This article considers the difficulties that a researcher on the border between normative and explanatory sciences may encounter. The article begins with an introduction to the field: the integration of law and biology. It appears that this kind of interdisciplinary research is not only a challenge for the researcher himself, but also for his readers. Concepts are not understood, assumptions differ, ‘peers’ are not really peers, and new paradigms cannot be proven. Thus integrating law and biology turns into some kind of battle between notions of truth, paradigms. A battle that cannot be resolved by proofs. One solution is to create a gap between law and biology, normative science and empirical science. Another solution may be translating concepts.