Jane,
I never said there weren't scientific contributions which had contributed to the debate around ACEs issues, but was explaining that this website's proposal that there was such "a thing" as "ACEs Science" is a lot of hooey -- in my view (with postgraduate qualifications in a few different "real sciences"), and implicitly in the view of "serious scientific researchers", like Finkelhor, but also in the views of many others who have been researching the phenomena you mention for decades before "the" ACEs research, there is no such thing.
But, by all means use the term, on this website, no one not accessing this website will mind YOUR use of it here, but its use, or the suggestion of its use, elsewhere does raise concerns. People on this list have been quite dismissive when others have attempted to explain, in layman's terms, more complex scientific results, saying it's only important what people have to say about the implications of those results -- what they suggest should be the practical implications of those results.
If people want an ACEs Science to exist then the least they can do is submit articles debating the scientific principles behind other scientific contributions for peer review -- but clearly no one wants to do that. I would go so far as to suggest there's a lot more they could do but if people don't feel like it ....