Male Biological Clock Starts Ticking in Twenties

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.

A lot of attention has been paid to the biological clocks of women recently, particularly when female fertility starts to decline and by how much. Now research published today in the journal Human Reproduction suggests that a man's fertility starts to slide as early as his twenties.

Brenda Eskenazi of the University of California at Berkeley and Andrew J. Wyrobek of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory led a team that tested 97 healthy, nonsmoking males between the ages of 22 and 80 and found significant age-related decreases in semen quality, which is a well-known proxy for male fertility. Semen volume waned each year and sperm motility also declined significantly with age. However, Eskenazi notes, "unlike women, there appears to be no evidence of an age threshold, but rather a gradual change over time."

Meanwhile, other research appearing in the same issue links lead exposure to low fertility in men. Susan Benoff of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Research Institute and her colleagues tested semen collected from 140 men whose partners were undergoing their first in vitro fertilization cycle. The scientists discovered a significant correlation between seminal lead levels and low rates of fertilization. When the researchers subjected healthy sperm to increasing amounts of lead, they determined that the exposure limited the sperm's ability to both bind to the egg and fertilize it. Comments Benoff, "In light of these results, environmental exposure limits for lead might be re-evaluated."

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