The author explains why he believes Sutherland's differential association theory was developed in response to the Michael-Adler report, which criticized criminology's research methods. He argues that although Sutherland properly attempted to organize criminology around "abstract generalizations," he tended to confuse the interests of criminology with the interests of scientific explanation, and he rejected key facts about crime that were contrary to his sociological paradigm and his theory of differential association. These facts pertain to the early onset of offending, the decline in offending with age, the stability of crime and deviance over the life course, and the role of individual differences in crime causes. To remedy these oversights by Sutherland, the author, in partnership with Rob Sampson, developed the concept of "life-course criminology." Based on longitudinal research, life-course criminology describes the pathways of criminal behavior over the life span and offers answers to questions about the causes of crime and delinquency, why some offenders persist in offending over time, and why some offenders stop their criminal behavior. Life-course criminology also draws on various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, economics, history, and biology. The discussion of trends that inhibit the development of criminology as a science focuses on the tendency of criminology to narrow the number of disciplines on which it draws, such as sociology, psychology, or economics; the failure to connect research to the testing of specific theories; and unfamiliarity with the history of how criminology has dealt with issues currently being addressed. 66 references