage of pediatric cancer patients whose tumors don't show up on standard blood tests. Her cancer went undetected for more than a year. By the time doctors found it, it had already spread to her liver. She was just 3 years old and had Stage 4 cancer. Once Charlie's cancer was detected, we rushed into treatment: high-dose chemotherapy, stem cell transplants and multiple surgeries. After months of treatment, we got the news every parent prays for: Charlie was cancer-free. But just a few months later, scans revealed a relapse. Two small nodules were found on her lung. Her baby brother was only two months old when we learned her cancer had returned. Relapse treatment was grueling. Charlie lost weight and muscle mass. She needed a feeding tube to stay nourished, hydrated and medicated. But through it all, she never lost her smile. Her strength became ours. And while we juggled caring for a newborn and two other children, we held onto hope, because science gave us a reason to. Thanks to expert care at Seattle Children's and research-backed protocols, she's once again cancer-free. She started preschool this year. She's coloring, laughing and chasing her siblings again. Every option we had was made possible by decades of public investment in research. Families who came before us joined clinical trials. Lawmakers chose to fund pediatric science and cancer research. That is the same kind of work mRNA research builds on today. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Researchers are developing an mRNA-based diagnostic test that could catch cancers like hers earlier, when they're more treatable. The test uses mRNA from her original tumor to detect any circulating cancer cells through a simple blood draw. Catching a relapse early could be lifesaving. We first learned about this test in 2023, and knowing it's almost within reach brings us, and families like ours, so much hope. Beyond mRNA-based diagnostic tests, mRNA has also shown early promise as a therapy for cancer patients, enabling personalized treatment that could more effectively target one's tumor. That kind of innovation is exactly what's under threat right now. The role of mRNA technology in oncology has been studied for decades, and yet some lawmakers want to roll this progress back, arguing it is untested and unsafe. This technology, along with many innovations that come from federally supported medical research, is a critical source of hope for families around the world. I'm a doctor. So is my mother. When she got cancer, I realized how little that mattered. | Opinion When you're watching your child battle cancer, every advancement matters. I know firsthand how critical it is to catch cancer early and have access to every possible treatment option. When politicians politicize science – when they ban or restrict it based on misinformation and politics – they aren't protecting families like mine. They're limiting our options. They're slowing down the breakthroughs that could save lives. We can't afford to let misinformation and polarized politics dictate the future of lifesaving research. Thanks to innovation in medical research, Charlie is thriving today, but far too many kids are still fighting. Let's ensure science continues to move forward for all of our children. Emily Stenson is a childhood cancer advocate and the mother of 5-year-old two-time cancer survivor Charlie Stenson. She lives in Seattle. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Cancer research saved my child's life. Fund mRNA innovation | Opinion
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., left, and ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., right, speak during a markup of Medicaid budget cuts, May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional — too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
