Robert Shafran’s first inkling that his life would soon be turned on its head occurred on his first day at college in upstate New York in 1980. His fellow students greeted him like a long-lost friend.
“Guys slapped me on the back, girls hugged and kissed me,” he sad.
Yet, Shafran had never set foot inside Sullivan County Community College until that day.
Illustration: Mountain People
Another student, Eddy Galland, who had studied at the college the previous year, was the cause of the confusion, it transpired.
Galland was Shafran’s spitting image, classmates said.
Shafran was intrigued and went to Galland’s home to confront him.
“As I reached out to knock on the door, it opened — and there I am,” Shafran says, recalling his first meeting with Galland in the documentary film Three Identical Strangers.
The two young men had the same facial features, the same heavy build, the same dark complexions, the same mops of black curly hair — and the same birthday: July 12, 1961. They were identical twins, a fact swiftly confirmed from hospital records.
Each knew he had been adopted, but neither was aware he had a twin. Their story made headlines across the US.
One reader — David Kellman, a student at another college — was particularly interested. Shafran and Galland also looked astonishingly like him.
So he contacted Galland’s adoptive mother, who was stunned to come across, in only a few weeks, two young men who were identical in appearance to her son.
“My God, they are coming out of the woodwork,” she said.
Galland, Shafran and Kellman were adopted by different families when they were babies. They possessed the same complements of genes and, as young adults, they were indistinguishable.
They were the same person trebled, as one commentator put it.
The story behind the triplets’ separation and subsequent reuniting forms the dark core of Three Identical Strangers, which emerges as a tale of grotesque medical manipulation that today would have led to prosecutions for malpractice. It is also a poignant tale of lives reunited.
However, most importantly of all, the documentary is a timely illustration of the unexpected ways that genes and life events interact to shape us.
And that is crucial — as, once again, genetics is back in the news. On one hand, scientists are launching new onslaughts in the battle over the influence of nature versus nurture in human affairs. At the same time, there has been the attempted hijacking, by the far right, of the findings of modern genetics to support their own extreme views.
In these circumstances, this month’s release of Three Identical Strangers, which won a special award for documentary storytelling at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, could not have been more opportune, said medical historian Nathaniel Comfort, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
“The film is particularly well-timed, when genetic essentialism is on the rise, and divisiveness and polarization is sweeping the globe,” Comfort said.
The vital point that affects the current nature-nurture debate, and which is outlined in Three Identical Strangers, is the seemingly intense impact of genetic influences on Galland, Shafran and Kellman.
When they were reunited, they not only looked like doppelgangers, they also displayed an uncanny number of shared habits. All liked the same films, smoked the same cigarettes (Marlboro) and had been wrestlers in college.
Yet, their childhoods had been very different. Shafran’s parents were prosperous, Galland had grown up in a middle-class suburb and Kellman’s parents lived in working-class Queens in New York City.
Only their close genetic heritage could explain their powerful similarities, it was argued — a notion that the brothers milked to its limit. They appeared on TV, answering questions in unison; became celebrities on the New York City club scene; had cameo roles in Madonna’s 1985 film Desperately Seeking Susan; and eventually opened their own restaurant, called Triplets.
However, slowly their story changed trajectory. The boys began to look less like each other. Their physiques changed as they aged. Then their restaurant business broke up. They veered down separate paths and — without spoiling the plot of this remarkable and powerful film — they ended up by having very different outcomes in life.
The varied fates of the triplets suggest other important, nongenetic forces must also have been involved in determining how their lives unraveled; hence the interest that the film has stirred among nature-nurture protagonists.
As a study of identical siblings raised apart, it shines remarkable light on the interaction of genes and environmental factors on human upbringing.
While the triplets’ story did suggest at first that DNA looks like an overwhelmingly powerful determinant of human destiny, by the film’s finale, that assumption looks strained and unlikely. Nurture is certainly involved in the story of Shafran, Galland and Kellman.
This implication is supported by the work of Tim Spector, head of twin research at King’s College London. His studies have uncovered many examples of identical twins who have been raised together and whose early life experiences were also very similar, but who still evolved into very different people.
Identical sisters — raised by parents who treated them as two versions of the same person and gave them the same clothes and hairstyles — nevertheless ended up with very different personalities and careers.
In some cases, one had serious depression while the other was unaffected. Yet, they shared exactly the same genes and exactly the same upbringing. Some critical environmental influences in later life must surely be involved.
Spector said he believes that these influences are triggered by epigenetic changes in which major life events — diet, illnesses, drugs, smoking and other factors — can produce temporary alterations in the behavior of one twin’s genes, but not the other’s, and have major health and behavioral consequences.
“There appears to be no similarity in age at death between identical twins, for example,” Spector said. “In addition, our work shows there is only a 30 percent chance that if one identical twin gets heart disease, the other one will as well, while the chance of getting rheumatoid arthritis is only 15 percent. Yet, these twins share so many other features — the same height, hair and build.”
Until recently, the study of twins — or triplets — was the only direct method available to scientists who were seeking to separate the influences of our environments and our genes.
The seemingly most promising type of this research is that involving the study of identical twins who are separated at birth and raised by different sets of adoptive parents. These siblings have the same sets of genes, but have different backgrounds and so should be invaluable for prising apart the influences of nature and nurture.
Many biologists have used such studies to make striking claims for the overwhelming influence of genes on human behavior.
However, there are only a relatively limited number of sets of identical twins reared apart that are known to scientists, and most live in the US or Europe. This means results would be limited to relatively small data sets and are skewed by cultural influences, a point emphasized by Comfort.
“If you look at all the twin studies that have been carried out over the years and ask how many involved sub-Saharan African twins who were reared apart, you know what the answer will be. Absolutely none,” Comfort said. “And this is true of the vast majority of DNA sequencing surveys that have recently been carried out. They are nearly all done using people of European ancestry as their subjects. That has to have major consequences for influencing results.”
In addition, Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, has questioned the inferences that could be drawn from studies of identical twins in the first place.
“Identical twins, from the very start of their existences, live very different lives, sharing cramped wombs in which single children normally come to term. Again that will skew results, but genetic determinists ignore that,” Jones said.
On the other hand, new techniques for studying the influences of genes have been developed and these do not require the participation of twins. They are known as genome-wide association study (GWAS) and they employ thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — of subjects to delineate traits and determine whether they have high genetic components.
Used in the proper way, they can provide powerful insights in genetic influences, Comfort said.
“I don’t think you can ignore some of the science they are producing, although one should be careful of interpretation,” he said.
A good example of the work of these analyses was provided by a study of 4,000 students in England and Wales. It concluded that the type of school — selective, grammar or comprehensive — that a child attended had little influence on their scholarly performance in later years, but that their genetic makeup did play a part.
However, this was not a matter of one or two genes having major influences, but hundreds of them, each having a small impact on academic achievement, but combining to have significant influences.
The study’s take-home message was outlined by its senior author, Robert Plomin, a professor at King’s College London, who said that the research showed selective schools were simply not adding value to children’s education.
“They take the kids that do the best at school and show they do the best at school. It’s an entirely self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said in an interview with the Guardian.
By contrast, the influence of genes on achievement was important, he added.
As a result, Plomin proposed that genetic testing of children should one day be used to predict academic potential.
“It will probably happen,” he said.
In denigrating the usefulness of private schools, Plomin has gotten brownie points from the left, but his call for gene testing of children has raised their ire.
Plomin was unrepentant.
“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important, but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random — unsystematic and unstable — which means that we cannot do much about them,” he wrote in his latest book, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.
The book is uncompromising in its insistence on the importance of the influence of DNA in determining our lives. It has been heatedly attacked — and warmly praised — since its publication last month, and is seen by many as the most significant act in the recent reawakening of the old nature-nurture battle.
This re-emergence is also reflected in the uptake of genetic tests by neo-Nazi groups — particularly those in the US — which seek to use them to “prove” their white European ancestry (frequently with disappointing results, it should be noted).
At the same time, “alt-right” groups are celebrating their genetic “purity” by publicly swilling milk, which they believe is the nutritionally perfect white drink that only Westerners can digest, because they possess a genetic mutation, known as lactase persistence, that others lack.
However, these beliefs — that genes are the primary driver of human nature — are simply not borne out by studies, as the US writer Carl Zimmer made clear in his latest book, She Has Her Mother’s Laugh: The Powers, Perversions and Potential of Heredity, which has been shortlisted for the Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction.
Consider the issue of IQ.
“While identical twins often end up with similar scores, sometimes they don’t. Equally, if you get average scores on intelligence tests, it is still entirely possible your children may turn out to be geniuses. And if you are a genius, you should be smart enough to recognize your children may not follow suit,” Zimmer said.
The problems for those trying to separate environmental issues from those triggered by our genes are highlighted by Jones.
“The trouble is that people look at the nature-nurture debate like a cake and assume you can have a slice of environment and then a slice of genetic factors. You can’t. They are baked together and cannot be separated without finding some way to unbake your cake,” he said.
The crucial point is that by concentrating on the role of just one influence, our DNA, in controlling our behavior and in determining our life stories, there is the risk of ignoring the influence of free will and the role that humans have in determining their own affairs.
This is why the release of Three Identical Strangers was important, Comfort said.
It suggested that outcomes in life could be very varied, despite common genetic heritages — and that was to be welcomed.
“We need stories that say that ‘environments matter,’ that ‘people matter’ and that ‘experience matters.’ For if they don’t, what’s the use of living?” he said.
Three Identical Strangers took British director Tim Wardle five years to complete.
The documentary follows the outcome of a sinister US experiment in which the triplets, Shafran, Galland and Kellman, were deliberately separated from each other at birth and assigned to three different families. One was affluent, the second middle-class and the third came from a working-class area of New York City.
The adoptions were carried out as part of a secret study designed by child psychoanalyst Peter Neubauer, who wanted to uncover the influences of genes and the environment in children’s upbringing.
Each family was told nothing of the other identical siblings who were involved in the experiment; nor were they informed about the nature of the follow-up studies that Neubauer set in motion in order to keep tabs on his subjects.
The adoption of the boys was arranged by the now-defunct Louise Wise Adoption Agency in New York City, which was set up primarily to serve the city’s Jewish community, an involvement that was highlighted by the US journal Science earlier this year.
“The irony of a Jewish researcher and a Jewish adoption agency conducting a twin study after the atrocities waged against Jewish people in Nazi Germany is clear, and was perhaps the reason that Neubauer never published [the results of] the study,” the journal said.
Several other sets of identical siblings were separated and used in the experiment. Many remain bitter about their fates and have argued that they were treated like lab rats and were the victims of actions that amounted to “Nazi shit.”
Neubauer died in 2006 after he had sealed his data in vaults at Yale University, with orders that they remain there until 2066.
During the making of Three Identical Strangers, Wardle and his subjects attempted to gain access to their files, but were able to see only heavily edited versions of Neubauer’s study.
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
RSS