Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Older father, younger mother, bad idea for baby?

Children conceived by men over the age of 45 struggle in intelligence tests

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Sir Michael Gambon was 66 when his partner, Philippa Hart, 42, gave birth to their son Michael in May 2007. She is now pregnant again.

Getty Images

Sir Michael Gambon was 66 when his partner, Philippa Hart, 42, gave birth to their son Michael in May 2007. She is now pregnant again.

The trend for men to follow in the fertile footsteps of Michael Douglas, Mick Jagger and Rupert Murdoch by becoming fathers in later life may have unforeseen and unwanted consequences for their children.

The offspring of older fathers are more likely to do less well in intelligence tests than the children of younger men, scientists say, and it may be the result of genetic problems with the sperm of men over 45. The children of older mothers, by contrast, tend to fare better in intelligence tests than children with younger mothers. The researchers believe this may be the result of better nurturing by more mature women.

It is well established that more older men are fathering children. In 1993, for instance, about 25 per cent of births within marriage in England and Wales were to fathers aged 35 to 54, but this had risen to 40 per cent by 2003.

Well-known older fathers include the Harry Potter actor Sir Michael Gambon, 68, whose partner Philippa Hart, 44, is reportedly pregnant with their second child. The BBC's world affairs editor, John Simpson, and his second wife, Dee Kruger, a television producer, had a son, Rafe, in January 2006, when Simpson was 61.

In women, it becomes increasingly difficult with age to conceive, but this is less so with men, who can father children for as long as they are capable of having sex – which can be well into their 70s or 80s. While there has been extensive coverage of the health problems associated with older motherhood, scant attention has been paid to any potential difficulties faced by the children of older men. However, recent studies have linked paternal age with congenital problems such as neural tube defects and a range of medical disorders of later life, such as schizophrenia, dyslexia, bipolar disorder and autism.

The latest study was based on a retrospective analysis of nearly 33,500 children born in America between 1959 and 1965, whose cognitive abilities were tested at the ages of eight months, four years and seven years. In addition to being assessed on hand-to-eye co-ordination, sensory discrimination and conceptual knowledge, the older children were also tested on their reading, spelling and arithmetic ability.

John McGrath, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, who led the study published in the online Public Library of Science, said there was a clear decrease in performance linked to paternal age – something not seen in the children of older mothers. "We report, to our knowledge for the first time, that the offspring of older fathers show impairments on a range of neurocognitive tasks during infancy and childhood.

"The patterns of these findings were relatively consistent across ages and across neurocognitive domains," Professor McGrath said. "In light of secular trends to delayed fatherhood, the clinical implications of the mechanisms underlying these findings warrant closer scrutiny."

The study, however, could not shed light on whether those children catch up with their peers in later life.

Although women are born with all the cells that evolve into future egg cells, men produce new sperm cells throughout their lives. This was thought to protect against the sort of degradation of the sex cells seen in the female egg cells as they age.

Scientists now believe that as men age, their sperm are at an increased risk of picking up minor mutations that may be passed on to offspring and can affect their development. "While most of the neurocognitive differences were small at the individual level, these could have important implications from a public health perspective," Professor McGrath said.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Older fathers
[info]plettan wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:52 am (UTC)
There have always been older fathers, since time immemorial, because of maternal deaths in childbirth.

What is new is the proportion of older fathers. That is new and worth further study. The higher proportion of older fathers is due to women delaying having children until their 30s, and the fewer children being born. That too is new and worthy of study.

The falling birthrates, especially in highly developed societies such as Europe, lower male fertility rates, combined with a trend to older fathers suggests that a profound genetic shift is under way.

It would suggest that white Europeans and their descendents in North America, have failed to inter-marry with other cultures sufficiently to renew the gene pool whence the need for older fathers. Now that is worthy of long term study.
Older father
[info]moscowexile wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC)
Surely, if a father is thick, then it is highly likely that some of his offspring will be thick as well, no matter what the father's age is.

The article says that the survey was undertaken in America.

I presume by "America" the journalist that wrote this article means the USA.
Ughh
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
The idea of older parents is delightful, but what on earth can these silly younger women be thinking of by allowing a gnarled old man access to their body to impregnate it?

Maybe if one shuts ones eyes and thinks about the Knight bearing down or the kudos of a famous broadcasting voice uttering the words 'How was it for you darling'? well then sex perhaps maybe become a little bearable, wrinkled though it is. Ughhhhhh
Re: Ughh
[info]rojaws wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:27 am (UTC)
My wife asked me to reply to your comment in order to let you know she found it extremely offensive.
My wife is 26 years younger than me & we are expecting our second child.
I am neither wrinkled, gnarled or any other derogatory remark you may care to think of.
Neither am I obese or a fashionable drunkard.
If my wife were to get involved with a 22 year old acne ridden, foul mouthed, criminal minded chav who beats her up every night after becoming 'trollied', would this be more acceptable to you?
I am personally very sorry that our relationship offends your obviously refined sensibilities but would like to respectfully point out that there is far more to a good relationship than just sex.
I merely point this out as that particular subject appears to be of paramount importance to you.
Re: Ughh - [info]pinhut - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:20 am (UTC) Expand
The older the father - [info]cronyblatcher - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 05:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Ughh - [info]wormery - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Ughh - [info]comradekaff - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Older parents?
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
No mention of the possibility of children being born with Downs syndrome as the result of an elderly coupling etc.
flawed research
[info]wormery wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
This 'research' is utterly flawed.

For a start, some men father lots of children all through life - these men are often of a low social class and under or uneducated. This factor is ignored.

Also, nowhere in the article are facts, figure or stats given - what is the probability increase from the sample tested of children fathered by older men of being more likely to be autistic, bipolar or anything else? The research I've seen says the increase is less than 10% which is tiny. And it is MORE than balanced by the likelihood of an older father to be more responsible and richer, therefore more able to be a good father and to create a good childhood for his kids.

Or possibly, lack of engagement witn an older busier professional father means children see their father less in childhood and this creates a situation where the child only has a mother in effect - this is known to create mental illnesses and anxieties in children (look at single parent family stats).

All in all this srticle is as shoddy as the research it cites. It is merely an attempt inspired by envy at men to avenge tha fact of biology that means women and men are not equal and men can father kids at any age. THAT is the inspiration behind this shoddy research - it's political. End of.

Carry on fathering children older men - you'll be fine. Ignore the bitter old hags who envy you.
Oh dear Rojaw
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)

Men of a certain age , middle aged and above , either mellow or become shall we say hypersensitive?

Ps , Have you asked your wifey whether she needs another visit to the opticians.

What on earth can an old man talk about to a younger woman apart from that looks nice on you dear, or is she so submissive to you, or you are laying down the loyal foundation of a personal care to tie your shoe laces up and dab your mouth?
Re: Oh dear Rojaw
[info]rojaws wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Funnily enough we talk about a lot of things eg the small business we have, our horses, the sorts of music we both like. You know trivial babble like that.
I think you're stereotyping a bit.
My 'wifey', as you so eloquently put it is not some immature fashion & 'celeb' obsessed chavette & is quite capable of maintaining an intelligent conversation.
Once again, sorry we don't fit in with your jaundiced, view of the world.
Re: Oh dear Rojaw - [info]swordofalbion - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Oh dear Rojaw - [info]onemorename - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Oh dear Rojaw - [info]onemorename - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Older mothers
[info]bunionz wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
" The children of older mothers, by contrast, tend to fare better in intelligence tests than children with younger mothers. The researchers believe this may be the result of better nurturing by more mature women."
Let's not beat about the bush here out of a desire to put an overly PC interpretation on the results. Older mothers tend to have put off childbirth because they have had a career, and have had the intelligence to plan their family thoughtfully. Many younger mothers are just too stupid to have mastered contraception. Hardly surprising, then, that the children of the older mothers are more intelligent - they have more intelligent parents.
Yes, I know that's a sweeping generalisation, but it's a relevant factor and one that, if ignored for ideological reasons, simply skews the conclusions from the data.
Re: Older mothers
[info]dreadpiratemel wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC)
It also bears mentioning that Steve Connor unquestioningly accepting the 'nurture' argument in this case (that more mature women are better nurturers) and didn't seem to consider the possibility that the stupid children/older fathers dynamic could be anything other than some sort of physical mutancy - ignoring the fact that older men are part of a generation who weren't taught to nurture their children and may therefore often be unlikely to prioritize nurturing their children, at an age when they don't have the energy they once did.

If this research was to have any real value, it wouldn't just look at the father's age, but also his degree of involvement in his child's life, and if this article was to have any value at all, the journalist covering the research would have pointed that out. Typical crappy Independent schmience coverage.
Re: Older mothers - [info]dreadpiratemel - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC) Expand
IQ test
[info]arclight99 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
Race is a far greater determinate of intelligence than age but I don't see any health warnings from the government or scientists cautioning women to be careful about the enthnicity of their partners.
Re: IQ test
[info]chockmini wrote:
Sunday, 22 March 2009 at 02:09 pm (UTC)
Race is not a determinate of intelligence. Educate yourself.
Man Talk
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)
I'm an old man. I think old men are shit. They're useless in bed. They can't get it up and they smell. Old women are shit too.
Ta ,Rojaw!
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)


This older man business interests pyschologists all the time.

