AH

Introduction to Biosocial Criminology: The Scientific Method, Publication Bias, and the Case for Integrating Biology and Genetics in Criminology

Introduction: Why Biosocial Criminology?

  • There has been tremendous scientific interest in the brain and the human genome over the past decades.
  • The Human Genome Project (HGP) provided researchers with a detailed road map to genetic origins of life and spurred research linking genes to behaviors, diseases, and numerous human characteristics.
  • The bulk of this progress has come from molecular/behavior geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists, not criminologists or sociologists.
  • A scientific revolution in brain/genetics has largely bypassed criminology: when brain findings link to behavioral disorders or genetic variants link to antisocial behavior, criminologists have often ignored or dismissed them; the literature has frequently privileged nurture/environmental explanations over biological ones.
  • Biosocial criminology argues for an integrated view that considers both environmental and genetic/biological bases to human behavior, aligning criminology with other established disciplines that study behavior.
  • To understand why biosocial criminology is emerging, we first examine the dominance of sociological criminology.

The Dominance of Sociological Criminology

  • A serious student of criminology should consider all factors that may produce crime and antisocial outcomes, yet criminologists are not equally informed about all potential causes.
  • Most criminologists were trained as sociologists and learned about social origins (families, neighborhoods, subcultures, peers, social institutions) but received little biology or genetics training. When biology was taught, it was often via a sociological lens that portrayed biology as irrelevant or problematic.
  • During graduate training, criminologists completed more than nine sociology courses but less than one biology course. 9 sociology courses vs less than one biology course: 9 > 0 ext{ (biology)}.
  • As a result, criminologists tend to emphasize social/environmental factors as primary etiological factors for crime and delinquency, while biology/genetics are minimally discussed or misrepresented.
  • Some criminologists actively mock biology, censor biology, or label biology researchers as racists/sexists/fascists, creating a hostile academic environment for biosocial research.
  • Matthew Robinson argued that biological sciences have advanced understanding of behavior more in the past decade than sociology in the past fifty years, which underscores the tension between biology and sociology in criminology.
  • Students who pursue biosocial research often face uphill career battles, including difficulty obtaining academic positions commensurate with their publication records.
  • Summary: the cycle persists—criminology remains heavily sociological, with limited exposure to biology/genetics, reinforcing resistance to biosocial explanations.
  • The chapter aims to overcome these obstacles by introducing biological/genetic concepts and showing how they can inform biosocial criminology and other criminological research.

Is Criminology a Science?

  • Is criminology a science? Many in criminology say yes, but others—especially some external critics—are skeptical of criminology’s scientific status.
  • Science, broadly, is the accumulation of knowledge through the scientific method.
  • The scientific method is a systematic, three-interlocking-step process used to acquire knowledge about a phenomenon (e.g., crime).
  • Step 1: Form educated predictions (hypotheses) about relationships between variables. Example: relating delinquent peer exposure to marijuana use.
  • Step 2: Test hypotheses using data collection and analysis (qualitative or quantitative); quantitative statistical techniques are the most common in biosocial research.
  • Step 3: Decide which hypotheses are supported by the data and consider findings in light of the existing literature; replication studies are needed to test robustness.
  • Scientific knowledge accumulates incrementally; even if one study supports a hypothesis, another study may support a different one. Replication helps establish reliability.
  • The scientific method also allows researchers to rule out (or falsify) explanations that are unrelated or untenable. For example, Cesare Lombroso’s idea that skull size/shape causes crime is not supported by empirical research and is rejected by the modern scientific method.
  • The scientific method is the gold standard for evaluating relationships like the link between delinquent peers and marijuana use, and for discerning which hypotheses about crime are most credible.

The Scientific Method: Steps and Example

  • Hypotheses are directional (one-sided) or non-directional (two-sided). In the delinquent peers example, three competing hypotheses could be:
    • H_1: P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{Delinquent peers}) > P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{No delinquent peers})
    • H_2: P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{Delinquent peers}) < P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{No delinquent peers})
    • H_3: P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{Delinquent peers}) = P( ext{Marijuana use} ext{ | } ext{No delinquent peers})
  • The null hypothesis (H3) posits no relationship between delinquent peer exposure and marijuana use.
  • Stepwise testing:
    • Collect data by asking adolescents about marijuana use and exposure to delinquent peers.
    • Analyze data with statistical software to determine which hypothesis is supported.
    • If results support H1, this adds to the body of evidence linking delinquent peers to marijuana use; replication across studies strengthens confidence.
  • The three-step process—formulate hypotheses, test them with data, and assess the results against existing research—enables objective evaluation of competing claims.
  • The approach emphasizes that scientific knowledge accumulates over time, not from a single study or intuition.
  • Example of non-scientific reasoning: testing a hypothesis about wearing blue jeans causing crime would require data rather than relying on intuition; the scientific method would be used to determine whether there is any association.
  • The method highlights why the field uses replication and why it is important to avoid overreliance on common-sense beliefs.
  • The caution against oversimplified or visibly incorrect beliefs precedes the utility of science in resolving disputes among different criminology perspectives (neighborhoods, peers, families as causes).
  • Lombroso-like ideas remain as cautionary examples of what the scientific method rejects.
  • The scientific method, when applied properly, is the best tool for evaluating diverse causal theories about crime and delinquency.
  • Figure 1.1 (schematic overview of the scientific method) shows the flow: Observation → Question → 4 predictions (hypotheses) → Data collection/analysis → Conclusion; results determine which hypotheses are supported and guide replication.

