The author defines misbehaving science as " . . . persistent, ungovernable controversy due to relative disorder and partial anomie" (my emphasis: one of his favorite words. He explains it on p. 136). He might be describing climate science. But since Panofsky is a sociologist and as behavior genetics has been associated with twin studies, race, IQ, Jensen, Darwin, evolution, social Darwinism, eugenics, the Pioneer Fund, nature/nuture, class, the "gay gene," biological determinism, heritability, and so on, he has chosen to describe in detail what is wrong with behavior genetics as a discipline and why it just isn't like or as good as other disciplines. As he says, "My critique is based on the problematic knowledge and knowledge production that flows from the misbehaving field," (p. 240). It is not a question of his sociology examining any of these topics objectively. According to Panofsky, there is something fundamentally wrong with the discipline of behavior genetics.

In my opinion, he gives a very distorted view of behavior genetics. Ostensibly, he is analyzing the discipline in terms of a field theory developed by Bourdieu, a French social scientist. As far as that analysis goes, the book is interesting if you can wade through the sociology: for example, "As Bourdieu reminds us, professional identity is part of the durable dispositions that make up the habitus" (p. 127); or, "As the human researchers gained power, the vision of behavior genetics as a quasi-discipline foundered, and its anomic, archipelagic form solidified," (p.15).

OK. He writes from a point of view of Bourdieu and Bourdieu's comprehensive theory of society, habitus, capital, fields and other esoteric sociological concepts, in the tradition of French sociology and philosophy.

But you can apply this kind of analysis to any discipline. In my opinion, climate science would have been a better target for his analysis as a "misbehaving science." If you think that climate science is not "misbehaving science", see THE AGE OF GLOBAL WARMING, A HISTORY, by Rupert Darwal (2013).

In spite of what Panofsky thinks, behavior genetics is alive and thriving:

1) At the recent launching of the DSM-5, Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, lamented the imprecise nature of the DSM and advocated using genetics and other more objective techniques in diagnosing mental disorders. In other words, behavior genetics will help to make psychiatric diagnoses more accurate and reliable.

2) Recently, Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center have established the heritability of chimp intelligence at approximately 50 per cent. Chimps are our closest relatives.

3) A popular online course entitled, "Introduction to Human Behavioral Genetics," by Matt McGue (University of Minnesota) gives a very balanced, objective view of the discipline. He discusses in detail the problems in dealing with complex human beings at the genetic level.

4) See HUMAN GENETICS, Ricki Lewis (McGraw-Hill, 10th ed., 2012), chapters 7 and 8. A lot is known about how genes influence behavior.

5) See PERSONALITY, Daniel Nettle (OUP, 2007) for journey through the genetics of personality.

However, if you want to know how behavior genetics is done, read BORN TOGETHER--REARED APART by Nancy Segal (HUP, 2012). It's a history of the Minnesota twin study, but in the course of recounting this remarkable experiment she explains in detail how to do behavior genetics (she even has an extensive glossary for those not familiar with the terms of genetics). The conclusion of MISTRA (Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart): "The MISTRA's biggest contribution to psychology was showing that behaviors found to be familial, such as intelligence, personality, and religiosity, have substantial genetic components," (p. 319).

You will not learn anything about this in Panofsky's book.

I don't know who Panofsky intends to convince with this book.

The reviewer of the book in New Scientist concludes her review, "In fact, heritability is almost entirely meaningless," (New Scientist, 14 July, 2014).
If that is the takeaway message from his book on behavior genetics for a sophisticated reviewer at New Scientist, has this book served any purpose except to spread misinformation?

Thank you!

well researched and written. We want MORE, Mr. Panofsky!

As someone who has been working in the field of behavioral neurogenetics for about 40 years now, I have lived through much of the time span that Panofsky describes so aptly. Panofsky bases his analysis on his reading of the literature and 36 in-depth interviews with some of the major players in the field. His analysis is astute and to the point and, as far as I am concerned: spot on. The book should be required reading for any behavior geneticist. Highly recommended.