One idea or topic that I found interesting over the past couple weeks was the nature vs. nurture debate. The nature vs. nurture debate tries to answer the question, how are we physiologically shaped, by our genes (nature) or by our environment (nurture)? I find this topic to be important because many people want to know why we act the way we do, and whether it's our genes or our environmental surroundings that affect it. One specific study that I think can help us understand the nature vs. nurture debate a little better is the twin study.
The most common twin study that I found through research is the one of Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein. Bernstein and Schein were part of a secret study in the 1960's and 70's that separated the identical twins at birth. Their behavior was then monitored throughout the following years. It wasn't until the mid 2000's that they were reunited and told of about the secret study. Although they noticed some similarities in the two women, the official results are held at Yale University until 2066. The twin study is a good study to use in this case. Obviously with identical twins, their genes are going to be very similar but it's the environment they grew up in at separation that we want to look at and determine whether it affects how they are shaped. Many people believe that nature and nurture both play a role in how we are shaped.
I think one principle we can use to evaluate this claim is replicability. Does the study need to be replicated with more identical twins separated at birth to get a definite answer on whether it's nature or nurture that shapes us? One question I have for when the results come out in 2066 is: Will there be more differences than similarities between the two women that will contradict evidence in the nature vs. nurture debate? Or which factor, genes, environment, or both will be most noticeable in the results?