Fraught claims at the intersection of biology and sociality: Managing controversy in the neuroscience of poverty and adversity.

In this article, I examine how a subfield of researchers studying the impact of poverty and adversity on the developing brain, cognitive abilities and mental health respond to criticism that their research is racist and eugenicist, and implies that affected children are broken on a biological level. My interviewees use a number of strategies to respond to these resurfacing criticisms. They maintain that the controversy rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of their work. In addition, they use what I term 'plasticity talk', a form of anti-determinist discourse, to put forth what they believe is a hopeful conception of body and brain as fundamentally malleable. They draw attention to their explicit intentions to use scientific inquiry to mitigate inequality and further social justice - in fact, they believe their studies are powerful evidence that add to the literature on the social determinants of health. Though they may be interested in improving lives, they argue that their aims and means have little in common with programs trying to 'improve' the genetic stock of the population. I argue that theirs is a fraught research terrain, where any claims-making is potentially treacherous. Just as their studies of development refuse dualistic models, so too do their responses defy dichotomous categorization.