New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Male Susceptibility to Parasites May Help Explain Shorter Lifespans

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.


In Westernized societies, women tend to outlive men. The established explanation for this inequality is that males undertake more risky behavior than females do and, as a result, perish prematurely. But new research published today in the journal Science suggests that parasites could be at least partially responsible.

Sarah L. Moore and Kenneth Wilson of the University of Stirling analyzed parasitic infections in 355 nonhuman mammal species and found that males were more likely than females to succumb to parasites. What causes this small but significant increase remains unclear. With their generally larger size, males may just make more attractive targets. Alternatively, because testosterone can suppress the immune system, it is possible that males are less able to protect themselves from a parasite's harmful effects. In an accompanying commentary, Ian P.F. Owens of Imperial College London suggests the findings may have implications for male mammals of the human variety, too. "In the United States, United Kingdom and Japan, men are approximately twice as vulnerable as women to parasite-induced death," he writes. In countries with a higher overall incidence of deaths due to parasites, such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, men are four times as vulnerable as women are. "The next step," Owens concludes, "is to discover more about the precise physiological mechanisms that lead to the unusually high susceptibility of large mammals to parasitic diseases."

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

Subscribe