Your wife has issues! (Which will balance out in her late forties / fifties)
Re: Ta ,Rojaw!
[info]bunionz wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)
Something tells me that it's a very, very long time since mekap has received any romantic attention.
Er...mekap?
[info]kolya12 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:39 am (UTC)
Your wife has issues' - Know the couple do you? You're some sort of psychologist maybe?
Kolya 12, oh ?
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)

Didn't you know this is all based on sound facts , wise up old thing.
Evolution means older men should shag younger women
[info]wormery wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
Let's face facts: young women are fertile; older men more likely to have power/money/status that the woman and the children can be supported by.

Old man and young woman is the way it should be. In fact, men should have several wives (and divorce should be banned) - then he could have some pretty ones to shag and the older ones to cook and clean and look after the kids when he's bonking his babes.
Re: Evolution means older men should shag younger women
[info]0pi0 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
Nah, the ideal scenario is fit young man plus fit young woman. That's the way it should be, all the more ideal if they aren't too thick and have prospects. Not many people, male or female, in their heart of hearts really want to mix genes with old or shapeless people, however rich, given a choice. Passing on fine genes is where it's at, except for those who have no choice but to focus mainly to on passing on other stuff.
Re: Evolution means older men should shag younger women - [info]wormery - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Jealous or what?
[info]oldnickheavenly wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)

I have to say that one of the joys of having a long legged and beautiful wife some 21 years my junior is the looks of burning jealousy upon the kiddies faces!

Some women just do not like, after adeqate experience, the purile immaturity of the de-masculinated youth of today!

I must admit that when I told her my age, after we had been going out for a couple of months, she instantly asked me what I wanted!

I told her!

'No way' in French, was the reply!

Of course I did look about 35 years old when I was actually 48, and now at 57 I pass for 45 easily!

A couple of months later she was saying 'This way'

Some woman want mental maturity, experience, in and out of the feather.

They like interesting and adventurous as well!

Intersting is rather hard to find with the kiddies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am an unreconstucted hippy and skint!

This is, witjout doubt, the best relationship that I have ever been involved in!

We have masses in common in terms of outlook and attitude!

Mrs H is not a hippy!
Jealous or what!
[info]oldnickheavenly wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)







I must add that the age difference is noticable because Mrs H looks 10 years younger tha she actually is!
'Facts' are similar to 'truth'
[info]rojaws wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC)
Didn't you know this is all based on sound facts , wise up old thing.
mekap wrote

'Facts' are great ammuntion in the arsenal of the narrow minded and self opinionated.
If a person tries hard enough they can always find 'facts' that agree with their opinion.
At one time it was a 'fact' that the earth was flat.
At another time, it was 'fact' that a whole unfortunate race of people in Nazi Germany were 'sub-human'.
We all know these 'facts' to be utter drivel but at the time they were implicitly believed.
Pilate asked "What is truth"?
Perhaps he could have asked the same about facts.
Er..mekap?
[info]kolya12 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
Your assertion that Rojaw's wife has issues is based on facts? Really?
Actually mekap, the thing is (and I'm sorry to shatter your illusions about your own infallibility here) assertions do not become facts even if you believe them strongly, or repeat them ad nauseum - they remain assertions based merely upon your own subjective viewpoint. I realise this will come as a shockto you. Maybe in future you could try really hard not to judge people you don't actually know.
Get a grip.
Man Talk 2
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
OK so I smell and can't get it up. But I still want a young bird. Blonde and tasty and thick. Nothing over 19. Ugly birds are shit.
Well indeed
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
As we age, our body decays. Even if men produce new sperm throughout their life, the testes are aging and therefore produce lower quality sperm as the man ages.

After the years upon years of berating women for leaving motherhood too late, it is good to have some gender equality in the research undertaken.

But I would say, having parents that love their child and give them the care they deserve and the encouragement that gives them the motivation to do well is clearly far more important than the age of each!



Re: Well indeed
[info]wormery wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC)
Ah yes, and that was why this spurious research was done: to try and diss men and give them a 'menopause' because bitter women are envious that men can produce children at any age. This research is flawed and just confirmation bias from the PC feminazis. It takes no account of social class or how children of older men are socially advantaged as those men may be richer. It does not point out that any difference found between th kids of younger or older fathers is tiny - so small as to be insignificant.

