human genetics Inferences from twin studiesbiology

By measuring the heights of a large number of ordinary siblings (brothers and sisters) and of twin pairs, it may be shown that the average difference between identical twins is less than half the difference for all other siblings. Any average differences between groups of identical twins are attributable with considerable confidence to the environment. Thus, since the sample of identical twins who were reared apart (in different homes) differed little in height from identicals who were raised together, it appears that environmental–genetic influences on that trait tended to be similar for both groups.

Yet, the data for like-sexed fraternal twins reveal a much greater average difference in height (about the same as that found for ordinary siblings reared in the same home at different ages). Apparently the fraternal twins were more dissimilar than identicals (even though reared together) because the fraternals differed more among themselves in genotype. This emphasizes the great genetic similarity among identicals. Such studies can be particularly enlightening when the effects of individual genes are obscured or distorted by the influence of environmental factors on quantitative (measurable) traits (e.g., height, weight, and intelligence).

Any trait that can be objectively measured among identical and fraternal twins can be scrutinized for the particular combination of hereditary and environmental influences that impinge upon it. The effect of environment on identical twins reared apart is suggested by their relatively great average difference in body weight as compared with identical twins reared together. Weight appears to be more strongly modified by environmental variables than is height.

Study of comparable characteristics among farm animals and plants suggests that such quantitative human traits as height and weight are affected by allelic differences at a number of chromosome locations: that they are not simply affected by genes at a single locus. Investigation of these gene systems with multiple locations (polygenic systems) is carried out largely through selective-breeding experiments among large groups of plants and lower animals. Human beings select their mates in a much freer fashion, of course, and polygenic studies among people are thus severely limited.

Intelligence is a very complex human trait, the genetics of which has been a subject of controversy for some time. Much of the controversy arises from the fact that intelligence is so difficult to define. Information has been based almost entirely on scores on standardized IQ tests constructed by psychologists; in general such tests do not take into account cultural, environmental, and educational differences. As a result, the working definition of intelligence has been “the general factor common to a large number of diverse cognitive (IQ) tests.” Even roughly measured as IQ, intelligence shows a strong contribution from the environment. Fraternal twins, however, show relatively great dissimilarity in IQ, suggesting an important contribution from heredity as well. In fact, it has been estimated that on the average between 60 and 80 percent of the variance in IQ test scores could be genetic. It is important to note that intelligence is polygenically inherited and that it has the highest degree of assortative mating of any trait; in other words, people tend to mate with people having similar IQ’s. Moreover, twin studies involving psychological traits should be viewed with caution; for example, since identical twins tend to be singled out for special attention, their environment should not be considered equivalent even to that of other children raised in their own family.

Since the time of Galton, generalizations have been repeatedly made about racial differences in intelligence, with claims of genetic superiority of some races over others. These generalizations fail to recognize that races are composed of individuals, each of whom has a unique genotype made up by genes shared with other humans, and that the sources of intraracial variation are more numerous than those producing interracial differences.