Please Scroll Down for Article

Home , Biosocial criminology

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University Libraries] On: 7 December 2008 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789349894] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Criminal Justice Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721714

Lombroso's Legacy: The Miseducation of Criminologists John P. Wright; Kevin M. Beaver; Matt DeLisi; Michael G. Vaughn; Danielle Boisvert; Jamie Vaske

Online Publication Date: 01 November 2008

To cite this Article Wright, John P., Beaver, Kevin M., DeLisi, Matt, Vaughn, Michael G., Boisvert, Danielle and Vaske, Jamie(2008)'Lombroso's Legacy: The Miseducation of Criminologists',Journal of Criminal Justice Education,19:3,325 — 338 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10511250802476137 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511250802476137

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER 2008)

Lombroso’s Legacy: The Miseducation of Criminologists

John P. Wright, Kevin M. Beaver, Matt DeLisi, Michael G. Vaughn, Danielle Boisvert and Jamie Vaske

TaylorRCJE_A_347781.sgm10.1080/10511250802476137Journal1051-1253Original2008193000000NovemberJohnWrightWrightww@ucmail.edu and& of Article Francis Criminal (print)/1745-9117Francis 2008 Ltd Justice Education (online)

This study examines the extent to which criminal justice and criminology Ph.D. students are exposed to contemporary biological and genetic findings associated with aggression and violence. Drawing on multiple sources of information, we find little evidence showing that Ph.D. students are exposed to any biological research on crime and offending. We examine the consequences for this “trained incompetence” and offer suggestions for remedying this deficiency.

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (John Stuart Mill)

Introduction

Mill was an impassioned advocate of the free and open exchange of ideas. No opinion, regardless of how inflammatory or insensitive or baseless, according to Mill, should be exercised or banished from civil discourse. Mill justified his posi- tion by noting that open discourse benefits democracy because beliefs are

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 constantly debated and revised when confronted with new evidence. So important is Mill’s philosophical legacy that it formed the intellectual backbone of the modern United States university system. Similar to Mill’s advocacy of free political speech as a method to advance democracy and liberty, universities, at least in theory, advance free speech as a method to find the truth. Just as Mill observed over a century ago, societies advance through open dialogue, especially when that dialogue is informed by new evidence. When empirical evidence collides with and overcomes longstanding institutionalized dogma, science is advanced. In theory, the friction between empirical evidence and dogma should force falsified ideas into the criminological garbage heap, or

at minimum, cause some degree of modification to contemporary and widely accepted views. Unfortunately, there is often a gulf between theory and practice. In theory, criminology should have by now discarded certain theories of crime. Outside of demonic possession, however, one would be challenged to locate a social theory of criminal behavior that has been empirically laid to rest. Falsification is a critical goal in any science, yet falsification of sociologically based theories of crime has yet to happen. Indeed, just the opposite has occurred. New theories and new paradigms, such as postmodernism, peacemak- ing and many feminist perspectives, have made their way into the mainstream of criminology (Cullen, Wright, & Blevins, 2006). While inventive, their ascen- dancy has arguably given rise to even less emphasis on the scientific method and has thus placed falsification even further from the aims of the field. As Walsh and Ellis (2004, p. 18) note, “Any field generating this much theoretical excess to explain the same phenomenon can reasonably be accused of lacking in scientific rigor”. While criminologists would be hard pressed to locate any social theory of crime that has been empirically falsified and thus is no longer presented as a scientifically supported theory, they would not be so pressed to locate an entire body of knowledge that has been systematically excluded from the discipline. Despite tremendous gains made in the biological and genetic sciences, few, if any, of these insights have penetrated criminology (for important exceptions, see Moffitt, 1990, 1993, 2005). For example, it is commonplace for criminology textbooks and criminological theory texts to only include an occasional box feature on biological topics relating to crime, or at best, devote a single chapter on biological approaches to crime. Even books that take stock of contemporary criminology lack any dedicated coverage of the influence of biological variables (Cullen et al., 2006). Yet the impressiveness of the research findings linking biological and genetic factors to human violence has led Robinson (2004) to note that “The biological sciences have made more progress in understanding crime over the last 10 years than the social sciences have in the last 50”. Robinson’s assessment may be dismissed as mere hyperbole, but in the age of genomic science dismissal may come with a high price. If Robinson is correct,

