Children of Smart Fathers Have Higher Risk of Autism

Kids of men with IQs of 111 or higher were one third more likely to develop the disorder, but the increased risk was "very slight”

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Children whose fathers are highly intelligent are at a 31 percent higher risk of autism than those whose fathers are of average intelligence, according to unpublished results presented today at the 2017 International Meeting for Autism Research in San Francisco, California.

The work supports observations that date back to the 1940s, when Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger noted in separate reports that the fathers of children with autism tended to be highly intelligent and in several cases worked in technical fields. A 2012 study also showed that children from regions in the Netherlands where high-tech jobs are prevalent are more likely to have autism than those who live in other regions.

In the new study, lead investigator Renee Gardner, assistant professor at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, set out to investigate whether the historical lore has validity. She and her colleagues matched medical records for 309,803 children whose fathers were conscripted into the Swedish military with their father’s scores on the technical portion of the Swedish intelligence quotient (IQ) test.


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.


They found a one-third higher risk of autism in children whose fathers’ IQ scores are 111 or higher than in those whose fathers’ scores cluster around 100. The researchers controlled for possible confounding factors such as families’ socioeconomic status and parental age, education level and history of inpatient psychiatric treatment.

IQ indicators:

They found the opposite relationship between a father’s IQ and his child’s chances of having intellectual disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In particular, children of men with an IQ of 75 or below had a four-and-a-half times higher risk of intellectual disability. The chance of ADHD was 65 percent higher than average for children whose fathers had an IQ in that low range.

Gardner is careful not to overstate the magnitude of the risk associated with having a smart father. “Seeing this association with a high paternal technical IQ is interesting,” she said. But she called the increased risk “very slight” and said that an apparent risk factor doesn’t explain why a person has autism.

What’s more, the work is missing the second half of the genetic puzzle: intelligence data from the children’s mothers, says Kelly Bakulski, research assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, who was not involved in the study. That information unfortunately wasn’t available, as the Swedish military doesn’t require women to sign up, Gardner says.

Even so, she says, “it’s intriguing that this original observation actually holds up in our very modern-day data.”

For more reports from the 2017 International Meeting for Autism Research, please click here.

Further Reading

Brain’s immune cells may explain sex bias in autism

Common variants, rare mutations combine to shape autism risk

Sex and other foreign words

Adults with disabilities deserve right to choose where to live

This story was originally published on Spectrum.

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