About a month ago a study (abstract) was published about how a father's age affects the psychiatric health of his children. Due to a misleading press release about the study's results, it was widely reported that children born to father over 45 years of age were 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 13 times more likely to have ADHD, 2 times more likely to have a psychotic disorder, 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder, and 2.5 times more likely to have suicidal behavior or a substance abuse problem.
But statistical analysis is hard and non-intuitive, particularly for people who aren't expert statisticians. It turns out that the real-life rates of psychiatric problems are significantly less, putting this most recent study's results in line with those of previous related studies.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 08 2014, @03:52PM
They had a study saying paternal obesity was a primary correlation. I think I'm going to wait until the mechanism is discovered. Then these correlations can start being understood as co-incidental or causative.
(Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:04PM
So we can look forward to the media pushing the obesity study while nary a squeak about the good news regarding age.
(Score: 2) by Bartman12345 on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:57PM
Good news is no news...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:58PM
"wait until the mechanism is discovered"
"children born to father over 45 years of age"
Fox News viewership skews extremely old, actually averages above retirement age, and they're fairly crazy, so...
(Score: 2, Funny) by mrclisdue on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:39PM
So, ultimately, it's all the fault of old fat guys: did my wife do this study?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:53PM
The original story gave me a lot of worry. I am a recent father at 35, and I have bipolar disorder. I was already freaked out enough about giving my kid my illness, and that didn't help. I'm glad to hear the original story was mostly bullshit.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by lhsi on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:11PM
There was a study posted here about the affect of maternal psychoses on children recently.1 7246 [soylentnews.org]
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/04/02/23
It didn't cover paternal, but the conclusion was that children of mothers with bipolar disorder did not differ from the controls. Hopefully something else to not freak out about.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by sbgen on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:21PM
I wanted to mode up this comment but decided to write instead. Please remember this - when you read in the press a story derived from a scientific literature, it is likely an overworked journalist is writing it. As such, they may not be interested in getting the actual importance of the study or may not be able to grasp the finer points. The scintific literature needs quite a bit of mastery of the arcane knowledge of the deep end in a given filed and a journalist may not have that. You will likely end up with a hyped version of the actual results with no resemblance to the original study. So, next time when you see this calm down and keep an eye out for corrections/corroborations that will certainly come out soon. If it is something worthwhile, some other lab will be on it in no time.
Take a deep breath, that should help.
Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:25PM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 08 2014, @07:23PM
Thanks, I will check that out!
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 09 2014, @01:52AM
With respect, I think a just as valid worry is what it does to a kid to grow up with a bipolar parent.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 09 2014, @06:34PM
I am more than bipolar, I am BINARY, and I spawn children with no problems, you insensitive clod.
As I see it, since no undo action is possible, loving your offspring and showing them your affection fights lots of potential problems. In fact, children become more responsible when faced with problems.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Theophrastus on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:02PM
...greater responsibility to be cautious. particularly with clinicians looking to be published, (oh, the stories i could tell of working for a physician in a research setting, wherein they actually said: "subject 113 is an outlier, eh? well, give me her chart and I can find a reason she should've been left out of the study in the first place")
Here's one of the more germane later additions to the "Urban Dictionary": p-hacking [urbandictionary.com]
though this case of 'older fathers: more autism' is somewhat more subtle than yer basic p-hack job.
Someone really needs to write an updated version of Darrell Huff's classic 1954 "How to Lie with Statistics" to include software packages that can easily do N-dimensional factor elimination until a desired significance is attained.
(Score: 2) by ngarrang on Tuesday April 08 2014, @09:46PM
I blame the drastic reduction in pirates across the globe. There is a strong correlation with Obesity in America and the number of pirates.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:04PM
Tom Lehrer : new math [youtube.com]
it's so simple- so very simple - that only a child can do it!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:28PM
The retraction matters not whit.
People are, simply put, not rational consumers of information. People heard the scary statistics. They remember the original story. That a few weeks later someone came along and said it was a mistake matters considerably less.
Plus, given the recent trend to "play up the controversy," at BEST this retraction means people will think the real risks are "somewhere in the middle" - maybe not as bad as originally reported, but more than we thought before. Be safe and incorporate "all the data" in your thinking (even if some of that data is provably incorrect).
Basically, all of humanity is now dumber and will make worse decisions going forward for years because this story was reported badly originally. The same way all pop pseudo-scientific studies make us all dumber and worse decision makers.
I truly wish "reckless disregard for the truth" was a punishable crime.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:38PM
it is funny, the overall message i get out of this, is
1) I should not trust news sources about Science and Medicine,
2) News sources are more interested in Hype than Accuracy.
(Score: 2) by Zanothis on Tuesday April 08 2014, @05:48PM
FTFY
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:20PM
>> it is funny, the overall message i get out of this, is
>>
>> 1) I should not trust news sources because...
>> 2) News sources are more interested in Hype than Accuracy.
> FTFY
Absolutely correct.
The original story worried me a bit since I'm the father of a 22 year old that was born when I was 44... and a 26 year old that was born when I was 40. AFAICT, they're both fine.
(Score: 1) by sbgen on Tuesday April 08 2014, @06:24PM
Well put :-))
Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08 2014, @07:19PM
> 1) I should not trust news sources about Science and Medicine,
Note the source of the problem was the press release from the original researcher. He's the guy who started the hype. To me the bulk of the problem (in this particular case) lies with the original researcher for that bullshit. He should be censured, if he's happy to be misleading in a press release today, he's already crossed an ethical line that should put all of his actual research under a serious cloud of doubt because it is only a small matter of degree between careerist lying to manipulate a naive press and careerist lying in actual research.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Tuesday April 08 2014, @08:27PM
Many times the PR does not come directly from the researcher, but from the company or university public relations office.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday April 08 2014, @07:40PM
Does it still hold out that the father (and also the grand-father) is the longer the telomeres of his sperm? It was recently talked about (last 6 months I think) how this would lead to older fathers giving birth to longer-lived (all other things being equal) offspring due to passing down longer telomeres through their sperm. Before, the risk of doing this was related to the study in this article, but if it's effectively ruled out, are there no disadvantages (other than chance of parent dying while child is still young) to fathering while old?
I can see this as being a great selling point for old people looking to get young partners (or just a better deal on their sperm donations) for the purposes of pro-creation! "Hey baby, your child will live much longer if I'm the father!"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Serial_Priest on Tuesday April 08 2014, @09:45PM
For those interested, here is the study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/05/12020 92109.abstract [pnas.org] ("Delayed paternal age of reproduction in humans is associated with longer telomeres across two generations of descendants")
It seems the "male biological clock" doesn't have the same limitations as the female variant, and that quite a few journalists did not hesitate to misrepresent statistics to argue the opposite.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 08 2014, @09:57PM
"are there no disadvantages (other than chance of parent dying while child is still young) to fathering while old?"
In my 30s, chasing them around the house felt a lot more exhausting than it appeared watching 20s do the same.
On the other hand my 30s were a lot more financially stable than my 20s, so it likely balances out.
More exercise, but no money related stress?
(Score: 2) by zim on Tuesday April 08 2014, @10:17PM
Because there are millions of nutjobs running around the world and nobody NOTICES they are a nutjob until they do something like shoot up an army base...
unrecorded and undiagnosed is not the same as does not exist.