New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Study Identifies Trade-Off between Motherhood and Longevity

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.


Motherhood is a difficult job. In fact, the results of a new study suggest that, historically, taking on the role early in life was linked to shorter lifespans. A report published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that mothers who gave birth at a young age in the 18th and 19th century also tended to die young. The results suggest that natural selection may have sacrificed a woman's longevity for reproductive success.

Jenni E. Pettay of the University of Turku in Finland and her colleagues analyzed medical records of four generations of Finns born between 1745 and 1903. They found that mothers and daughters tended to share a number of similarities, including the age at which they first gave birth and the number of children they had who survived to adulthood. Across generations, a family's lifespan was relatively consistent, with women who delayed childbirth living longer than women who had their first child at a younger age. In addition, women who waited longer between births lived longer than did mothers who gave birth in quick succession. For males, meanwhile, there was no significant link between the age of first fatherhood and longevity.

Passing along a gene for longevity would help women live long enough to help out with their grandchildren, thus giving their genes a better chance to survive, the authors point out, but their results indicate the opposite may be true. The findings, they write, "are also interesting because they suggest some underlying genetic mechanism affecting age of first reproduction and longevity and another mechanism affecting rate of reproduction and longevity."

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