This British study examines the possibility of social responsibility being engrained within our genetic material. Take monozygotic twins and compare their opinions on morality with those of dizygotic twins. It's a nice thought and could have been fascinating, but to do it with any sense of validity, one must minimize social differences (or atleast have a way to control them in some way). Otherwise, they present merely interesting statistics for stupid people to point to as 'proof' of something or other. After all, if morality is entirely a social construction, it's possible that the monozygotic twins would simply learn it in a similar way due to their genetic similarities or that the social treatment of monozygotic vs dizygotic twins differs in such a way as to take on more similar traits or any number of other explanations for such data. It just would've been nice to here Prof. Rushton's opinion on why this wasn't necessary to discuss.