Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) is an umbrella term for all drug and nondrug addictive behaviors, due to a dopamine deficiency, “hypodopaminergia.” There is an opioid-overdose epidemic in the USA, which may result in or worsen RDS. A paradigm shift is needed to combat a system that is not working. This shift involves the recognition of dopamine homeostasis as the ultimate treatment of RDS via precision, genetically guided KB220 variants, called Precision Behavioral Management (PBM). Recognition of RDS as an endophenotype and an umbrella term in the future DSM 6, following the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), would assist in shifting this paradigm.

This chapter highlights the use of data-driven discovery to address remaining gaps in our understanding of deep carbon.

Introduction: Murder Most Discursive

Murder, one could say, is the opium of modernity. As I explored in my 2013 book, The Subject of Murder, the figure of ‘the criminal’ appears in Foucault's work as one of the quintessential modern subjects produced by the medico-legal and psy disciplines, alongside ‘the homosexual’ and ‘the pervert’. But as well as being as an ‘abnormal’ pathologized personage, the figure of the murderer accrues an attractiveness, a sheen of glamour, and an association with rebellious, Romantic creativity owing to the link between murder and art forged in modernity. For writers such as the Marquis de Sade and Thomas De Quincey, whose work ‘On Murder as a Fine Art’ (1827) Foucault references in the quotation forming the epigraph of this chapter, writing and crime are imbricated as aspects of genius and individuality. And the relationship between writing and crime is precisely what is at stake in this chapter, where I reflect upon the legacy of Foucault's writing on murder for a consideration of the increasingly popular, and increasingly hybrid, twentieth- and twenty-first-century genre of ‘true crime’, a genre that while lending itself to a Foucauldian approach, has not yet been interrogated from this perspective in any substantive or extensive way.

Texts by Foucault that have relatively recently appeared in English for the first time, such as the 2003 Verso collection entitled Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France 1974–75, and the documents produced by Foucault's anti-prison group, the GIP (Prisons Information Group), reveal Foucault's enduring interest in the social construction of criminality and the corporeal treatment of those labelled ‘criminals’.

Michel Foucault (1926–1984) considered himself a ‘historian of the present’. By this, he meant that he intended his archeological and genealogical studies of institutions and phenomena, such as psychiatry, prisons, and criminality, to reveal, via analysis of the past conditions that produced them, a truth about our enduring relationship with them in the present. Foucault first used the term ‘history of the present’ in Discipline and Punish (1975), where he rhetorically asks why he is motivated to carry out a historical analysis of the carceral system: ‘Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that writing a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means writing the history of the present’. Thus, a ‘history of the present’ is not anachronism, that is, the past viewed and distorted through the necessarily biased lens of the present; rather, as Foucault put it: ‘I set out from a problem expressed in the terms current today and I try to work out its genealogy. Genealogy means that I begin my analysis from a question posed in the present’.

Given Foucault's desire to write a history of the present, it bears asking in what ways, and to what extent, the concerns of his present speak, still today, to ours. The work of Foucault is much read, widely cited, and often misunderstood. In response to this state of affairs, this book aims to clarify, contextualize, and contribute to knowledge about Foucault in a very specific way.

This chapter will explore in depth two works on criminality and regimes of discipline. I, Pierre Rivière, Having Killed My Mother, My Sister and My Brother: A Case of Parricide in the Nineteenth Century (1973) is a collection of legal and medical reports, accompanied by a long and extraordinarily detailed written confession by a French peasant who, in 1835, murdered his mother and siblings. The documents are edited and commented on by Foucault and his team of sociological researchers. Foucault's interest in the case lay in its susceptibility to be read according to the method of genealogical research he adapts and borrows from his readings of Nietzsche (see pp. 12–16 of the present book), which proceeds from the postulate that knowledge is produced as the effect of local operations of power. The case of Rivière afforded the opportunity to reflect upon the ways in which the murderer became the ground for a discursive battle between and among the contemporary medico-legal disciplines. It is a good example of Foucault's notion that force fields of discourse constitute individuals according to discrete categories of social subject, in this case criminal/medical categories.