We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
We evaluated the prevalence and risk factors for child maltreatment in multiples aged 3 years and compared them to singletons in Japanese population-based data. Records on child maltreatment and health check-ups at 3 years of age from 17,125 singletons, 488 twins and 18 triplets were collected from a Public Health Center between April 2007 and March 2011. The associations of child maltreatment with potential risk factors were analyzed using the logistic regression model. Out of all children, 76 (4.31 per 1000) children had documented maltreatment including 69 (4.03 per 1000) singletons and seven (14.31 per 1000) twins. All of the cases in twins were physical abuse (100%) and nearly half of the cases (43%) included emotional abuse. Among twins, 86% of the biological mothers were suspected. The alleged perpetrators of twins showed a significantly higher rate of maternal depression compared to those of singletons. After adjusting the results for a number of potential biological and social risk factors, twins or triplets had a higher risk for maltreatment than singletons (OR 3.39, 95% CI [1.17, 9.83]). Healthcare providers should be aware that a multiple birth can place considerable stress on a family leading to child maltreatment and should provide appropriate support and intervention for mothers with multiples.
Past studies indicate daily increases in estrogen across the menstrual cycle protect against binge-eating (BE) phenotypes (e.g. emotional eating), whereas increases in progesterone enhance risk. Two previous studies from our laboratory suggest these associations could be due to differential genomic effects of estrogen and progesterone. However, these prior studies were unable to directly model effects of daily changes in hormones on etiologic risk, instead relying on menstrual cycle phase or mean hormone levels. The current study used newly modified twin models to examine, for the first time, the effects of daily changes in estradiol and progesterone on genetic/environmental influences on emotional eating in our archival twin sample assessed across 45 consecutive days.
Methods
Participants included 468 female twins from the Michigan State University Twin Registry. Daily emotional eating was assessed with the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire, and daily saliva samples were assayed for ovarian hormone levels. Modified genotype × environment interaction models examined daily changes in genetic/environmental effects across hormone levels.
Results
Findings revealed differential effects of daily changes in hormones on etiologic risk, with increasing genetic influences across progesterone levels, and increasing shared environmental influences at the highest estradiol levels. Results were consistent across primary analyses examining all study days and sensitivity analyses within menstrual cycle phases.
Conclusions
Findings are significant in being the first to identify changes in etiologic risk for BE symptoms across daily hormone levels and highlighting novel mechanisms (e.g. hormone threshold effects, regulation of conserved genes) that may contribute to the etiology of BE.
Suppose you are running a company that provides proofreading services to publishers. You employ people who sit in front of screens, correcting written text. Spelling errors are the most frequent problem, so you are motivated to hire proofreaders who are excellent spellers. Therefore, you decide to give your job applicants a spelling test. It isn’t hard: throw together 25 words, and score everyone on a scale of 0–25. You are now a social scientist, a specialist called a psychometrician, measuring “spelling ability.”
The reader should be officially informed that in this chapter I take leave of the widely accepted consensus about nature–nurture. This is not a textbook, and everything that I have said up to now has been very much my own take on things, but for the most part I have not strayed far from what most scientists would say about the intellectual history of nature and nurture. Not everyone perhaps, but most people agree that Galton was a racist, eugenics a moral and scientific failure, heritability of behavioral differences nearly universal, heritability a less than useful explanatory concept, twin studies an interesting but ultimately limited research paradigm, and linkage and candidate gene analysis of human behavior decisive failures.
Has it always been the case that living people must struggle with the moral failings of their dead ancestors, or is that a special burden that has been placed on the shoulders of citizens and scientists living in contemporary Europe and North America? Recently, the culture feels as though it is being torn apart by this question. I was taught in grade school that the United States is the greatest country in the world, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where anyone could be a millionaire or president if they put in the effort. It is hardly radical to recognize that this is less than true today and isn’t even close to true historically, especially if one is not white, Christian, and male.
