The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) has set the Doomsday clock to 89 seconds to midnight. Science Editor Jana Bazeed and Sports Editor Sam Lord discuss.
This article was originally published in print on 14 March 2025.
At the end of January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who operate the symbolic Doomsday Clock, announced that this year, humanity is the closest it has ever been to destruction.
The theoretical Doomsday Clock now ticks only 89 seconds to midnight – midnight signifying the end of humanity.
According to a statement released alongside their annual report, marking 2025 as the closest we’ve been to annihilation is intended to send a “stark signal”. They continued, “a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.”
But what exactly is the Doomsday Clock?
Created in 1947 by BAS, a group founded by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, the Doomsday Clock is a symbolic representation of how close humanity is to global catastrophe. Particularly, it considers existential threats such as nuclear war, climate change and emerging technologies.
The Doomsday Clock was originally designed by artist Martyl Langsdorf in 1947 for the cover of the first magazine issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Langsdorf, the wife of Manhattan Project scientist Alexander Langsdorf, was inspired by the urgency of scientists’ debates over nuclear weapons. Instead of using the symbol for uranium, she chose a clock to represent the limited time humanity had to prevent catastrophe.
The clock’s design was later updated by Michael Bierut in 2007, but its fundamental symbolism remains unchanged.
Since its inception, the clock has been set backward 8 times and forward 18 times. It wasn’t until 2016 that this became an annual occurrence.
The time is set by the Science and Security Board (SASB), a group of globally recognized leaders with a specific focus on nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. The SASB consults with the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which currently includes nine Nobel laureates.
Some critics argue that the Doomsday Clock has lost its effectiveness as a warning tool. They contend that its frequent adjustments and the broadening of its scope to include various global threats dilute its original focus on nuclear risk, potentially reducing its impact on public perception and policy.
Unsurprisingly, this one-second change in the clock has proven controversial: per the Board, it appears that while global threats have intensified, the situation has not drastically changed from the previous year.
Critics argue that the clock should reflect more dramatic shifts in danger, while supporters contend that the small change highlights the complex, gradual nature of existential risks. Nonetheless, this nuanced shift challenges the idea of immediate action, even though the risks remain high.
Between forums like BAS or others, for instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it seems despite the efforts of scientists to be heard by the public, their warnings fall on deaf ears.
About the authors
