Journal of Bioeconomics 6: 317±327, 2004 Book Review: Peter Koslowski (ed.). 1999. Sociobiology and Bioeconomics: The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory. Springer, Berlin, x341 pp. $132.00 ALAIN MARCIANO GREQAM-CNRS and Universite  de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Faculte  des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion, 57 b, rue Pierre Taittinger, F-51096 Reims Cedex, France (a.marciano@wanadoo.fr) Introduction The book is an exercise in positive criticism of sociobiology. Indeed, the different contributions not only analyze the limits and controversial dimensions of sociobiol- ogy but also reveal what sociobiology is in its different components. In particular, what makes the book relevant and interesting is that it not only examines the scienti®c aspects of the ®eld but also analyzes the philosophical (metaphysical) problems which can be associated with sociobiology. From this perspective the book is interesting for it clari®es why and under what conditions economists accept or refuse to use biological concepts, and which kind of biology they will or will not accept. The book thus helps us to understand that the attitudes of economists towardsbiologydependsontheirperceptionofthevicesorvirtuesoftheirdiscipline, as well as on their evaluation of what biology is. In what follows, we present the differentcontributionsinordertodiscussthe(metaphysicalandscienti®c)criticisms addressed to sociobiology, with a speci®c focus upon the interactions between economics and sociobiology. Sociobiology: a de®nition and some criticisms Beside the pioneering works by Hamilton (1964), Trivers (1972) and Alexander (1974), sociobiology is usually and mainly associated with Edward O. Wilson's (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis and Richard Dawkins' (1976) The Sel®sh Gene. Using their great authority in the biology scienti®c community, Wilson and Dawkins provide a comprehensive summary of many previous works ± including their own ± and explicitly discuss the limits of what forms, according to them, a sociobiologicalanalysis.Beyondthecomplexityofascienti®cargumentwhichtakes hundredofpagestodevelopandexpose,thecoreargumentisrathersimple.Infact, simplicity here does not seem to be sheer rhetoric. It illustrates the reductionist enterprisethatisatworkinsociobiology,atleastinWilson'sandDawkins'versions