When a large study linked schizophrenia to paternal age, some researchers wondered if the root cause, rather than age, was that men who had waited had the makings of the disease themselves.
Image: Getty Images
In Brief
- It is widely recognized that a 40-year-old woman has an increased risk of bearing a child with Down syndrome. What is not known is that a 40-year-old man has the same risk of fathering a child with schizophrenia—and even higher odds of his offspring having autism. The risk of bipolar disorder appears to rise as well.
- In the past couple of decades, the number of older fathers has increased. Birth rates for men older than 40 have jumped as much as 40 percent since 1980.
- The mechanisms behind the higher risks are still being investigated, although scientists have several hypotheses that could someday lead to better therapies or possibly even cures for these mental illnesses.
When my wife, Elizabeth, was pregnant, she had a routine ultrasound exam, and I was astonished by the images. The baby’s ears, his tiny lips, the lenses of his eyes and even the feathery, fluttering valves in his heart were as crisp and clear as the muscles and tendons in a Leonardo da Vinci drawing. Months before he was born, we were already squabbling about whom he looked like. Mostly, though, we were relieved; everything seemed to be fine.
Elizabeth was 40, and we knew about all the things that can go wrong in the children of older mothers. We worried about Down syndrome, which is more common in the offspring of older women. Elizabeth had the tests to rule out Down syndrome and a few other genetic abnormalities. That was no guarantee the baby would be okay, but the results were reassuring to us.
This article was originally published with the title The Father Factor.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentI am 51 and have a child with autism. My mother, a woman with bipolar disorder, was 30 when he had a son, my deceased brother, who would later develop bipolar disorder himself. She also had four other children who did not develop bipolar disorder, including myself. If she had known of the risk that she would pass on the disorder to even one of her five children, would she have done anything different? If I had known that my advanced age increased the risk that I would have an autistic son would I have done anything different? Would I have taken the risk of never knowing this boy, this blessing, my son? I don't think so. I hope not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy first red flag in this is that Israel is perhaps not the most honest of players in how they might spin scientific research on population. I would compare this to the science of the former Soviet Union, from which so many Israeli scientists derive. The fatherhood question is serious in a nation in which youthful settlers have been reproducing furiously, at a far greater rate than their European and American contemporaries, and at an earlier age. If you wanted people to reproduce against the grain of the popular culture, you would try to scare them first. Because, admittedly, Israel is facing a crisis in that the Arab population is growing faster and getting bigger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich brings me to another study, seen through the same sort of filters, perhaps, even by "objective" scientists. Arab m-DNA (read "Arab women") is supposed, if HV haplotype, to produce disproportionate schizophrenia. But consider this: HV is the root of most European non-Jewish m-DNA (H and V being the overwhelmingly most common).
Have we got some bias working here?
A forty-year old man who wants children should consider the source of the alarm. And not only that, consider that while mental illness is relatively rare in the population, big families were not until recently. And both partners kept on reproducing until they couldn't any more. Fathers were often ten years older than wives. This is our past. Look at it too, and stop being dazzled by the sensational claims of people who may want headlines to influence the behavior of young, literate people whose behavior they seek to control.
Dear Paul,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all let me assure you that the earlier generations in India continued to produce children (sometimes as many as 14 - 15 pregnancies of the wife) into their late ages (beyond 50). Child mortality was high in those days (perhaps because of deliveries at home at the hands of a local unqualified mid-wife). But they did beget hale and healthy children even when their parents were in their old age. It was not uncommon in that generation to have last children and the grand children (children of the first issues) to be of the same age!!
So the most important thing for you is not to be led away by a study which may have its own peculiarities.
And more important, LET ME EMPHASIZE THIS, never anticipate a bad outcome. Think and contemplate (meditate) a very healthy chubby successful child and you will get to see what you anticipate. Let your wife too think positive and don't ever feed this sort of research to her. Her breast feeding the child will carry her thoughts to the child. Please do not ask me to quote all the references. You and your wife may read the well-known Dr. Peter Nathanielsz's book. That is enough!