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 or even slightly correct, then the question that immediately emerges is why has criminology not been part of the broader mainstream movement to link biological and social influences into a coherent understanding of the development of criminal behavior? In other words, why has criminology chosen disciplinary isolation instead of consilience— the unity of knowledge from diverse fields (Wilson, 1998)? This paper takes on a unique approach to address this question. We empirically examine the degree to which biology has or has not penetrated criminology. Unlike other studies, however, we look not at textbooks but at the faculty of Ph.D.-granting criminology programs, the training of Ph.D. criminology students, the dissertations produced by Ph.D. criminology students and faculty research into the biology-crime link. We present our findings and then go on to point out the multiple problems associated with the current state of the field, LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 327

including how Ph.D. students are trained and how knowledge is produced. We finish the paper with suggestions to reorient the training of Ph.D. students.

The Miseducation of Criminologists

The forces that have led to the exclusion of biology from criminology are varied and have been covered in detail elsewhere (van den Berghe, 1990; Walsh & Ellis, 2004). While not exhaustive, we list three general reasons: first, many criminologists hold liberal or radical views on crime causation, which are ideologically opposed to individualist explanations of crime in general, and to biological theories specifically. For instance, Walsh and Ellis’s (2004) analysis of survey data from (n = 147) members of the American Society of Criminology found that the self-reported political ideology of the professor predicted her belief in and support of specific criminological theories. According to Walsh and Ellis’s findings, self-identified liberal faculty were significantly more likely to believe that a lack of opportunities, an unfair economic system and bias in the criminal justice system were important causes of criminal behavior. Liberals were also more likely to believe that exposure to media violence has a stronger influence on wayward behavior than does low IQ, genetic factors, hormonal variables or evolutionary processes. Liberals were not alone in assigning a limited influence to biological factors on crime, as the few (n = 10) self-reported conservatives in Walsh and Ellis’s study also ranked these variables as having less influence than a lack of supervi- sion, poor discipline practices and an unstable family life. Walsh and Ellis concluded by noting that “any field in which a person’s sociopolitical ideology predicts, albeit imperfectly, which theory he or she considers most viable in terms of empirical support can reasonably be accused of lacking in objectivity” (Walsh & Ellis, 2004, p. 19). Second, the history of biological theorizing is a dark one, particularly with its links to eugenics and fascism (see Gibson & Rafter, 2006). This dark history continues to be a source of revulsion, which can serve as justification for crimi-

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 nologists ostracizing biological theory (Rose & Rose, 2000; Wright & Miller, 1998). To this day, introductory criminology textbooks link biological theorizing with the repulsive practices that accompanied Hitler and Mussolini, as if these theories caused the events surrounding the Second World War. As Pinker (2002) notes, however, rarely have theories espoused by sociologists been held to such a standard, even though sociological theories formed the ideological core of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Amin, who, incidentally, were collectively responsible for the destruction of over 50 million people. Finally, at some point in the history of criminology, scholars began to differ- entiate theories based on whether or not they were “dangerous” (Spallone, 1998). Dangerous ideas were those that placed priority on individual differences associated with criminal offending, that allegedly supported state efforts to suppress the rights of individuals or that singled out some groups as more, or 328 WRIGHT ET AL.

less, criminally involved than others. The idea that any linkage of biological functioning to criminal behavior is dangerous also remains a substantial part of the public debate about crime. For example, Balaban and Lewontin (2007), from Gene Watch, a non-profit organization dedicated to limiting research into the biology of behavior, instructs agencies concerned with social justice to “combat the already well-entrenched idea in a variety of academic, public policy and media circles that molecular behavioral genetics will inevitably reveal new information about the control of human behavior that will of necessity change the way societies deal with crime” (Center for Responsible Genetics, 2007, p. 6). Understanding individual and group differences is at the heart of biological theorizing, so it remains an easy extension to label anything biological as also tantamount to “dangerous”. Over time, biology unfortunately has become a codeword for racism and sexism and the quintessential example of how not to conceptualize, measure or study crime. Of course, the belief that some ideas are “dangerous” has been around longer than has criminology. The same argument was used by Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in his attacks on Darwin’s new theory of evolution. Wilberforce, a powerful clergyman, argued that the universe did not evolve, that it was not self-sustaining and that human beings were created by an all-knowing God that also created all other life-forms. Wilberforce and other powerful theologians of the time considered Darwin’s ideas dangerous not because they threatened individual rights, but because they threatened the power of the English Church and deeply held beliefs about the nature of God. Indeed, Wilberforce’s wife was quoted (van den Berghe, 1990, p. 178) as saying that “they know that sociobiol- ogy is wrong, but should it be correct, then they hope that it will not become generally known”. The extent to which doctoral students in criminology are exposed to the biological basis of criminal behavior remains unknown. It is here, at the level of transmission of knowledge from professor to student, that we examine the degree to which doctoral students in criminology and criminal justice are exposed to biological theories, to biological knowledge and to biological methods. We chose to examine Ph.D. programs and their students because this is

