Education Level Linked to Nearsightedness

In a German study, half of those with a university degree were myopic compared with less than a quarter of folks who quit after high school or secondary school. Karen Hopkin reports 

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Nothing says “overeducated egghead” like a pair of coke-bottle glasses. But even clichés sometimes hit the nerd on the head. Because a new study finds that nearsightedness is linked to the number of years spent in school. The findings can be viewed in the journal Ophthalmology. [Alireza Mirshahi et al, Myopia and Level of Education]
 
In the past century, the prevalence of myopia—science-speak for being able to see only what’s right in front of you—has been on the rise. So much so that it can’t all be blamed on geeky genes.
 
To nail down the potential environmental influences, researchers focused on the classroom. They gave eye exams to nearly 5000 German subjects in a project called the Gutenberg Health Study.
 
The researchers found that individuals with 13 years of education were more myopic than those who didn’t get past primary school. And more than half of those with a university degree could use a set of specs, compared to less than a quarter of the folks who quit after high school or secondary school.
 
All that learning takes a lot of reading. Which itself is associated with nearsightedness. Or the nearsighted may gravitate toward pursuits easier to see—like hitting the books. Either way, seems that being a good student may not require great pupils.
 
—Karen Hopkin
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe