Since the 1990s, criminal courts have increasingly resorted to a range of expert assessments based on behavior genetics and neuroscience, the primary aim of which has been to evaluate the criminological dangerousness of offenders. The renewed interest in the biological dimension of delinquent behaviors follows a more global movement where numerous social problems are redefined as individual pathologies falling within the purview of a broadly conceived biomedical expertise. How does one proceed to investigate the biological factors of crime? What led to this steady revival of biocriminology, after decades of symbolic discredit? And perhaps more importantly, what credibility can biosocial criminologists justly claim in the face of criticism and skepticism? Addressing these questions is especially imperative at a time when we are increasingly exposed to a biological culture that purports to discriminate between normal and pathological personhoods.

Since the 1990s, criminal courts have increasingly resorted to a range of expert assessments based on behavior genetics and neuroscience, the primary aim of which has been to evaluate the criminological dangerousness of offenders. The renewed interest in the biological dimension of delinquent behaviors follows a more global movement where numerous social problems are redefined as individual pathologies falling within the purview of a broadly conceived biomedical expertise. How does one proceed to investigate the biological factors of crime? What led to this steady revival of biocriminology, after decades of symbolic discredit? And perhaps more importantly, what credibility can biosocial criminologists justly claim in the face of criticism and skepticism? Addressing these questions is especially imperative at a time when we are increasingly exposed to a biological culture that purports to discriminate between normal and pathological personhoods.

This chapter traces the genesis of the field of criminology in the United States. From the creation of the Berkeley School of Criminology to the rise of the American Society of Criminology, the role played by sociologists has been central in the emergence of an autonomous space dedicated to the study of crime. This is somewhat paradoxical given that the aim of its initial promoters, police officers by training, was to collaborate with academics while maintaining control over professional associations essentially intended to train men and women in the field. The skills that sociologists had acquired in the scientific understanding of deviance, however, thwarted the plans of practitioners: not only were professional associations progressively placed under the umbrella of sociology, but the newly created departments of criminology also came to rely on professors trained in sociology.

Starting in the 1960s, a first generation of biosocial criminologists emerged. Two sociologists, Clarence R. Jeffery and Marvin Wolfgang, each decided to take an interest in the interactions between social and biological factors in the development of deviant behavior. Although they succeeded in training a few doctoral students, the project did not take off. Access to empirical data was scarce, their approach raised indignation and suspicion among their sociological colleagues, who accused them of trying to revive Lombroso, and public authorities turned to psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavior geneticists in their war against violence. These barriers were still in place in the 1990s, and a true biosocial research stream was not yet discernible.

Although biosocial criminology had been under pressure during the second half of the 20th century, it experienced a major boom from the 2000s. Several factors explain this takeoff. First, genetic databases were gradually made accessible to social scientists, which made it possible for biosocial criminologists to go beyond theoretical discussions and produce empirical research. However, decisive changes also occurred within the field of criminology itself. The increasing autonomy of criminological institutions (departments, associations, journals, etc.) with respect to sociology opened the space for renewed scientific possibilities. Nonetheless, this resource was not without constraints: criminology's lack of prestige and the fact that the discipline is seldom institutionalized in the most prestigious universities (except for the University of Pennsylvania) continue to weigh on the perception and reception of biosocial criminology. Let us now turn to the internal divisions within this scientific movement.

To speak of "biosocial criminology" seems to imply that we are dealing with a homogeneous movement. In reality, however, it is possible to identify three sub-networks whose views on crime do not always concur: criminologists, i.e. researchers with a doctorate in criminology, psychologists and sociologists. Most criminologists participate in the construction of a pro-genetic approach: under the guise of biosocial conceptions of crime, it is the role of biological factors that is often emphasized and considered to be preponderant. In contrast, sociologists insist on the importance of environmental factors. Psychologists, for their part, while being closer to the pro-genetic vision of criminologists, keep their distance from the controversies and prefer to focus on the role played by the brain. Far from being merely material, we will see that these internal divisions in biosocial criminology have repercussions on the conceptual and methodological choices made by researchers.