Notwithstanding Galton’s admonition to count everything, counting is just a tool; it is no more science than hammering is architecture. One hundred years after Galton, Robert Hutchins remarked, contemptuously, that a social scientist is a person who counts telephone poles. The obvious way to turn counting into science is by conducting experiments, that is by manipulating nature and observing what the consequences are for whatever one is counting. Gregor Mendel, for example, was certainly a counter – he counted the mixtures of smooth and wrinkled peas in the progeny of the pea plants he intentionally crossed. What made Mendel’s work science was the intentional crossing of the plants, not the counting itself. It would have been much more difficult – perhaps impossible – to observe the segregation and independent assortment of traits by counting smooth and wrinkled peas in the wild.
Why is divorce heritable? It’s clear that it is heritable, in the rMZ > rDZ sense. I hope I have convinced you that the heritability of divorce doesn’t mean that there are “divorce genes,” or that divorce is passed down genetically from parents to children, but seriously: how does something like that happen? I am aware that my constant minimizing of the implications of heritability can seem as though I am keeping my finger in the dike against an inevitable onslaught of scientifically based genetic determinism, the final Plominesque realization that our genes make us who we are, the apotheosis of Galton’s proclamation in 1869: “I propose to show … that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world” (Hereditary Genius, p. 1).
Robert Plomin, whose name has come up a few times already, is unquestionably the most important psychological geneticist of our time. Trained in social and personality psychology at the University of Texas at Austin in the 1970s (my graduate alma mater, though we didn’t overlap), he went on to faculty positions at the University of Colorado and the Pennsylvania State University (both major American centers for behavior genetics) before moving to London to take a position at the Institute of Psychiatry. Plomin’s career has embodied the integration of behavioral genetics into mainstream social science and psychology. Everywhere Plomin has been, he has initiated twin and adoption studies, many of which continue to make contributions today. Although genetics has always played a central role in Plomin’s research, you would never mistake his work for that of a biologist or quantitative geneticist: he (like me) has always been first and foremost a psychologist.
The Second World War marked a turning point for what was considered acceptable in genetics and its implications for eugenic and racially motivated social policies. To be sure, the change in attitude was not quick or decisive. Tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized involuntarily after the war. Anti-black racism, antisemitism, and anti-immigrant sentiment, needless to say, persisted for a long while and have not yet been eliminated; interracial marriage was still illegal in much of the country during my lifetime. But – and despite the foot-dragging, I think this needs to be recognized as an advance – it slowly became less and less acceptable to adopt openly eugenic or racist opinions in public or to justify them based on science. Retrograde attitudes about such things persist to this day, but they have mostly been relegated to the fringes of scientific discourse.
Many people outside of psychology and biology come to the subject of nature–nurture because of an interest in race. That is unfortunate, but I get it. People, especially in the United States, are obsessed with race, for obvious reasons: American history is indelibly steeped in racial categories. The two foundational failures of the American experience – genocide of Indigenous Americans and enslavement of Africans – happened because of race and racism. Even today in the United States, people of all persuasions think about race all the time, whether as hereditarian racists convinced that there are essential biological differences among ancestral groups, progressives fascinated by personal identity and the degradations that non-white people still experience, or the dozens of racial and ethnic categories obsessively collected by the U.S. census.
Let’s summarize where the nature–nurture debate stood as the twentieth century drew to a close. When the century began, thinkers were faced for the first time with the hard evolutionary fact that human beings were not fundamentally different biologically than other evolved organisms. Galton and his eugenic followers concluded that even those parts of human experience that seemed to be unique – social, class, and cultural differences; abilities, attitudes, and personal struggles – were likewise subsumed by evolution and the mammalian biology it produced. People and societies could therefore be treated like herds of animals, rated on their superior and inferior qualities, bred to maintain them, treated to fix them, and culled as necessary for the good of the herd. Not every mid-century moral disaster that followed resulted from their misinterpretation of human evolution, but it played a role. Society has been trying to recover from biologically justified racism, eugenics, and genocide ever since.
The theory of evolution, as espoused by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, was difficult to accept for religious believers whose assumptions about the world were shattered by it, but Darwin’s The Descent of Man, published 12 years later, posed even greater challenges to people who did accept it, and those challenges continue today. It has often been noted that a disorienting consequence of the Enlightenment was to force people to recognize that humans were not created at the center of the universe in the image of God, but instead on a remote dust-speck of a planet, in the image of mold, rats, dogs, and chimps. For the entirety of recorded history, moral beliefs about humans had been based on the idea that people were in some fundamental sense apart from the rest of nature. Darwin disabused us of that notion once and for all. The scientific and social upheaval that has occurred since Darwin has been an extended process of coming to terms with a unification of humans and the rest of the natural world.
Natural selection should favour litter sizes that optimise trade-offs between brood-size and offspring viability. Across the primate order, the modal litter size is one, suggesting a deep history of selection favouring minimal litters in primates. Humans, however – despite having the longest juvenile period and slowest life-history of all primates – still produce twin births at appreciable rates, even though such births are costly. This presents an evolutionary puzzle. Why is twinning still expressed in humans despite its cost? More puzzling still is the discordance between the principal explanations for human twinning and extant empirical data. Such explanations propose that twinning is regulated by phenotypic plasticity in polyovulation, permitting the production of larger sib sets if and when resources are abundant. However, comparative data suggest that twinning rates are actually highest in poorer economies and lowest in richer, more developed economies. We propose that a historical dynamic of gene–culture co-evolution might better explain this geographic patterning. Our explanation distinguishes geminophilous and geminophobic cultural contexts, as those celebrating twins (e.g. through material support) and those hostile to twins (e.g. through sanction of twin-infanticide). Geminophilous institutions, in particular, may buffer the fitness cost associated with twinning, potentially reducing selection pressures against polyovulation. We conclude by synthesising a mathematical and empirical research programme that might test our ideas.
There are arguably few areas of science more fiercely contested than the question of what makes us who we are. Are we products of our environments or our genes? Is nature the governing force behind our behaviour or is it nurture? While it is now widely agreed that it is a mixture of both, discussions continue as to which is the dominant influence. This unique volume presents a clear explanation of heritability, the ongoing nature versus nurture debate and the evidence that is currently available. Starting at the beginning of the modern nature-nurture debate, with Darwin and Galton, this book describes how evolution posed a challenge to humanity by demonstrating that humans are animals, and how modern social science was necessitated when humans became an object of natural science. It clearly sets out the most common misconceptions such as the idea that heritability means that a trait is 'genetic' or that it is a justification for eugenics.
Placental vascular anastomoses are traditionally thought to exist exclusively in monochorionic pregnancies. However, they have been reported in dichorionic twin pregnancies as well. In turn, twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) and twin anemia polycythemia sequence (TAPS) have also been noted to impact some of these gestations. Through discussion of one such case at our institution along with a review of the available literature, we review the proposed pathophysiology of placental vascular anastamoses in dichorionic twin gestations, and aim to raise awareness of the possibility of associated pathologies in dichorionic gestations. This is an emerging area of literature that will require future study to guide prenatal surveillance and mitigate morbidity.
This study examines the changes over time of the twinning rate and infant and child mortality across 17 rural villages in the province of Zaragoza (Spain) over a span of 200 years. The aim is to understand how the twinning rate evolved in conjunction with the processes of economic and social modernization, as well as the demographic transition. During the period analyzed, the twinning rate increased by 10%, rising from 1.26 per 1000 births in the second half of the 18th century to 1.38 per 1000 births in the first half of the 20th century. This rate varied due to hereditary issues, biological factors such as the mother’s age and parity, and socioeconomic features like family occupation and the mother’s education level. In terms of child mortality, twins historically faced a significantly higher mortality rate. However, they benefited greatly from the mortality transition, at least in absolute numbers. While nearly 60% of twins did not survive beyond 5 years of age in earlier periods, the mortality rate for twins decreased to 40% by the first half of the 20th century. The excess mortality was particularly severe for girls, driven by a widespread preference for sons, which led to higher mortality rates for girls in the first 5 years of life, especially in the earliest months. These findings help us understand the improvements in uterine and childhood survival rates for contemporary twins, which can be attributed to the socioeconomic and medical advancements of the 20th century.
Positive, negative and disorganised psychotic symptom dimensions are associated with clinical and developmental variables, but differing definitions complicate interpretation. Additionally, some variables have had little investigation.
Aims
To investigate associations of psychotic symptom dimensions with clinical and developmental variables, and familial aggregation of symptom dimensions, in multiple samples employing the same definitions.
