Education Level Linked to Nearsightedness
In a German study, half of those with a university degree were myopic compared with less than a quarter of folks who quit after high school or secondary school. Karen Hopkin reports
By Karen Hopkin
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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.
Nothing says “overeducated egghead” like a pair of coke-bottle glasses. But even clichés sometimes hit the nerd on the head. Because a new study finds that nearsightedness is linked to the number of years spent in school. The findings can be viewed in the journal Ophthalmology. [Alireza Mirshahi et al, Myopia and Level of Education]
In the past century, the prevalence of myopia—science-speak for being able to see only what’s right in front of you—has been on the rise. So much so that it can’t all be blamed on geeky genes.
To nail down the potential environmental influences, researchers focused on the classroom. They gave eye exams to nearly 5000 German subjects in a project called the Gutenberg Health Study.
The researchers found that individuals with 13 years of education were more myopic than those who didn’t get past primary school. And more than half of those with a university degree could use a set of specs, compared to less than a quarter of the folks who quit after high school or secondary school.
All that learning takes a lot of reading. Which itself is associated with nearsightedness. Or the nearsighted may gravitate toward pursuits easier to see—like hitting the books. Either way, seems that being a good student may not require great pupils.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
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