All the best
Paul
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article is excellent. I was glad to be introduced to Howard Meltzer, M.D
and I share his concern about the lack of knowledge the public has about this proven cause of one third or more of schizophrenia and autism that is new in a family. There is a male biological clock and I recommend Harry Fisch, MD article in this month journal Geriatrics , Couples are waiting longer to have children, and advances in reproductive technology are allowing older men and women to consider having children. The lack of appreciation among both medical professionals and the lay public for the reality of a male biological clock makes these trends worrisome.
Dumb article. I am 56, with two sons, ages 3 and 5. Autism is much more likely to be caused by indiscriminate vaccinations than paternal age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont buy it . I am telling you that if you look back years ago , this was never an issue or topic of discussion. the problem is all the contaminates in the food , air and water we ingest. Add to the problem tainted shots a child gets at birth and wallah ! you have a screwed up child. look at what ingredients are in a vaccinated shot and it will disgust you to no end . Mercury as only one of the ingredients.... the establishment knows this already but does nothing to stop it . age has nothing to do with autism ! its whats going into our bodies that dictate the outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy first comment relates to the previous made by skepticon. This seminal study was NOT conducted by Israeli researchers, but by highly distinguished researchers from Columbia (New York). They utilized Israeli data because it is extremely comprehensive, owing to mandatory conscription of males AND females, which includes thorough medical and psychiatric screening. The insinuation that the Israeli medical research field is generating propaganda to bolster reproduction as some kind of warfare tactic is ignorant and racist. Secondly (macleod), This and other studies show an increased RISK of schizophrenia and autism as a result of advanced paternal age from a population-wide association. No one claims causality. And furthermore, there is NO evidence from similar population-wide studies to suggest that vaccinated children are more likely to have autism, compared with non-vaccinated children. In fact, in 1992 in Denmark thimerosal (the component of vaccines supposed to be "harmful") was removed from vaccinations as a PRECAUTION. So surely, if "mercury poisoning" from thimerosal was related to the rise in autism cases, then a steep decrease should have followed. This was certainly not the case, as autism diagnoses have increased in Denmark since then, just as they have all over the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the vaccination link is totally unproven. It's largely based on anecdotal evidence, not on any valid studies. And the number of children protected from childhood illnesses by these vaccines far outweighs any slight risk that might exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO mercury in childhood injections. At one time Thimerosol, a mercury derivative, was used as a preservative but it has long since been removed. I'd really like to know what "disgusting" ingredients are in these injections, which have prevented millions of children from contracting potentially fatal childhood diseases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy so many pages?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery time DNA reproduces tiny damage happens, do to many factors beyond our control. Sorry, it's a simple known fact. What kind of a person would choose autism or schizophrenia for their child? Someone who has problems thinking and understanding the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisparvasedapta,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you. We have bipolar and autism in our family too! It's beyond me that some people don't realize how difficult it is.
