Talk:Twin study
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating. |
Can anybody verify or give more information about this claim that was in the article?
- "Additionally, there are different ways of calculating concordance (the presence of a similar disease phenotype in twins) which can give markedly different results."
Can anybody verify the prenatal imprinting argument? It seems like it would be easy to test by comparing trait concordance between non-identical twins reared apart with normal siblings reared apart. --Nectarflowed T 09:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] private language
Are there any studies about twin idioglossia, or secret language like Poto and Cabengo had? That seems like a good thing to include in the article Phoenix-forgotten 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a programme aired here in the UK (can't remember if it was an Equinox or a Horizon one) relating to a social experiment that took place in the US re: Nature vs Nurture. A set of twins was split up and adopted by two different social sets of parents and I THINK (!!) nature won out. I might be wrong on this, though, as it was about 10 years ago.
Can anyone help me out with the title of this or where I might be able to buy/loan a copy?
Many thanks in advance!
[edit] POV
In the last few edits, someone has been making non-neutral edits with POV and excessive citation of a single scholar. Criticism of twin studies belongs in the Criticism section, and folks should avoid mis-characterizations of the literature. While there has been some criticism of twin studies, it is not correct to characterize this criticism as the majority opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinster (talk • contribs)
- Indeed. And the Criticism section is rather rambling. The last phrase contains some errors of logic, for example. Someone with more time than me, please clean this up.... And although the inclusion of a criticism section is certainly justified given past controversies, others have provided much more eloquent criticisms than Schonemann. --Crusio 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Organization
Hi. I think the readability of the article would be improved if the article was written under the following outline
1 Overview (pretty much as is - why twins are potentially helpful, some history. Note what the potential findings are (ranging from no effects of DNA on differences between people, to complete control, with some examples of . And a note )
2 Method overview (pretty much as is - just the logic of the design)
3 Assumptions (pretty much as is - what assumptions does the logic entail? This should link down to the detailed method section on designs aimed at answering more complex and realistic questions about g*e and ge corr etc.)
4 Criticism (Content similar to now, laid out in a list of critiques linked to the assumption they dispute, the criticism described, and with a rebuttal paragraph beneath it) i.e:
4.1 Sampling 4.1.1 Assumption needed 4.1.2 Evidence and impact of actual variace from assumed value 4.1.3 Brief rebuttal
5 Detailed Methodology (Modeling, terminology, complex models)
FYI, the initial structure is this:
1 History 2 Criticism 3 Methods 3.1 Modern Modeling 3.2 Assumptions
We also need to find a way of not coming back to a dozen edits claiming that "the method is proven invalid" and similar remarks. I think the new structure will help obviate the need for this, allowing readers to decide for themselves. There are several points of view, and we should be able to make this page neutral: putting the substantive points of view in an articulate fashion, allowing intelligent readers to reach conclusions and understand what is uncertain.
Ideally, we would arrange all the pro- and con- points around the assumptions which they entail, and also note what the likely effect of the criticism, if true, is on our theories of human behavior. i.e., what sort of confidence intervals should we put on conclusions, based on reasonable criticisms of the designs.
We also need to find a way of stopping this reverting to a Peter Schonemann hagiography. Can we agree that he is one of several people who don't like genetic research?
Also, given that this and related pages are going to be edited on an active basis in the future, can we please all 1. log in before editing 2. talk before making substantive changes 3. consolidate edits (rather than a dozen insertions which are hard to track but completely change the intent of sentences substituting "might" for "is" and vice versa? cheers, Timothy Bates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim bates (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim, this sounds very reasonable to me and your outline seems to do justice to all aspects of the issue. Good plan, go ahead! --Crusio 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pairwise concordance
In this section an example is given, saying "become affected". As far as I see, they can be affected from the start. I think the procedure is to select a group of affected patients who are twins and then see how many of the twin pairs are concordant or discordant. But I may be mistaken and currently have no time to look it up. Anyway, it seems unlogical as it is defined now, because concordance rates would depend on the duration of the study: the faster the study is conducted, the lower concordance rates will be... --Crusio 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ghastly Example
Mention (without advocating!) Joseph Mengeles twin studies at Auchwitz Concentration Camp? Hugo999 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Equal environments assumption
Can I recommend this change to clarify the current section on EEA?
From
Equal environments. It can be seen from the modelling above, that the main assumption of the twin study is that of equal environments.
To
Equal environments. It can be seen from the modelling above, that the main assumption of the twin study is that the amount of environment shared by individuals within twin pairs is same for both types of twin pairs.
I know it confused me for one until I looked it up! TP21 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