Nice to know though thet you admit you like this research which proves it was done to feministsic rather thans cientific reasons. Men can breed at any age - after 30 most women are past it. Always they look ugly and fat and nag. Your problem. No wonder men like the young ones.
Re: Well indeed - [info]sara_sense - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]wormery - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]sara_sense - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]dreadpiratemel - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 02:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]sara_sense - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 02:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]dreadpiratemel - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 02:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]sara_sense - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]dreadpiratemel - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]wormery - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]cronyblatcher - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 05:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]cronyblatcher - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Well indeed - [info]cronyblatcher - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 06:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Man Talk 3
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC)
sara_sense. Are you available?
Re: Man Talk 3
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
I just read your previous comment and a) I don't think I'm your type and b) " I smell and can't get it up" is not my type.

And sadly for you, I'm over 19. It would just not work between us.

I must say this 'ahem' gutting news, but 'ahem' thanks for the interest - one must soldier on.
Re: Man Talk 3 - [info]bunionz - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:41 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Man Talk 3 - [info]cronyblatcher - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 06:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Man Talk 3 - [info]sara_sense - Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC) Expand
A poem for us young wives !(Rupert Brooke)
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)

Jealousy

When I see you, who were so wise and cool,
Gazing with silly sickness on that fool
You've given your love to, your adoring hands
Touch his so intimately that each understands,
I know, most hidden things; and when I know
Your holiest dreams yield to the stupid bow
Of his red lips, and that the empty grace
Of those strong legs and arms, that rosy face,
Has beaten your heart to such a flame of love,
That you have given him every touch and move,
Wrinkle and secret of you, all your life,
-- Oh! then I know I'm waiting, lover-wife,
For the great time when love is at a close,
And all its fruit's to watch the thickening nose
And sweaty neck and dulling face and eye,
That are yours, and you, most surely, till you die!
Day after day you'll sit with him and note
The greasier tie, the dingy wrinkling coat;
As prettiness turns to pomp, and strength to fat,
And love, love, love to habit!
And after that,
When all that's fine in man is at an end,
And you, that loved young life and clean, must tend
A foul sick fumbling dribbling body and old,
When his rare lips hang flabby and can't hold
Slobber, and you're enduring that worst thing,
Senility's queasy furtive love-making,
And searching those dear eyes for human meaning,
Propping the bald and helpless head, and cleaning
A scrap that life's flung by, and love's forgotten, -- -
Then you'll be tired; and passion dead and rotten;
And he'll be dirty, dirty!
O lithe and free
And lightfoot, that the poor heart cries to see,
That's how I'll see your man and you! -- -

But you
-- Oh, when that time comes, you'll be dirty too!
Man Talk 4
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
Nevermind. I'm just not the lucky type. Can't see where I'm going wrong. Is it the approach?
Re: Man Talk 4
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
Yeah, maybe don't open with "I smell and I can;t get it up" next time. You might want to leave that one until date 4 or 5.
older fathers
[info]elingles wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
My Dad fathered me a@ 67 . I fathered my 3rd daughter @ 47. So , I can tell my children , that my father , and his parents lived before the age of mass media , and mechanically reproduced music .
Useful hindsight in these times , where the 'crisis' may lop off some inessentials of instant gratification........ re: intelligence , I was 2 yrs ahead academically @ 11 , then dropped out . I look at around and see intelligent people of my age , who just performed well in education and career , and woke up around middle age to ask themselves who they are , whilst contaminating the world doing well in useless jobs that maintain family status and finance , but contribute little in overall cultural expansion.( in the etymological sense)
older fathers
[info]elingles wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 01:14 pm (UTC)
P.S. my father's seed would not have been polluted by exposure to modern chemicals. Eating organic at home , and outside when possible ,since the age of 21 ,and now living in the country with a small organic orchard , for the last 14 years , hopefully , has kept up my sperm quality to a level stastically in line with those registered 80 or more years ago in Europe.
Re: older fathers
[info]wormery wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 04:29 pm (UTC)
If you eat organic you're more likely to have diseased sperm full of fungus and your children will have two heads - one up their arse probably, like you.
keeping JSP happy?
[info]insomniacboy wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
I detect an attempt to please Janet Street Porter in running this story, given her hilarious rant on Any Questions a couple of weeks ago, and also in this paper recently.

Mekap, your nasty little ageist ad hominem attacks against an individual poster are not wanted here. Whatever your age and whatever you look like, you seem to have a nasty, shrivelled up soul in there, lady. I really would take a very good look at yourself. But don't do it here.
Re: keeping JSP happy?
[info]mekap wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 02:51 pm (UTC)

Sweetheart, don't take on so. Don't worry about a thing, it may never happen. I bet she still loves you. Sleep easy, okay?
Re: keeping JSP happy? - [info]insomniacboy - Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 04:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular