Two weeks ago, I criticized The Atlantic for a story entitled "How junk food can end obesity." To summarize my comments: It can't. And the article doesn't say it can.
But the same issue of the magazine has an article by Jean Twenge that takes a careful look at the statistics on declining fertility in women in their 30s and 40s and finds that it doesn't decline as much as everyone thinks: There's no justification for baby panic.
Twenge combines memoir and reflection with a cold assessment of the statistics. When she was 30 and extricating herself from her first marriage, "I seemed destined to remain childless until at least my mid-30s, and perhaps always," she writes.
She finds little scientific justification for the frightening stats on fertility decline, and locates studies that paint a more optimistic picture, but she notes that the data are still sparse. "The data, imperfect as they are, suggest two conclusions. No. 1: fertility declines with age. No. 2, and much more relevant: the vast majority of women in their late 30s will be able to get pregnant on their own." She overreaches a bit when she goes on to offer advice–"plan to have your last child by the time you turn 40," she writes. "Beyond that, you're rolling the dice." As far as I can tell from her story, this goes beyond the data.
I don't want to make too much of that, however. This is a smart piece that goes beyond the numbers and does a good job of summarizing what's known when what's known isn't very much. That's harder than it sounds.
Now, here's another research assignment for Twenge: How can one issue of a magazine publish one medical story that is way off base and another that is right on target?
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply