Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an honest and critical reflection with regard to the damage neoliberalised education systems have had on the “crime science” of criminology in Spain. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a viewpoint based on our experience of teaching criminology and researching crime problems in Spain. Findings We argue that the neoliberalisation of education systems results in a “crime of science” in the sense that this produces rampant competition between university institutions which is amplified by the emergence of internal and external corporate enterprises who compete against each other in commodifying knowledge around crime which is largely focussed on a combination of statistical measurements and zonal mapping. This results in the reproduction of misleading conceptions about how crime occurs because the research is not grounded in offenders’ experiences and pays no attention to the political economy, power and corruption and the oscillating relationship between agent and social structure. This has negative implications for the development of critical knowledge which should equip we to reconceptualise how and why social problems occur. Practical implications These infractions have major implications on how we are able to report on crime problems. Social implications As researchers/students, the authors are only able “diagnose problems” and answer questions and lose the capacity to question the answers as well as question the way the authors question. Originality/value We do not think that many criminologists would be prepared to write these words (unless it was being published in a high-impact factor journal).

中文翻译：

---

从犯罪科学到科学犯罪

目的本文的目的是对新自由化的教育体系对西班牙犯罪学的“犯罪学”造成的损害提供诚实和批判的思考。设计/方法论/方法本文是根据我们在西班牙教授犯罪学和研究犯罪问题的经验得出的观点。研究结果我们认为，教育制度的新自由化会导致“科学犯罪”，因为这会在大学机构之间产生激烈的竞争，而内部和外部公司在对犯罪知识进行商品化竞争方面相互竞争，这加剧了竞争。这主要集中在统计测量和区域映射的结合上。这导致了关于犯罪如何发生的误解性概念的再现，因为该研究并非基于犯罪者的经验，并且没有关注政治经济，权力和腐败以及代理人与社会结构之间的摇摆关系。这对关键知识的发展具有消极影响，使我们有能力重新认识社会问题的发生方式和原因。实际影响这些违规行为对我们如何报告犯罪问题具有重大影响。社会影响作为研究者/学生，作者只能“诊断问题”并回答问题，并且无法质疑答案以及质疑作者提问的方式。