Experimenting in the Biosocial: The Strange Case of Twin Research

  • William Viney


In this chapter, I explore how twin research has been used to prove and disprove divisions between biology and environment. The history of using twins in biomedical research has lessons for understanding how human groups interact with scientific endeavours. I consider how twins have their identities transformed by research, and how they seek to adapt to and inform the discrete workings of scientific knowledge production. While experiences of twinning have been linked to the specific uterine quality of their development, or to generalised patterns of psychological relation and co-dependence, little is known about how these conceptions of twin sociality are enhanced, diminished, or negated by their status as clinical labourers within scientific enterprise.


  1. Aristotle. 1991. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Edited by Jonathan Bates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ashbury, Kathryn, and Robert Plomin. 2014. G is for Genes: The Impact of Genetics on Education and Achievement. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, Laura C., and Thomas Teo. 2008. Twin Studies. In The International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, ed. William A. Darity Jr., 2nd ed., 473–475. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, Barry, and John Dupré. 2008. Genomes and What to Make of Them. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartels, Meike, and Dorret I. Boomsma. 2009. Born to be Happy? The Etiology of Subjective Well-Being. Behavior Genetics 39: 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, Jordana, and Tim Spector. 2011. A Twin Approach to Unraveling Epigenetics. Trends in Genetics 27 (3): 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentall, Richard P. 2009. Doctoring the Mind: Is Our Current Treatment of Mental Illness Really Any Good? New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boomsma, Dorret I., Gonneke Willemsen, Conor V. Dolan, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo. 2005. Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Loneliness in Adults: The Netherlands Twin Register Study. Behavior Genetics 35: 745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouchard, Jr, J. Thomas, David T. Lykken, Matthew McGue, Nancy L. Segal, and Auke Tellegen. 1990. Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science 250 (4978): 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burlingham, Dorothy. 1945. The Fantasy of Having a Twin. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 1: 205–210.Google Scholar
  11. Burri, Andrea, Corina Greven, Marianne Leupin, Timothy Spector, and Qazi Rahman. 2012. A Multivariate Twin Study of Female Sexual Dysfunction. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 9: 2671–2681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burt, Callie H., and Ronald L. Simons. 2014. Pulling Back the Curtain on Heritability Studies: Biosocial Criminology in the Postgenomic Era. Criminology 52 (2): 223–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrnes, Isabel Stenzel, and Anabel Stenzel. 2007. The Power of Two: A Twin Triumph over Cystic Fibrosis. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, Timothy, and Adam Sitze. 2013. Introduction: Biopolitics, an Encounter. In Biopolitics: A Reader, ed. Timothy Campbell and Adam Sitze, 1–40. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Castillo-Fernandez, Juan E., Tim D. Spector, and Jordana T. Bel. 2014. Epigenetics of Discordant Monozygotic Twins: Implications for Disease. Genome Medicine 6 (60): 1–16.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, Adele E., Laura Mamo, Jennifer Ruth Fosket, Jennifer R. Fishman, and Janet K. Shim, eds. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S. Durham, NC: Durham University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cool, Alison. 2011. Thinking with Models, Talking with Numbers: Twin Studies of Economic and Criminal Behavior in Sweden. American Anthology Association Meeting, Montreal, Canada. Wednesday, 16 November 2011.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, Melinda, and Catherine Waldby. 2014. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dasen, Véronique. 2005. Jumeaux, Jumelles dans l’Antiquitè Grecque et Romaine. Akanthus: Zurich.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, Dona Lee. 2014. Twins Talk: What Twins Tell us about Person, Self, and Society. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  21. de Nooy, Juliana. 2005. Twins in Contemporary Literature and Culture: Look Twice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Department of Twin Research, London UK (DTR). 2012. Recruitment Advertisement. LBC, London. FM. 97.3.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2013. Do You and Your Twin Share a Telepathic Connection? Accessed 23 October 2013.
  24. ———. 2016. A Study Recently Published in the New Scientist Shows that Twins Enjoy Better Health and Live Longer Thanks to Their Close Bond. Accessed 21 May 2016.
