This chapter is not intended to be a detailed review of biological findings that have relevance to criminological research. Specific findings are reviewed in detail in this volume and elsewhere (e.g., Mednick & Volavka, 1980; Shah & Roth, 1974). This chapter was written at a more general level and argues that criminologists should not ignore biological variables. Instead, they should attempt to measure such variables in research projects and to investigate where they might fit into criminological theories. This chapter reviews some advantages and problems of including biological variables in criminology and considers why criminologists are often hostile to the idea of their inclusion.

The chapter is specifically concerned with the implications of biological findings for criminological research and so does not discuss their practical implications for the prevention of crime or the treatment of criminals. If some of the claims made by biological researchers are correct, there might be important implications for prevention and treatment. For example, Hippchen (1978) argued that biochemical findings could be combined with knowledge about sociopsychological factors to develop a more complete theory of criminal behavior, thus improving both prediction and treatment. He further argued that recidivism rates among prison populations could be reduced by between 25% and 50% by means of orthomolecular (biochemical) treatment. As someone impressed by the scholarly review of Sechrest, White, and Brown (1979), which concluded that “we do not now know of any program or method of rehabilitation that could be guaranteed to reduce the criminal activity of released offenders” (p. 3), I find this claim amazing.