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 where the creation and transmission of disciplinary knowledge occurs, where theoretical preferences are institutionalized, and where the informal working knowledge of the field is inculcated. The training of Ph.D. students also involves exposure to research in criminology and to the “messages” that certain research efforts are politically acceptable while others are not. In short, we test to see if Wilberforce has prevailed over Darwin, at least within criminology.

Methods

We obtained faculty and curricular information from the 35 Ph.D. programs in criminology and criminal justice. These programs were identified through the Association of Doctoral Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice (ADPCCJ). LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 329

Two programs were excluded from consideration due to their highly eclectic nature. These programs were generally law and society programs. Collectively, the programs that account for the majority of training of faculty in the United States dedicated to the study of crime and criminal justice were subject to analysis (see Appendix for a list of programs). To examine the extent to which criminology faculty in Ph.D. granting institutions are trained in, familiar with or teach biological and genetic theory, we examined the number of faculty in each program with an expressed interest in biology. While most studies emphasize the conservative estimates garnered from their methods, we emphasize the broad, liberal, working definition of “interest in biology”. In general, any indicator of biological interest was counted, such as behavioral genetics, molecular genetics, hormones, neurotransmitters, sex differences in crime, neuropsychological or neurological deficits. Our estimates reflect an inclusive, rather than highly refined, categorization of faculty and their interests that very broadly spans the biological sciences. We examined faculty information garnered from published faculty statements, statements of research interests, and any training in the biological sciences. When available, we also examined faculty vitae. We also identified and counted the number of criminological theory courses offered in each program. Again, theory was defined broadly to mean courses on crime causation, such as courses on neighborhoods and crime, structural theories of crime and individual theories of crime. We then counted the number of criminology courses that mention biological theories in their course descriptions without regard to the nature, depth or tone of coverage. Faculty research interests and the courses they offer are reasonable indica- tors of the penetration of biological theorizing in the field. However, since we are examining Ph.D. programs, we took the extra step of analyzing dissertation abstracts for all dissertations published in these programs. We used the keywords “genetic”, “biology”, and other closely related terms to search the abstract databases. Dissertations, perhaps, represent the confluence of faculty interests and the training of Ph.D. students. To summarize, by examining faculty backgrounds, statements of research and

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 theoretical interests, as well as the number of courses offered that cover biological theories or are dedicated to biological perspectives, we believe we can offer at least a tentative empirical statement on the nature and extent of biological coverage in Ph.D. granting institutions. To expand our analysis, however, we also examined four of the top journals in criminology (Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency and Journal of Quantitative Criminology) and counted the number of articles published on genetics, biology, biological theories or hypotheses drawn from biological theories. Again, we took a broad, inclusive approach. If an article made mention of biology or genetics, it was counted. Articles critical of biological sciences were counted as well. These journals were selected based on prior research that has shown that they rank highly in prestige, professional reputation, faculty ranking and journal impact scores (see Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998). 330 WRIGHT ET AL.

Results

We identified a total of 605 faculty from 33 Ph.D. programs in criminal justice and criminology. Of this total, 12 faculty members had any training or expressed interest, broadly defined, in the biology-crime link. That is less than 2% of all graduate faculty members responsible for the training of Ph.D. criminology students in the United States. The dearth of faculty training and curiosity in biological sciences and influences and the subsequent lack of training of Ph.D. students is highlighted by our analysis of published dissertations. Only two dissertations have been published in the last 10 years that examine biological hypotheses or that examine biological theories. These studies, however, were supervised by the same Ph.D. advi- sor in a single school (the first author). If these studies were excluded, to limit any bias, not a single study on the biology–crime link has been published in dissertation form in the last 20 years from a Ph.D. granting criminology and criminal justice program in the United States. The analysis of criminology and criminal justice journals revealed a similar degree of exclusion. We examined all articles published in four of the top criminology journals: Justice Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Criminology and the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Accordingly, even though highly inclusive criteria were utilized, it is clear that research into the biological correlates of criminal and antisocial behavior is either not being conducted by criminologists or is being published in journals outside of the field of criminology. Justice Quarterly has never published biological research while JQC has published only one biological article. Similarly, JRCD has not published a biological paper in over 10 years, but did publish five prior to 1998, and Criminology, has published 12 papers broadly related to the biology and crime nexus. Out of a total of 319 published research articles, the 12 biologically related represent less than 4% of all papers published in Criminology since 1996.

