Sociobiology is an interesting and very important field - with many goods and bads in recent scientific history - for explaining human behaviour:

Sociobiology, in its most recent form, dates from the 1970s and the work of Edward O. Wilson. However, the roots of sociobiology are older. The first use of the term sociobiology likely dates to the work of Warder C. Allee, Alfred E. Emerson, and their associates in their 1949 book, Principles of Animal Ecology.

Sociobiogists study the behavior of social animals, including humans. Sociobiology developed from studies in population biology and genetics. Research in the social insects, especially ants and honey bees, had shown that the old Darwinian maxim of individual selection, of individuals working for their own reproductive success, did not seem to apply to those groups. The worker castes of those species do not reproduce; yet, their behavior in defense of their nests was tenacious and often life-threatening to the defenders. How could such behavior be explained?
The answers began to crystallize when Hamilton (1964) developed the concept of inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness incorporated not only one's own reproductive success, but also the reproductive success of relatives. In the social insects, all of the workers born of the same queen are full sisters, but, they are all even more closely related to their mother, the queen. So, if one transfers the logic of evolution from the individual to genes, then the behavior of social insects begins to make sense. When workers die in defense of their nests, they are more likely to increase the likelihood of their genes' survival, even though they died in the effort.
Sociobiology, however, is far more than the study of social insects. It is the study of all social species. Further, it is an attempt to find the evolutionary pressures which led to the evolution of social behavior in diverse groups of animals. Sociobiology is most controversial when such analyses are directed at human behavior. For example, the question of human criminal behavior may be analyzed via sociobiology. I should emphasize strongly at this point that such analyses are extremely incomplete at this point. A good example of the kind of controversy that sociobiology causes when it studies humans was a conference on criminal behavior that was canceled forcibly in 1993 at the University of Maryland. Some of the participants in that conference were to present theories and data concerning the genetics of criminal behavior in humans. Why are such data controversial? Quite simply, we live in a society that has a philosophical tradition that says that our behavior is primarily shaped by our external environments. When others suggest that our internal environments, our genes, also have the power to shape our behavior, we recoil away from those people and their ideas. It is most interesting to note that we do not have the same response to sociobiology when it is applied to other animals. We breed chickens and dogs to be more aggressive as a matter of course. One can hardly drive through South Louisiana on a Saturday night without running into a cock fight. But, when sociobiologists suggest that some humans may have been naturally selected in the same way, we refuse to accept those arguments.

Sociobiologists believe that animal or human behaviour cannot be satisfactorily explained entirely by "cultural" or "environmental" factors alone. They contend that in order to fully understand behaviour, it must be analyzed with some focus on its evolutionary origins. If Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted, then inherited behavioural mechanisms that allowed an organism a greater chance of surviving and/or reproducing would be more likely to survive in present organisms. Many biologists accept that these sorts of behaviours are present in animal species. However, there is a great deal of controversy over the application of evolutionary models to human beings.

Another interesting link:

A curious point to make about the example used is that today we have refined sugar -- something which was not available to our ancestors, but which we discovered and passed on to our descendants through learned culture. It is clear that today a great attraction to sugar no longer serves our survival and reproduction. But culture moves much more quickly than evolution: It took millions of years to evolve our healthy taste for sugar; it took only thousands of years to undermine it.
And thats true for many developments that happened and surrogats we use - not only if its about our nutrition.

Compare with: