Biological Clock Ticks Despite Technology

Women who wish to conceive later in life have benefited from improvements in reproductive technology. But even those have expiration dates. Katherine Harmon reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

More and more women are waiting longer to start a family, thanks to widely available family planning and changing social norms. These days at least one in 12 women has their first child after the age of 35.

As natural fertility declines through a woman's 30s and 40s, many are turning to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. In the last decade, the number of women over 40 who used IVF jumped more than 41 percent. With news of women giving birth after 60, fertility seems almost indefinite.

But IVF and other reproductive technologies cannot extend a woman's baby-bearing abilities forever. Even the success of assisted reproduction drops off dramatically after 40. So says a report in the journal Fertility and Sterility. [Nichole Wyndham, Paula Gabriela Marin Figueira and Pasquale Patrizio, "A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the 'aged biological clock'"]


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.


Many much-older mothers have become pregnant with donated eggs, rather than their own. The study notes that one solution for women who wish to delay pregnancy is to freeze their own eggs years ahead of time. 

But when family planning for the long term, it might be wise to realize that even the stork eventually gets too old to fly.

—Katherine Harmon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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