Discussion Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 Implications for Criminal Justice Education

Criminology and criminal justice Ph.D. students appear to receive virtually no training in biological or genetic sciences and are rarely exposed to basic biological concepts. Only a handful of scholars at Ph.D. granting criminology programs express an interest in or have received training in biology. This may explain partly why so few dedicated biology–crime courses are offered and why virtually no dissertations on the topic have been completed. This may also be part of the reason why so little biological work penetrates top criminology journals. More importantly, this may explain, in part, why criminology programs remain stead- fastly attached to “social” explanations of criminal behavior and systematically eschew biological theorizing. The overarching point is that criminology Ph.D. LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 331

students are neither trained in nor exposed to contemporary biologically based research. They are thus woefully unprepared to join other sciences in understanding the linkages between biological and social influences, and, of greater consequence, are likely to be uninformed about the biology–crime nexus. For all intents and purposes, biological research and training have been effectively excised from graduate student education, despite a wealth of evidence showing that biological factors are robustly related to the development of offending (Plomin, DeFries, Craig, & McGuffin, 2003; Raine, 1993; Rowe, 2002; Walsh, 2002; Walsh & Beaver, 2008; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). Meta-analyses, for example, have found that criminality is 50–60% heritable (Rhee and Waldman, 2002), while other studies find that brain-based differences between males and females are connected to male pathological behavior (Brizendine, 2006); that drug and alcohol addiction is strongly genetically influ- enced (Volkow and Lee, 2005); that low resting heart rate is a ubiquitous predictor of criminal behavior (Ortiz and Raine, 2004); and that most social influences are modified by an individual’s genotype (Kim-Cohen et al., 2006) The consequences associated with biological exclusion are likely to be far reaching but clearly influence the Ph.D. student, the discipline of criminology and broader society. We portray the structure of these inter-related consequences in Figure 1. While we examine these affected parties as categorically unique, they are in reality overlapping. The level and quality of training of Ph.D. students influences the discipline of criminology, which in turn can influence society’s broader understanding of crime.

Researchers & Students Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 Science of Criminology Flow of Knowledge

Society and Policy

Figure 1. Illustration of the costs of criminological miseducation. 332 WRIGHT ET AL.

Figure 1. IllustrationWith of the costs of criminological almost miseducation. no training available in criminology programs, students with an intellectual interest in biological theory will be forced into another discipline (e.g. psychology) or must be self-taught. This is a tall order for all but the very best student. Even so, if faced with an interested student, most criminology faculty members have little expertise or interest in the biology–crime relation- ship so they are limited in what training they can provide. We suspect that most students will pursue secondary interests. Students actively trying to understand the development of criminal behavior will probably find their efforts circumscribed by the disciplinary boundaries that constrain contemporary criminology. Most criminology courses are arranged around the teaching of criminological theories and the ways that correlates of crime conform to these theories. Most criminology courses are not organized around the teaching of empirical facts about criminal conduct without regard to the academic discipline that produced them. For instance, although the life- course is one of the dominant areas of study in criminology, it is rare that a doctoral student is exposed to research from pediatrics or even developmental psychology. Almost all of the theories Ph.D. students are exposed to are not informed by basic biology. Take, for example, one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of criminal behavior—that is, being male. Theories that touch on male/female differences are most often couched in terms of “masculinities”, or “patriarchy”, even though there is an abundance of evidence that males and females diverge in their development around the eighth week of gestation (Brizendine, 2006). They diverge once more at the onset of puberty (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Craig, Harper, & Loat, 2004). Even so, contemporary criminology has little to say about one of its core correlates, and what it does have to say often simply cannot be true (Daly & Wilson, 1997; Walsh & Ellis, 2004). Future criminologists, unfortunately, will know more about “masculinities” and “patriarchy” than they will about testosterone and estrogen.