The Publication Process and Bias Against Biosocial Research

  • Even when biosocial research exists, it faces unique barriers in publication:
    • Many criminology reviewers have limited biology/genetics knowledge yet are asked to assess biosocial work.
    • Some editors hold anti-biology/anti-genetics views and may censor or reject biosocial work.
    • Editing practices can alter or suppress content that discusses biology/genetics, preventing dissemination of biosocial ideas.
    • Such biases exist in prestigious journals; editors may approve or publish pieces that attack biosocial approaches, not on mathematical or scientific grounds, but on ideological grounds.
  • A notable example: In 2014, Criminology published a personal attack on biosocial criminologists and called for banning studies estimating genetic influences on crime. The article did not provide mathematical proofs of flaws in biosocial studies; it relied on conceptual disagreements and concerns about consequences.
  • Why this matters: banning whole lines of research stifles replication and the scientific process; replication is essential for robustness, and banning hinders scientific progress.
  • Editors’ approval of such a piece highlights biases within the publication process and underscores the challenge for biosocial researchers to be evaluated by those with appropriate expertise.
  • The publication process can distort scientific understanding when reviewers lack biology knowledge or when ideological biases influence judgments more than methodological merit.
  • Across studies, biosocial findings have shown robustness and convergence; critics often overlook this convergence in favor of sociological perspectives.
  • When evaluating competing theories (neighbors, peers, families, etc.), the scientific method remains the most reliable way to adjudicate among them, provided that evaluations are impartial and informed by appropriate methodological expertise.

Evidence for the Biology/Genetics Connection: The Carroll Study and Its Implications

  • Joseph Carroll and colleagues surveyed 600 scholars from 22 disciplines about genetics and science.
  • They identified two groups:
    • A group that recognized the importance of genetic influences on human behavior (often scientists who value the scientific method).
    • A group that downplayed genetic influences and doubted the scientific method; this group largely consisted of sociologists, historically dominant in criminology.
  • The downplaying group also tended to express skepticism about the scientific method itself, whereas those recognizing genetic influences tended to have greater confidence in the method.
  • Implication: for some social scientists (including some criminologists), doubt about genetics coincides with distrust of the scientific method, serving as a rhetorical mechanism to avoid embracing genetic findings.
  • This underscores a broader tension: acceptance of genetic influences is associated with stronger faith in science, while denial of genetics often accompanies skepticism toward scientific methods.
  • When reading this book, remember that the scientific method—if trusted—supports objective evaluation of genetic influences on behavior rather than ideological rejection.

Why Biosocial Criminology? The Rationale and Approaches

  • A growing number of criminologists acknowledge that criminal behavior is influenced by both biology/genetics and environmental factors.
  • Some scholars focus solely on gene–environment interplay or exclusively on environment, while others pursue biosocial explanations that integrate multiple levels of causation.
  • The book promises to discuss why biology/genetics matter for crime and delinquency and to examine different approaches to linking biology to crime (three main lines of discussion noted in the text; details to follow in the chapters).
  • The overarching aim is to move criminology toward a more comprehensive science that incorporates biological and genetic perspectives alongside traditional sociological factors.

Additional Considerations: Data, Methods, Replication, and Ethics

  • Data limitations: Historically, many criminological datasets were not collected to test biological/genetic hypotheses; most contained information about social environments, not biological factors. Modern datasets increasingly include biological/genetic markers, enabling biosocial analyses (see Chapter 7).
  • Reviewer limitations: Many criminology reviewers have little biology/genetics knowledge, complicating impartial evaluation of biosocial studies. Some editors may lack familiarity with biology and genetics and may apply biased standards.
  • Ethical concerns: There are ethical and political concerns when publishing biosocial research, including fears about determinism and stigmatization; however, robust replication and methodological rigor help mitigate these concerns.
  • Practical implications: If biosocial criminology is integrated into theory and research, it can enhance understanding of risk factors, inform prevention strategies, and align criminology with other scientific disciplines studying behavior.
  • Practical caution: The existence of biases against biology in criminology underscores the need for careful, transparent methods, replication, and dialogue across disciplines to advance knowledge responsibly.

Summary: The Case for a Biosocial Criminology

  • Criminology benefits from integrating biology/genetics with traditional social explanations, moving beyond a purely environmental perspective.
  • The scientific method provides a framework to test and compare competing hypotheses about the causes of crime.
  • Replication and convergence across studies strengthen conclusions about genetic and environmental contributions to criminal behavior.
  • Addressing biases in education, research funding, and publication is essential to build a robust, comprehensive science of crime that reflects both biological and ecological determinants.
  • The biosocial perspective is presented as the natural evolution of criminology, aligning it with other established sciences that examine complex human behavior.