One of two?

The researchers conducted 17 interviews with identical, non-identical and non-twin siblings.

Identical twins said that being twins did not detract from their individuality - although they pointed out that people often had prejudices that they were a pair rather than two individuals.

These interviews portrayed the lives of identical twins as a blessing and showed that they are not non-identical twins or "exceptional cases."

The twins also said that their genes did not produce any major relationship with the other twin and their identity.

The twins were influenced by factors such as being raised in the same environment, spending most of their lives together, and being treated similarly by their parents.

One of the twins stated, "We spent 20 years together, so it was a closed experience. Even a year of being apart didn't change anything. So I don't feel that genetics make any difference."

Based on this, the researchers concluded that it was reasonable to assume that the clone would likely not feel that its individuality was impaired by sharing genes with someone else, that their relationship with their co-clone would be a boon, and that their uniqueness would not be a negative trait.

Dr. Prainsach said: "According to the genetically identical people in our study, the problem would not be genetic sameness, but the incentives that would lead someone to decide about someone else's genome. The cloning debate would benefit from shifting the emphasis from genetic sameness to looking at the social reasons why deliberately creating people with fixed genes might offend society."

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, a geneticist at the National Medical Research Institute in London, says: "Cloning humans for reproductive purposes is not safe and should not be attempted given current knowledge. In my opinion, there is no rationale behind such attempts. However, it is an interesting study and, although small, it shows that we should not have any prejudices against genetically identical individuals living among us."