Method
We investigated associations between lifetime symptom dimensions and clinical and developmental variables in two twin and two general psychosis samples. Dimension symptom scores and most other variables were from the Operational Criteria Checklist. We used logistic regression in generalised linear mixed models for combined sample analysis (n = 875 probands). We also investigated correlations of dimensions within monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs concordant for psychosis (n = 96 pairs).
Results
Higher symptom scores on all three dimensions were associated with poor premorbid social adjustment, never marrying/cohabiting and earlier age at onset, and with a chronic course, most strongly for the negative dimension. The positive dimension was also associated with Black and minority ethnicity and lifetime cannabis use; the negative dimension with male gender; and the disorganised dimension with gradual onset, lower premorbid IQ and substantial within twin-pair correlation. In secondary analysis, disorganised symptoms in MZ twin probands were associated with lower premorbid IQ in their co-twins.
Conclusions
These results confirm associations that dimensions share in common and strengthen the evidence for distinct associations of co-occurring positive symptoms with ethnic minority status, negative symptoms with male gender and disorganised symptoms with substantial familial influences, which may overlap with influences on premorbid IQ.
Twins lag behind singletons in their early psychomotor development, but little is known about how chorionicity affects this difference. We compared early psychomotor development in singletons, monochorionic (MC) twins and dichorionic (DC) twins. Our longitudinal data from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS; see Appendix) included 98,042 singletons, 577 MC twins and 1051 DC twins representing the general Japanese population. Chorionicity was evaluated by ultrasound images and complemented by postnatal pathological examinations. Five domains of psychomotor development were evaluated at 6 time points from 6 months to 3 years of age using the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3). The data were analyzed using linear regression models. Twins lagged behind singletons in all areas of psychomotor development during infancy. This gap decreased over time but was still noticeable at 3 years of age. More than half of this difference was attributed to twins having lower birth weight and being born earlier in gestation. MC twins showed slightly delayed development compared to DC twins, but this difference was minor compared to the overall gap between twins and singletons. Twins delay singletons in their early psychomotor development, and this delay is not specific to MC twinning.
The “digital twin” is now a recognized core component of the Industry 4.0 journey, helping organizations to understand their complex processes, resources and data to provide insight, and help optimize their operations. Despite this, there are still multiple definitions and understandings of what a digital twin is; all of which has led to a “mysticism” around the concept. Following the “hype curve” model, it can be seen that digital twins have moved past their initial hype phase with only minimal implementation in industry, this is often due to the perceived high cost of initial development and sensor outfit. However, a second hype peak is predicted through the development of “lean digital twins.” Lean digital twins represent conceptual or physical systems in much lower detail (and hence at much lower cost to build and manage the models), focusing in on the key parameters and operators that most affect the desired optimal outcomes of the physical system. These lean digital twins are requirements managed with the system to ensure added value and tapping into existing architectures such as onboard platform management systems to minimize costs. This article was developed in partnership between BMT and Siemens to demystify the different definitions and components of a lean digital twin and discuss the process of implementing a lean digital twin solution that is tied to the core benefits in question and outlining the tools available to make implementation a reality.
We investigated whether an observed reduction in overall childhood cancer risk (<15 years of age) in twins has been sustained, and how this extends into young adulthood. We searched for English language publications reporting childhood cancer risk in twins, obtained unpublished data directly from some authors, and updated a meta-analysis. We used the Swedish Multigeneration Register to investigate the age to which the reduced overall risk of childhood cancer (observed previously using that Swedish dataset and in this and earlier meta-analyses) persisted into the teenage/young adult years, and which specific tumors accounted for the overall risk reduction beyond childhood. Our meta-analysis of studies of aggregate childhood cancer risk in twins confirmed their approximate 15% reduction in cancer mortality and incidence. Further analysis of Swedish Multigeneration Register data for 1958 to 2002 suggested these reduced risks of cancer (particularly leukaemias and renal tumors) extended from childhood to young adult ages. Reduced risks of these and some other specific tumor types occurring across childhood/teenage/young adult years appeared to account for most of the overall risk reduction. Our results suggest a persistent reduction of overall childhood cancer risk in twins and that this extends into young adulthood. Risk reductions for several specific tumors might account for this and, although there are several potential explanations, intrauterine growth patterns of twins might be a major contributor.