Abstract
Recognition of the interplay between nature and nurture is decades old in fields such as psychiatry, but other fields in the social sciences continue to be hampered by the idea that social and biological variables compete for explanatory relevance. In a recent study of the adolescent brain and risk taking, Males critiqued biologically oriented approaches as "biodeterminist" compared to environmentally friendly approaches. Here the authors suggest that the use of biological and social variables, or nature and nurture, is not only uncontroversial but also essential for understanding psychopathology, externalizing, and antisocial behaviors. Moreover, biosocial scientific inquiry has led to progressive state policy in the case of Roper v. Simmons, precisely the opposite outcome that critics of biologically friendly research often claim.