ABSTRACT
The gradual (re)acceptance of biosocial research has been helped along by the neuroscience revolution. Early criminological research was dominated by the biological tradition as well as multifactor research. In the late 1800s, Sir Francis Galton began using the word “eugenics” to describe techniques intended to improve the genetic quality of the human race. Eugenics policies of forced sterilization were adopted in several countries, including the United States, where involuntary sterilization was practiced on the mentally ill, recidivistic criminals, rapists, people with low IQ, substance abusers, and other similarly afflicted inmates of state institutions. The incorporation of social factors in biosocial research does provide a good buffer against prejudicial interpretations of research findings, and forestalls a possible resurgence of eugenics. In addition to concerns about misinterpretation and misrepresentation of biosocial research, there are further worries about what biosocial research means in terms of free will and legal responsibility, even as there had been in Lombroso’s day.