First-time father at age 41; sixth child born just after my 49th B-day. No problems. All fully active. A real joy. Don't let somewhat older age deter initiating parenthood. There's chronologic age and physiologic age; stay in good shape and go for it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst child, age 41. Sixth child, age 49. Mother seven years my junior. Kids now ages 25, 23, 21,21,19, and 17. All doing just fine with no developmental or cognitive problems. Don't let statistics prevent a truly joyful life!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit its good article and great discussion also
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.cxdoctor.com
Schizophrenia----TO=====Autism is a brain development disorder and the problems of autism is growing day by day in the whole world say UK researchers. Autism is strongly associated with agents that cause the brain defects. Autism affects many parts of the Brain; how this occurs is not understood. Seeing autism as a “distinct illness” was probably wrong, they said.boys with high “verbal IQ” seemed less able to overcome their communication problems.however in case of girls who are suffering from autistic traits appeared to be able to compensate for social communication problems if they had sufficient “verbal IQ” - a natural ability to use language well.(Diagnosis is based on behavior, not cause or mechanism) www.cxdoctor.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of the problem with the "in the old days" mentality is that it often overlooks a simple fact: illnesses were not often diagnosed or recognized for what they were in the past--before the medical establishment first recognized them as such. I suspect autism and all of these other illnesses WERE in fact common in large families but may have been unrecognized as peculiarities, or oddities, not illnesses, and therefore may have gone unreported. I do agree that there probably exist environmental factors today that were absent or not as common in the past--whether from contaminants in the food or some other source--but underreporting was probably the norm as well. Also, anecdotal evidence--"I've had all of my children since turning 40"--should be of little or no value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a fascinating discussion by readers of a scientific publication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkepticon is surprisingly confident that the unwelcome results popped up only because a bunch of conniving communism-tainted Jews in Israel falsified a giant long-term database on their own population in order to . . . what exactly? Increase the odds that a study run outside their country might someday convince a few young Israeli Jews to rush to bear children in their 20s instead of spending time at university?
Then, Ramesam cheerily assures us that the key is to keep yourself, but far more importantly your WIFE, completely ignorant of all developments in the scientific conversation, because her negative thoughts, like those of a witch, are the real danger to the health of unborn babies. And we thought that we'd moved beyond the magical thinking and ignorance of the Schizophrenogenic Mother so crudely demonized in the 70s?
And then there's the black-and-white, either-or thinking that seems to be all over these posts. If you suspect that environmental pollutants might be a factor, or if you think that past generations were wonderfully hale and hearty, even in the biggest families, are those good enough reasons to dismiss this study out of hand?
What if there's something about some older men's sperm that makes either an embryo, a fetus or a developing child more susceptible to having some developmental process derailed by one or a number of substances now prevalent in the environment? Unless you have real grounds for claiming that this study is actually scientifically flawed or seriously biased, you might want to consider its claims a bit more carefully.
Kimbarator, I don't think that there's black-and-white thinking in here, everybody is just posting what they think it could be happenning, and it's respectable. Maybe they feel like the presentation of this study is sensationalist and pretends to manipulate younger people. Because, still the odds of having a child with mental illness it's very very low. And the conclusions or hypothesis that come out of this kinds of studies are almost always proved wrong in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm 53 and have two childs. The first of them when I was 46. Both are perfectly healthy, of course I will have to wait. And I want to have another, and this study won't affect my decision.
Sorry if I didn't expressed correctly, but I'm learning english :)
There can be a non-genetic relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA household with an older father may not provide the same environment then one with a younger father. In brief, the personality of a man changes as he grows older...
Also, men who marry later may typically have different personal traits then men who marry younger.
The relationship is not necessarily exlcusively genetic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen who marry older might have different personnality traits then those who tend to marry younger. Also men who are at a later stage of their life probably act different then younger men, and might decide to have a child for different reasons.
These differences mean that the family environment typically provided by older fathers is probably different then the one typically provided by younger fathers.
Although a genetical link between the age of the father and the chance of a genetic illness in children is plausible, the factors that i described above have to be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusion when dealing with mental illnesses.
The last time I checked, human reproduction was bisexual. Therefore any effort to attribute causation to a single genome is simplistic, Older men who sire offspring are often in second or later marriages. It is unlikely that these sequential partners are chosen because of the value of their genetic potential. Selection factors must be considered in any attempt to hypothesize about genetically-mediated outcomes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Macleod. I was so happy to read your comment and congratulations on having two healthy boys! I agree with you, sounds like a "dumb article." I mean isn't there at least a 2% chance of any kind of complication with having children at any age? Arent' there more success stories than tragic stories? 2% isn't even worth mentioning, in my opinion. My aunt had three children at ages 45, 46, and 48. My uncle was well into his 50's. They are all healthy and happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this