Implications for Criminology Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 As for criminology, the consequences of biological exclusion are just as serious. Assuming individuals do pursue biologically informed research, they will probably find it very difficult to get their studies published and into the broader domain of student education. There are institutionalized reasons for this. Only a handful of qualified scholars are available to read and to meaningfully critique biological research into criminal behavior. Unlike studies on mainstream criminological topics and theories, such as Hirschi’s social bond theory, there exists a dearth of individuals capable of evaluating complex biologically based research. The vast majority of reviewers are biologically illiterate or worse, ideologically opposed to biological studies. The current authors offer the following anecdotal comments from reviewers of our papers as evidence: “Nothing can be biological, since you cannot control what happens in the womb”, “I’m convinced that LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 333

cigarette smoking is a proxy measure of social class”, in a critique of a paper showing the deleterious effects of maternal smoking on offspring misbehavior, and from an editor, “There is no a priori reason to expect that genes and environment will interact”. Since journal editors are usually selected from the available pool of criminologists, they generally suffer from the same lack of training as other criminologists. They are thus not equipped to evaluate the merits of biological studies. Finally, given the lack of qualified reviewers, the ideological bias against biology and the biological ignorance of many journal editors, it should come as little surprise that important studies into the biology–crime rela- tionship get published elsewhere. The institutional exclusion of biologically based research handicaps criminology in other ways. Similar to other “hard” sciences, biology operates within a set of somewhat flexible rules. These rules, often flowing from evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics, provide a basis by which to evaluate the proper- ties of individuals and social organizations—that is, they provide the broad parameters by which an explanation for a pattern can be explained. Similar to the way gravity, relativity and Newtonian physics establish benchmarks and operating principles from which science is grounded, an understanding of biology lays a similar intellectual foundation that allows for the construction of knowledge over time. Purely environmental explanations of observed relationships, such as postmodernist, critical and feminist perspectives, offer no such benefit (Williams, 1999). Because of the absence of biology from the vernacular of criminology, many of our theories remain misspecified, and worse yet, most Ph.D. students do not know why. We offer two examples: first, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of low self-control has earned a wide array of empirical confir- mation (Cauffman, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2005; DeLisi, 2005; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Clearly, individuals who are low in self-control are significantly more likely to commit crime and to engage in a range of analogous, risky behaviors. Even so, the origins of self-control remain shrouded, but only to criminologists. Because Gottfredson and Hirschi unequivocally denounced the influence of biology in their original theoretical statement, they were left to point to other

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 sources. True to sociological form, they pointed to parenting practices. Without going into the methodological limitations of between-family studies, it is not at all clear that parental management techniques cause or modify offspring self- control (Beaver & Wright, 2005; Wright & Beaver, 2005). Nonetheless, a wide range of biological evidence points to self-control as part of a broader constella- tion of executive functions housed in the frontal cortex of the brain (Barkley, 1997; Beaver, Wright, & DeLisi, 2007; Congdon & Canli, 2005; Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2006; Pfefferbaum, Sullivan, Swan, & Carmelli, 2000; Price, Simonoff, Waldman, Asherson, & Plomin, 2001). In other words, one of the preeminent theories in criminology clearly implicates neural involvement, which itself is significantly heritable. Second, social learning theory has also garnered a wide range of empirical support (Akers, 1998). Even so, contemporary manifestations of “social” learning 334 WRIGHT ET AL.

theory remain remarkably void of any mention that learning is and always has been a neurological process with considerable individual variation (Frank et al., 2007; Rutter, 2007). In other words, to understand how individuals learn—that is, obtain, filter, store, and retrieve information—requires an understanding of biological processes at the level of the gene and the neuron. Any other “level of understanding” strains credulity.

Conclusion

Our results join a disparate body of research that continues to reveal that sociological criminology remains resistant to the incorporation of biology under its theoretical umbrella (Massey, 2002; Wright & Miller, 1998). Doctoral students in criminology are not exposed to the studies linking biology to social behavior, nor are they are exposed to biological methods and statistics. If they are exposed to biological theorizing, it probably comes from taking classes in other fields, or it takes the form that continues to reify sociological principles. This is nothing short of trained incompetence noted by van den Berghe in his critique of sociology (the same applies to criminology). According to van den Berghe (1990, p. 177):

Sociological resistance to biological thinking is in large part trained incompetence, not simply garden-variety anthropocentrism. Many sociologists are not merely oblivious about biology; they are militantly and proudly ignorant. They know biology to be irrelevant to their interests, so they are determined not to make the effort to learn about it. Blessed be the biologically ignorant for they shall see the Kingdom of Sociology.

All, however, is not lost. Faculty with “greater exposure to biosocial disciplines (biology and psychology)”, note Walsh and Ellis (2004, p. 18), show an increased “acceptance of individual level causal factors … especially among liberals”. However, they also found that, when criminologists were trained only in sociology or anthropology, that ideology had more of an impact on predicting which theories they supported that did mere exposure. Conservative and liberal

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 sociologically trained criminologists both rejected individual-level factors as possible causes, but liberals did so “much more forcefully”. There are at least two implications we can take from these findings. First, it may be time to cut the intellectual chord with sociology and to recognize that criminology and criminal justice are highly multidisciplinary. The study of crime should no longer be restricted to sociology, especially if sociological training continues to elevate ideology over science. By this we mean that sociology should be viewed as only one in a list of fields that contribute to the study of criminal conduct. Other fields, such as psychology and psychiatry, have much to contribute to our understanding of the development of serious antisocial behavior. In practical terms this probably means that Ph.D. criminology programs will seek to hire individuals from other disciplines, individuals who have the training and the knowledge to contribute to the education of Ph.D. students. Many LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 335

programs already hire experts in statistics or research methods so the model is already in place. Short of this, Ph.D. criminology programs should work to establish collaborative cross-department relationships with other disciplines. Cross-fertilization has been the hallmark of the hard sciences, where chemistry students are required to take physics, mathematics and other related courses. Ph.D. programs should make every effort to educate their students about the full range of factors associated with human (mis)behavior instead of acting as guardians watching over the discipline. Second, it is well past time for criminology programs to begin to inculcate Ph.D. students with an appreciation for science and the scientific method instead of producing individuals with an allegiance to specific theories and points of view. The practice of science involves far more than an understanding of theory, methods and statistics. It involves an appreciation for knowledge, a curiosity for the unknown, and a willingness to be wrong. Far too frequently Ph.D. students are “socialized” into ways of thinking that exclude these important precepts. No longer should Ph.D. programs produce “strain theorists” or “social control theorists” or “radicals”. These self identities frequently stand in the way of the process of science and flood the field with ideologues. Instead, criminology programs should seek to produce scientists who study crime and criminal behavior. If this means we produce fewer junior scholars to fill the ranks, then so be it. Education is a far better goal and result than is miseducation and indoctrination. Obviously, the current data do not shine a positive light on the field. A science cannot be a science if it eschews facts to enforce disciplinary boundaries. To be fair, change may be afoot, albeit not in the study of criminal behavior directly. The history of rehabilitation shares some similarities with the history of biological theorizing. Both have been rejected by criminology for reasons not grounded in science. From the 1960s onward, most criminologists associated rehabilitation with repressive state practices and thus argued for its exclusion from the criminal justice system. Advocates of rehabilitation programs were dismissed and scoffed at, or worse yet, were accused of siding with the forces of discrimination (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982). However, the intellectual

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 pursuit of truth has reinvigorated the science of offender rehabilitation. Today, criminologists add to both public safety and the quality of offenders’ lives by conducting research into what works in rehabilitation, what does not work in rehabilitation and how best effective programs can be implemented. Rehabilita- tion has arisen because scientists continued their work and did not succumb to the working ideology of the discipline (see Cullen, 2005). We hope that the same holds true for biology and its proper role in understanding human conduct.

References

Akers, R.L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 336 WRIGHT ET AL.