  25. Diamond, Jared M. 1983. Laboratory, Field and Natural Experiments. Nature 304 (1983): 586–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dupré, John. 2015. The Polygenomic Organism. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology After the Genome, ed. Sarah S. Richardson and Hallam Stevens, 56–72. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon, translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  28. Galton, Francis. 1875a. On Men of Science, their Nature and Nurture. Notices of the Proceedings at the Meetings of the Members of Royal Institution of Great Britain, With Abstracts of the Discourses Delivered at the Evening Meetings, Vol. 7, 1874–75, 227–236. London: William Clowes.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1875b. The History of Twins as a Criterion of Nature and Nurture. Fraser’s Magazine, 12, 566–576.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbon, Sahra, and Carlos Novas. 2008. Introduction: Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences. In Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences, ed. Sahra Gibbon and Carlos Novas, 1–18. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Gillham, Nicholas Wright. 2001. A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hacking, Ian. 2007. Kinds of People: Moving Targets. Proceedings of the British Society 151: 285–318.Google Scholar
  33. Haworth, Catherine M.A., Margaret J. Wright, Michelle Luciano, Nicholas G. Martin, Eco J.C. de Geus, Catharina E.M. van Beijsterveldt, and Robert Plomin. 2010. The Heritability Of General Cognitive Ability Increases Linearly From Childhood to Young Adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry 15: 1112–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hippocrates. 2012. Generation; Nature of the Child; Diseases 4; Nature of Women and Barrenness., Vol. 10, Edited and translated by Paul Potter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hoctor, James. 2015. It isn’t Mystical, It is Perceptual: An Exploration of Intersubjectivity in Monozygotic Twins. MA dissertation, Durham University.Google Scholar
  36. Hur, Yoon-Mi, and Jeffrey M. Craig. 2013. Twin Registries Worldwide: An Important Resource for Scientific Research. Twin Research and Human Genetics 16 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jolin, Lucy. 2013. Nature’s Control Group. In Touch Spring: 20–23.Google Scholar
  38. Joseph, Jay. 2003. The Gene Delusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope. New York: Algora.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2013. The Use of the Classical Twin Method in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: The Fallacy Continues. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 34 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
  40. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2015. The Postgenomic Genome. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology After the Genome, ed. Sarah S. Richardson and Hallam Stevens, 9–31. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kooper, Erik. 1994. Multiple Births and Multiple Disaster: Twins in Medieval Literature. In Conjunctures: Medieval Studies in Honor of Douglas Kelly, ed. Douglas Kelly, Keith Busby, and Norris J. Lacy, 256–260. Amsterdam: Rodolpi.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Leonard, Mary. 1961. Problems in Identification and Ego Development in Twins. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 16: 300–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, Alex, and Marcus Lewis. 2013. Tell Me Who I Am: Sometimes it’s Safer Not to Know. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  45. Lewontin, Richard C., Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin. 1985. Not in our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  46. Löwy, Ilana. 2000. The Experimental Body. In Medicine in the 20th Century, ed. Roger Cooter and John Pickstone, 435–449. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
  47. Meloni, Maurizio. 2016. Political Biology: Science and Social Values in Human Heredity from Eugenics to Epigenetics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, Peter. 2012. A Thing or Two About Twins. National Geographic Magazine 221: 39–65.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, Geoffrey, Gu Zhu, Margie J. Wright, Narelle K. Hansell, and Nick G. Martin. 2012. The Heritability and Genetic Correlates of Mobile Phone Use: A Twin Study of Consumer Behaviour. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moyer, Eileen, and Vinh-Kim Nguyen. 2016. Is the 21st Century the Age of Biomedicalization? Medicine Anthropology Theory 3 (1): i–vii.Google Scholar
  51. Mukherjee, Siddhartha. 2016. Same but Different: How Epigenetics can Blur the Line Between Nature and Nurture. The New Yorker. Accessed 4 May 2016.
  52. Nerlich, Brigitte. 2016. Synthetic Biology and Responsible Language Use (2014–16). Accessed 17 May 2016.
  53. Newman, Horatio H., Frank N. Freeman, and Karl J. Holzinger. 1937. Twins: A Study of Heredity and Environment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Niewöhner, Jörg. 2011. Epigenetics: Embedded Bodies and the Molecularisation of Biography and Milieu. BioSocieties 6 (3): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ooki, S. 2005. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Finger-Sucking and Nail-Biting in Japanese Twin Children. Twin Research and Human Genetics 8: 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Panofsky, Aaron. 2015. From Behavior Genetics to Postgenomics. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome, ed. Sarah S. Richardson and Hallam Stevens, 150–173. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peek, Philip M., ed. 2011. Twins in African and Diaspora Cultures: Double Trouble, Twice Blessed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pickersgill, Martyn, Jörg Niewöhner, Ruth Müller, Paul Martin, and Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2013. Mapping the New Molecular Landscape: Social Dimensions of Epigenetics. New Genetics and Society 32 (4): 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Piontelli, Alessandra. 2008. Twins in the World: The Legends they Inspire and the Lives they Lead. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Plomin, Robert. 2011. Commentary: Why Are Children in the Same Family So Different? Non-Shared Environment Three Decades Later. International Journal of Epidemiology 40 (4): 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Plomin, Robert, John C. DeFries, Gerald E. McClearn, and Peter McGuffin. 2008. Behavior Genetics. 5th ed. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  62. Polderman, Tinca J.C., Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, and Danielle Posthuma. 2015. Meta-Analysis of the Heritability of Human Traits Based on Fifty Years of Twin Studies. Nature Genetics 47: 702–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poll, Heinrich Wilhelm. 1914. Über Zwillingsforschung als Hilfsmittel menschlicher Erbkunde. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 46: 87–105.Google Scholar
  64. Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Roelcke, Volker. 2013. Eugenic Concerns, Scientific Practices: International Relations and National Adaptations in the Establishment of Psychiatric Genetics in Germany, Britain, the USA, and Scandinavia 1910–1960. In Baltic Eugenics: Bio-Politics, Race and Nation in Interwar Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, ed. Björn M. Felder and Paul J. Weindling, 301–334. Amsterdam: Rodolpi.Google Scholar
  66. Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Segal, Nancy. 2000. Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2010. Twins: The Finest Natural Experiment. Personality and Individual Differences 49: 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. ———. 2012. Born Together–Reared Apart: The Landmark Minnesota Twin Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Siemens, Herman Weiner. 1924. Die zwillingspathologie. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, Kevin, John R. Alford, Peter K. Hatemi, Lindon J. Eaves, Carolyn Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2012. Biology, Ideology, and Epistemology: How Do We Know Political Attitudes are Inherited and Why Should We Care? American Journal of Political Science 56: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sparrow, David J., and James J. Anderson. 2016. A Twin Protection Effect? Explain Twin Survival Advantages with a Two-Process Mortality Model. PLoS ONE 11 (5): e0154774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spector, Tim. 2012. Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  74. Spiro, Pamela Wagner, and Carolyn S. Spiro. 2006. Divided Minds: Twin Sisters and Their Journey Through Schizophrenia. New York: St Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  75. Stengers, Isabelle. 1997. Power and Invention: Situating Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  76. Stevens, Hallam, and Sarah S. Richardson. 2015. Beyond the Genome. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology After the Genome, ed. Sarah S. Richardson and Hallam Stevens, 1–8. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Stewart, Elizabeth A. 2000. Exploring Twins: Towards a Social Analysis of Twinship. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  78. Teo, Thomas, and Laura C. Ball. 2009. Twin Research, Revisionism and Metahistory. History of the Human Sciences 22 (5): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Dongen, Jenny, P. Eline Slagboom, Harmen H.M. Draisma, Nicholas G. Martin, and Dorret I. Boomsma. 2012. The Continuing Value of Twins in the Omics Era. Nature Reviews Genetics 13: 640–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Tulleken, Alexander and Christoffer van Tullekan. 2009. The Secret Life of Twins. BBC, London. Directed by Dienne Petterle. 30 September and 4 October 2009.Google Scholar
  81. Waller, John C. 2012. Commentary: The Birth of the Twin Study—A Commentary on Francis Galton’s ‘The History of Twins. The International Journal of Epidemiology 41 (4): 913–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Viney
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations