19605, wow, what if this was real? in the 1960s, and adoption agency in new york began a policy to deliberately split up identical and fraternal twins and place the infants in different families. the adoptive parents were never told that their children had siblings. film; parents were never told that their children had siblings. children had siblings. any one ado ted children had siblings. any one adapted in children had siblings. any one adopted in the children had siblings. any one adopted in the 60s children had siblings. any one adopted in the 60s have - children had siblings. any one| adopted in the 60s have every children had siblings. any one - adopted in the 60s have every right to think perhaps they have a twin. they were placed in a controversial study to explore what makes us who we are and how much is defined by nature versus nurture. but at what cost? ~ . , ., , cost? what they did was so unethical. cost? what they did was so unethical, so cost? what
person to another. we find that height and weight have substantial genetic components. we found that general intelligence has a substantial genetic components of the less than some of the physical traits like height and weight and brainwaves. nevertheless, a substantial genetic component at a special mental abilities and then we drop down a bit when we get to job satisfaction. probably the most surprising findings have been things like religiosity. how much you invest in religious activities and interests and political attitudes and social attitudes have a genetic component to them. and social attitudes have a genetic component to them. these findings come from years component to them. these findings come from years of component to them. these findings come from years of data component to them. these findings come from years of data collected l come from years of data collected from retrospective studies of twins raised apart and not the neubauer project which itself was fundamen
push this through, it was not unanimous by any stretch of the imagination and that was not something neubauer had let on. he said, this was the practice of the time. , , , , , ., said, this was the practice of the time. , , said, this was the practice of the time. , i, time. they split us up to study us. we were part time. they split us up to study us. we were part of time. they split us up to study us. we were part of this time. they split us up to study us. we were part of this child - time. they split us up to study us. we were part of this child study. l we were part of this child study. nature versus nurture. he is one of the few researchers who have spoken publicly about their experiences. i joined a study in 1968. i was 24. my job is to organise the data and it was a wealth of data so the idea was to try to tease out what differences there might be as a result of the different families that they were raised in. to be able to understand the relative contribution of heredita
study they absolutely have a right to know. ~ . . study they absolutely have a right to know. ~ . , ., . to know. was wrong, unethical and damauuin to know. was wrong, unethical and damaging to to know. was wrong, unethical and damaging to individuals. to know. was wrong, unethical and damaging to individuals. after- to know. was wrong, unethical and damaging to individuals. after an l damaging to individuals. after an offer to pursue damaging to individuals. after an offer to pursue a damaging to individuals. after an offer to pursue a career, - damaging to individuals. after an offer to pursue a career, he - offer to pursue a career, he resigned afterjust 12 months. i wondered what had been the outcome of the study. years went by and i never heard of any reports. that was surprising because this was such a unique study. i became an investigator of reporters. i began to track down people who knew anything about the study. together they would confront a 90 manual neubauer. the
masterminds of this study. neubauer and benard. , , ., , and benard. they were deliberately divided as infants and benard. they were deliberately divided as infants as and benard. they were deliberately divided as infants as part and benard. they were deliberately divided as infants as part of- and benard. they were deliberately divided as infants as part of the - divided as infants as part of the research programme. they only met as teenagers by chance. we research programme. they only met as teenagers by chance. teenagers by chance. we were really derived of teenagers by chance. we were really deprived of being teenagers by chance. we were really deprived of being sisters, teenagers by chance. we were really deprived of being sisters, let - teenagers by chance. we were really deprived of being sisters, let alone l deprived of being sisters, let alone twins. i think it isjust deprived of being sisters, let alone twins. i think it is just horrible what they did. we twins. i