Balaban, E., & Lewontin, R. (2007). Criminal genes. Gene Watch. http://www.gene-watch. org/genewatch/articles/20-2Lewontin.html (Accessed 28 October 2008). Barkley, R.A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford Press. Beaver, K.M., & Wright, J.P. (2005). Evaluating the effects of birth complications on low self-control in a sample of twins. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 450–471. Beaver, K.M., Wright, J.P., & DeLisi, M. (2007). Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1345–1361. Blakemore, S.J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Brain development during puberty: State of the science. Developmental Science, 9, 11–14. Brizendine, L. (2006). The female brain. New York: Morgan Road Books. Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A.R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology, 43, 133–175. Center for Responsible Genetics (2007). Available at: http://www.gene-watch.org/ genewatch/articles/20-2Lewontin.html Cohn, E.G., Farrington, D.P., & Wright, R.A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Congdon, E., & Canli, T. (2005). The endophenotype of impulsivity: Reaching consilience through behavioral, genetic, and neuroimaging approaches. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 262–281. Craig, I.W., Harper, E., & Loat, C.S. (2004). The genetic basis for sex differences in human behaviour: Role of the sex chromosomes. Annals of Human Genetics, 68, 269–284. Cullen, F.T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43, 1–42. Cullen, F.T., & Gilbert, K.E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P., & Blevins, K.R. (2006). Taking stock: The status of criminological theory–advances in criminological theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1997). Crime and conflict: Homicide in evolutionary psychological perspective. Crime and Justice, 22, 51–100. DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frank, M.J., Moustafa, A.A., Haughey, H.M., Curran, T., & Hutchison, K.E. (2007). Genetic triple dissociation reveals multiple roles for dopamine in reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 16311–16316. Gibson, M., & Rafter, N. (2006). Editors’ introduction to Cesare Lombroso’s Criminal man. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Williams, B., Newcombe, R., Craig, I.W., and Moffitt, T.E. (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene–environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 11, 903–913. Massey, D.S. (2002). A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. American Sociological Review, 67, 1–29. Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Nichols, T., Callicott, J., Ding, J., Kolachana, B.S., Buckholtz, J., Mattay, V.S., Egan, M.F., & Weinberger, D.R. (2006). Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 6269–6274. Moffitt, T.E. (1990). The neuropsychology of juvenile delinquency: A critical review. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research, volume 12 (pp. 99–169). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. LOMBROSO’S LEGACY 337

Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Moffitt, T.E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene–environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533–554. Ortiz, J., & Raine, A. (2004). Heart rate level and antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles- cent Psychiatry, 43 (2): 154–162. Pfefferbaum, A., Sullivan, E.V., Swan, G.E., & Carmelli, D. (2000). Brain structure in mean remains highly heritable in the seventh and eighth decades of life. Neurobiology of Aging, 21, 63–74. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking. Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., Craig, I W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. Price, T.S., Simonoff, E., Waldman, I., Asherson, P., & Plomin, R. (2001). Hyperactivity in preschool children is highly heritable. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1362–1364. Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Robinson, M.B. (2004). Why crime? An integrated systems theory of antisocial behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rhee, S., & Waldman (2002). Genetic and environmental influence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin 128, 490–529. Rose, H., & Rose, S. (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. New York: Harmony Books. Rowe, D.C. (2002). Biology and crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Rutter, M. (2007). Gene–environment interdependence. Developmental Science, 10, 12–18. Spallone, P. (1998). The new biology of violence: New geneticisms for the old. Body and Society 4, 47–65. van den Berghe, P.L. (1990). Why most sociologists don’t (and won’t) think evolution- arily. Sociological Forum, 5, 173–185. Volkow, N., & Lee, T-K. (2005). The neuroscience of addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1429–1430. Walsh, A. (2002). Biosocial criminology: Introduction and integration. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 Walsh, A., & Beaver, K.M. (2008). Introduction to biosocial criminology. New York: Routledge. Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2004). Ideology: Criminology’s Achilles’ heel. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 27, 1–25. Williams, F.P. (1999). Imagining criminology: An alternative paradigm. New York: Garland. Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wilson, J.Q., & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985). Crime and human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wright, J.P., & Beaver, K.M. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self- control. Criminology, 43, 1169–1202. Wright, R.A., & Miller, J.M. (1998). Taboo until today? The coverage of biological arguments in criminology textbooks, 1961 to 1970 and 1987 to 1996. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 1–19. 338 WRIGHT ET AL.

Appendix: Ph.D Granting Universities Examined

The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Texas—Dallas University at Albany, SUNY University of Arkansas, Little Rock University of California, Irvine University of Central Florida University of Cincinnati University of Delaware University of Florida University of Illinois at Chicago University of Maryland University of Missouri, St. Louis University of Montreal University of Nebraska, Omaha University of South Carolina University of South Florida Washington State University Arizona State University Florida State University George Mason University Indiana University Indiana University Pennsylvania John Jay College of Criminal Justice Michigan State University North Dakota State University Northeastern University Old Dominion Penn State University Prairie View A&M University Rutgers

Downloaded By: [Florida State University Libraries] At: 12:09 7 December 2008 Sam Houston State University Simon Fraser University Temple University American University Pennsylvania State University