Bonn and Smith incorrectly state that early criminology was mainly biological. In fact, it was eclectic in nature and included sociological perspectives. The pronounced shift toward sociological explanations that started in the 1930's represented a reaction to Nazism, optimism about social reform, and the lack of methods for studying biological factors in human society. However, ignoring biological determinants of criminal behavior is more likely to cause problems than is including it. Biological factors cannot be ignored in crime anymore than they can be ignored in analyzing a tennis player's skills, although many other factors are also important. Thus, 'Crime and Human Nature' is eclectic rather than exclusively biological in its orientation. It holds both that science can account for criminal behavior and that criminal behavior should be punished according to the principle of just deserts. 7 notes. For the paper to which this is a response, see NCJ 112224.