New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Science Explains Why We Really Do Need to Sleep a Third of Our Lives Away

A preview by our editor in chief of the October issue of Scientific American

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Shakespeare wrote in his tragic play Macbeth that slumber is a “Balm of hurt minds” and “Chief nourisher in life's feast.” In this issue's cover story, sleep researcher Robert Stickgold explains the many ways those statements are far more than pretty turns of phrase. In fact, it is physiologically vital that we spend about a third of our lives unconscious.

Dozing, Stickgold writes, is involved in a “multitude of biological processes—from the inner workings of the immune system to proper hormonal balance, to emotional and psychiatric health, to learning and memory, to the clearance of toxins from the brain.” Losing a few hours of shut-eye depresses various functions, reducing our cognitive and memory powers, souring our mood, even reducing our body's ability to defend against infections. If we did not snooze at all, eventually we would die. Click here to learn more about our remarkably restorative nightly visits to the land of Nod.

It has taken decades to develop even a rough understanding of the multiple benefits of catching 40 winks, but the weight of ongoing studies eventually has made the picture clearer. The clarifying effect of the gradual accumulation of data is a steady theme in the evolution of modern research in general and forms the underpinning of this year's “State of the World's Science” special report, organized by Fred Guterl, with editing support from Seth Fletcher and Mark Fischetti and graphic design by Jen Christiansen.


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.


Data are the fuel for the engine known as Big Science—those bold projects that aim to tackle challenging large questions and to help make progress on some of humanity's toughest problems. In “Trouble in Mind,” for instance, journalist Stefan Theil looks at how researchers are trying to pry the operational secrets from the biological computing machines in our skulls. The uneven success to date of vast brain research projects in the European Union, the U.S. and elsewhere shows just how difficult managing large-scale efforts can be. Next, Dean Karlan asks in “More Evidence, Less Poverty,” do microloans really help the world's poorest? The answer will surprise you. In “An Antidote to Murder,” Rodrigo Guerrero Velasco describes his experiences as mayor of Cali, Colombia, where he used data to address an epidemic of violent homicides—with compelling results. And through the Nature Index, we showcase the top research institutions around the world; see “World Leaders,” (Scientific American is part of Springer Nature.)

The process of science can't solve all the world's problems, of course, but it is often deeply inspiring to me to realize how much it can help.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
Scientific American Magazine Vol 313 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Sleep Science” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 313 No. 4 (), p. 4
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1015-4

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe