South Korean twins separated early in life suggest environment may play larger role in human differences than previously thought

Credit: Alma Haser
Credit: Alma Haser

Researchers have taken advantage of a rare opportunity to study identical (aka monozygotic) twins who were separated early in life, before being raised in different countries by different families – and there are some surprising results to report.

Whereas IQ has been shown to be up to 80 percent heritable – with twins usually scoring roughly the same on cognitive tests – in this case there was a substantial 16-point difference between the siblings.

There were, of course, lots of similarities between the pair, but the differences were also notable, suggesting that there needs to be a rethink of how much of our intelligence is down to our genes and how much of it is down to the environment that we’re brought up in.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The pair of twins were born in South Korea in 1974, and were separated at the age of two after one of them got lost in a market… The lost sibling was eventually adopted by a couple in the US.

While the scores are clear, however, the reason for them isn’t. The US twin suffered three concussions as an adult, the researchers note, which made her feel like a “different person”. However, it’s impossible to say for sure whether this has affected the scores seen in the cognitive tests.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here. 

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
downsyndrome_compilation_MID_1
CRISPR breakthrough that can remove the chromosome responsible for Down syndrome raises ethical questions
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.