One of the claims made by biosocial criminologists is that they can move beyond the nature-culture debate to nurture an interdisciplinary theorization of criminal behavior. An analysis of the scientific controversies that have pitted pro-genetic researchers against pro-environmental researchers quickly shows that this is wishful thinking. Whether it concerns the modeling of the interactions between genetic and environmental factors (GE), the merits of epigenetics or the conceptual relevance of twin studies, both sides clearly favor either nature or culture. It is thus utterly difficult to separate the scientific interests of biosocial criminologists, both pro-genetic and pro-environmental, from their personal and institutional interests. Through these scientific controversies, what is at stake is the subversion, or conversely the reproduction, of sociological domination in the criminological field.

Underneath its hushed and polite appearance, the scientific field sometimes conceals oppositions whose symbolic violence is palpable. A minority of pro-genetic biosocial criminologists have thus developed a confrontational rhetoric that places them in open conflict with the rest of the criminological field. Politically conservative, they are convinced that race is an important factor in crime, they revisit the work of Lombroso, and accuse sociology of being an ideological pseudo-science. This position is surprising, to say the least. It is nonetheless profitable, as demonstrated by the visibility acquired by these researchers. Increasingly cited, they have used the controversies to acquire scientific capital. For their part, dominant sociologists do not feel truly threatened by these attacks. Convinced that their conception of crime is the most scientifically sound, they are content to ignore the provocations of this vocal minority.

As we have seen in the previous chapters, the 2000s marked a turning point in the access to genetic data. This undeniable evolution should not, however, obscure another equally crucial fact: social scientists do not have access to just any kind of biological data. This greatly limits their room to maneuver. In the era of genome-wide and brain imaging studies, a significant number of biosocial criminologists continue to use methods that have been progressively abandoned, including candidate-gene and traditional twin studies. Because they belong to the criminological field, these researchers are also able to bypass the peer review process, as their evaluators might not always be informed of the latest developments in biological research.

The conclusion offers a reflection on the development and diffusion of the biosocial lingua franca in contemporary societies. Not only are the social effects of biosocial criminology already noticeable, especially in the legal context, but the social imaginary advanced by some of its main proponents promote public policies that would give pride of place to medical, preventive solutions for criminality. This social imaginary, which is not strictly limited to the issue of crime, is to a large extent based on neuroscience: the brain has become a privileged site of action for the resolution of a wide range of social problems (school failure, delinquency, drug use, etc.).

The conclusion offers a reflection on the development and diffusion of the biosocial lingua franca in contemporary societies. Not only are the social effects of biosocial criminology already noticeable, especially in the legal context, but the social imaginary advanced by some of its main proponents promote public policies that would give pride of place to medical, preventive solutions for criminality. This social imaginary, which is not strictly limited to the issue of crime, is to a large extent based on neuroscience: the brain has become a privileged site of action for the resolution of a wide range of social problems (school failure, delinquency, drug use, etc.).

The conclusion offers a reflection on the development and diffusion of the biosocial lingua franca in contemporary societies. Not only are the social effects of biosocial criminology already noticeable, especially in the legal context, but the social imaginary advanced by some of its main proponents promote public policies that would give pride of place to medical, preventive solutions for criminality. This social imaginary, which is not strictly limited to the issue of crime, is to a large extent based on neuroscience: the brain has become a privileged site of action for the resolution of a wide range of social problems (school failure, delinquency, drug use, etc.).

The conclusion offers a reflection on the development and diffusion of the biosocial lingua franca in contemporary societies. Not only are the social effects of biosocial criminology already noticeable, especially in the legal context, but the social imaginary advanced by some of its main proponents promote public policies that would give pride of place to medical, preventive solutions for criminality. This social imaginary, which is not strictly limited to the issue of crime, is to a large extent based on neuroscience: the brain has become a privileged site of action for the resolution of a wide range of social problems (school failure, delinquency, drug use, etc.).