Nature vs. Nurture: An Analysis of Twin Studies and Ethical Dilemmas (Essay Sample)

The debate of nature versus nurture is a long-standing one, especially since it is a difficult theory to study ethically. Nevertheless, before many experiment guidelines were in place, certain psychologists took advantage of this and conducted secretive studies in an attempt to settle the debate. The most controversial example of this was Dr. Peter B. Neubauer leading a study in which twins and triplets being given up for adoption were all placed into different homes with different economic backgrounds. After adoption, these siblings were interviewed regularly to determine how their development might have been similar or different. While the study provided interesting results, they came with an abundance of moral and ethical issues. 

Twin Study Data and What It Proves

Once the triplets reunited, they began comparing their likes and interests and found that they were remarkably similar. Researchers who take the nature side of the debate argue that no matter how a person is raised, their existence is almost entirely predetermined by genetics. In an interview, the triplets explain, “‘Our lives are parallel to a phenomenal degree… Our personalities are the same… I’ll start a sentence and he’ll finish it’” (Wardle, 2018). The fact that the triplets were so similar despite being raised in completely separate households supports the theory that individuals have predetermined personalities based on their genetic makeup. The other side of the argument, however, has its relevant points. 

Despite all of their similarities, the twins did differ in some ways. Those who argue the nurture side of the debate explain that a specific environment has a bigger impact on how individuals come to be. The way they coped with the stress of their fame, as well as that of their new life together, varied greatly. Eddy committed suicide in 1995 due to preexisting mental health issues and the stress of the brothers not being together in their restaurant (Wardle, 2018). Despite all of the brothers experiencing the second half of their lives together, one of them handled the challenges differently. As tragic as this occurrence was, it aids in the discussion that individuals are influenced by their environments and how they are treated by life. 

Comparing both of these instances together support the idea that both nature and nurture play an equally critical role in human development. The most prominent example of this in the documentary was how the brothers handled working in their restaurant together. While they all were excited to start a family business, they did not all have the same work ethic and values, which lead to tension among them. Bobby explains that “‘Being in a business with my brothers damaged our relationship… There were conflicting work ethics’” (Wardle, 2018). Their similarities were likely due to biological factors, but their performance in stressful situations could have potentially been a result of their home lives growing up. For example, Eddy might not have had as much work ethic as the rest of them because he grew up wealthy. It is not a proven fact, but there was clearly an outside factor influencing some components of the triplets’ behavior. Additionally, we saw that all of the brothers struggled with emotional regulation as children and mental health issues as adults, but only one brother committed suicide. This circumstance shows that nature and nurture are not independent, but rather work together to create an individual. 

Ethical Issues with Neubauer’s Study & Research Guidelines in Place

To conduct valid, ethical studies, researchers must abide by guidelines set by the American Psychological Association. While all of these guidelines are important ones, some of the most critical for the realm of twin studies are protection from harm, obtaining informed consent, and maintaining participant confidentiality. Protection from harm ensures that researchers are not intentionally hurting the participants mentally or physically, and taking precautions to be sure that if any risks occur during a study, they can be eliminated immediately or the study will be stopped entirely. Obtaining informed consent means the researchers cannot proceed unless they have thoroughly explained the procedures of the study to the participants, and they have agreed to go forward without any coercion. Maintaining participant confidentiality ensures that whatever a person says or does during a study is completely anonymous, as in some cases having a name tied to certain results could lead to emotional distress, social life disruptions, job loss, etc. 

Dr. Neubauer’s study only met one of these guidelines. Likely due to the problematic nature of the experiment, all of the records were completed sealed and needed specific authorization to access. Even though the participants of the study found each other, this was no fault of Neubauer’s. However, the other two guidelines were completely ignored. The parents who adopted these children were not informed that they had other siblings, and were even lied to about why the children were being interviewed regularly. There was nothing consensual about the study other than the request to interview the families to monitor the children’s development. Similarly, the children were not protected from harm. All three of the brothers showed signs of emotional distress early on, such as purposefully and repeatedly hitting their heads, yet the experiment continued for years. Dr. Neubauer did not have the children’s best interest in mind, and an experiment like this would not be possible today. 

While informed consent is crucial in research, occasionally a study needs to be done where the participants do not know the exact nature of the study. This is called a deception, and there are strict guidelines on how to implement it in research. The guidelines that a study of this nature must meet are “a determination that the research is justified by its scientific, educational, or practical value; that no nondeceptive alternative research strategy is possible; that research participants are not misled about any research that can reasonably be expected to result in physical harm or severe emotional distress; and that participants receive an explanation of the deception at the earliest time that it is feasible to do so” (Nevid, 2021). Dr. Neubauer’s experiment only met two of these guidelines. The biggest dilemma with this study is that even though it is not ethical by any modern standards, there is likely no better way to study this concept in humans. Separating these twins and triplets at birth and placing them in families that were unaware of the study is the only way to produce authentic results, and the nature vs. nurture debate has been ongoing for years, meaning a study like this provided an abundance of new information. Regardless, that does not make it ethical. All of the participants were misled, and they only received a partial explanation when they reached out on their own, breaking the last two guidelines. To better meet the last guideline, deception is explained to the participants as soon as possible, Neubauer and his team could have informed the parents of the experiment’s real purpose, and reunited the siblings after a few years of the study. 

Dr. Neubauer controlled multiple aspects of this study, including with what families the children were placed, how much the participants knew, and how many sets of siblings were monitored. Being in charge of all of these components allowed for an authentic, unbiased study. Without these controls in place, the participants would likely have reacted much differently. Had Neubauer done this research differently, such as with a correlational study or a descriptive study, a lot would be different. For this type of study, we would have had to analyze twins and triplets all together in their own homes, without interfering at all. While some of the conclusions drawn from this type of study would be helpful, it is not nearly as effective as an experimental study. However, it would have been a lot easier to follow ethical guidelines and obtain more respectable research. 

This study is fascinating because while the outcome proved it to be extremely unethical, the information gathered along the way would not have been uncovered otherwise. Numerous studies, including this one, have shown that separating twins and triplets at birth can have detrimental effects on their mental and physical health. While I do not support Dr. Neubauer’s idea, I understand why he made the decision. As radical as it was, it provided unique data that can never be researched again. Harm to children and families is not justifiable by interest in scientific data, but when a mishap like this occurs, it is nearly impossible to not be interested in the findings.