The notion of twins and twinning involves a multiplicity of meanings and contexts that altogether encompass an unexpectedly wide and significant part of human experience, culture, and endeavor. This cultural polysemy is, to some extent, also an attribute of twin research, which has structured itself around a multiplicity of scientific areas of enquiry, and across time, throughout a multiplicity of births and rebirths, periodically declining and resurging as a phoenix from its ashes. What is proposed is a short voyage through this polysemy and phoenixity of twinning and twin research, and through the structuring process that has accompanied its developments, international scope, and organization. No claim to completeness, but an attempt to dig into personal memory and experience, and share some recollections of the main steps of the process, and particularly the evolution of the journal, the society, the international meetings, and their role in supporting the area's persistence and continuous revivals and adaptations until today.
The Danish Twin Registry was established formally in 1954 and thus celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2004. Here we give an account of its founding and the early years, and a brief summary of more recent progress.
Using univariate sum scores in genetic studies of twin data is common practice. This practice precludes an investigation of the measurement model relating the individual items to an underlying factor. Absence of measurement invariance across a grouping variable such as gender or environmental exposure refers to group differences with respect to the measurement model. It is shown that a decomposition of a sum score into genetic and environmental variance components leads to path coefficients of the additive genetic factor that are biased differentially across groups if individual items are non-invariant. The arising group differences in path coefficients are identical to what is known as "scalar sex limitation" when gender is the grouping variable, or as "gene by environment interaction" when environmental exposure is the grouping variable. In both cases the interpretation would be in terms of a group-specific effect size of the genetic factor. This interpretation may be incorrect if individual items are non-invariant.