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."

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