While it makes a quaint story, and the report attempts to imply that the twins would not have been separated except for being made part of a study, the reality is that there's quite probably a healthy dose of "spin" in the report.

Twins are, as a rule, incredibly difficult to place for adoption with any assurance that they will be kept and raised together. It does happen, but it's quite common for them to be separated simply because it's the only way they'll find adoptive parents.

There has been sufficient interest in the relative effects of genetics and environment that any identical twins NOT ADDOPTED by a single set of parents would automatically be included in any database being kept by anyone interested in this kind of study.

It thus is true that these two were separated by adoption at birth.

It is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE that this was done "for the purpose of" some study. It is much more likely that it was done simply because it's harder to place two children with one family than to place them separately with two families.

It's also true that they were included in a study of "identical twins separated at birth" but that inclusion most likely was done after-the-fact of the adoption.

Change one sentence of the report:

They were given up for adoption to separate families as part of an experiment in the US to discover how identical twins would react to being raised in different family backgrounds.

to:

"Because they were given up for adoption to separate families, they were recorded as part of an experiment in the US to discover how twins would react to being raised in different family backgrounds."

Entirely different spin.

Until records of the "experiment" are revealed, and/or until the doctor provides his/her side of the story, I think I'll consider the more common - but less newsworthy - second construct much the more likely one.

John