Despite advances in fields like genetics, evolutionary psychology, and human behavior and evolution — which generally focus on individual or small group behavior from a biological perspective — evolutionary biology has made little impact on studies of political change and social history. Theories of natural selection often seem inapplicable to human history because our social behavior is embedded in language (which makes possible the concepts of time and social identity on which what we call “history” depends). Peter Coming's Holistic Darwinism reconceptualizes evolutionary biology, making it possible to go beyond the barriers separating the social and natural sciences. Corning focuses on two primary processes: “synergy” (complex multivariate interactions at multiple levels between a species and its environment) and “cybernetics” (the information systems permitting communication between individuals and groups over time). Combining this frame of reference with inclusive fitness theory, it is possible to answer the most important (and puzzling) question in human history: How did a species that lived for millennia in hunter-gatherer bands form centralized states governing large populations of non-kin (including multi-ethnic empires as well as modern nation-states)? The fragility and contemporary ethnic violence in Kenya and the Congo should suffice as evidence that these issues need to be taken seriously. To explain the rise and fall of states as well as changes in human laws and customs — the core of historical research — it is essential to show how the provision of collective goods can overcome the challenge of self-interest and free-riding in some instances, yet fail to do so in others. To this end, it is now possible to consider how a state providing public goods can — under circumstances that often include effective leadership — contribute to enhanced inclusive fitness of virtually all its members. Because social behavior needs to adapt to ecology, but ecological systems are constantly transformed by human technology and social behavior, multilevel evolutionary processes can explain two central features of human history: the rise, transformations, and ultimate fall of centralized governments (the “stuff” of history); and the biological uniqueness of Homo sapiens as the mammalian species that colonized — and became top carnivore — in virtually every habitable environment on the earth's surface. Once scholars admit the necessity of linking processes of natural selection with human transformations of the natural world, it will seem anomalous that it has taken so long to integrate Darwinian biology and the social sciences.

Existing theories struggle when political engagement is an end in itself. To explain intrinsically motivated engagement in politics, this study synthesizes psychological theories to deduce a need-based theory of political motivation. It posits that intrinsic political motivation has roots in seemingly apolitical processes of need satisfaction that are universal and deeply ingrained in the human psyche. However, in a high-powered survey experiment, 14 of 15 preregistered analytical tests did not yield the expected evidence for the basic tenet that previous need-related experiences with politics affect the quality and quantity of future activities in the political domain. Showcasing a stepwise approach to engage with null results in hypothesis-driven research, post hoc analyses solidify the null findings, which call into question the validity of the presented theory and the previous evidence on which it was built. This study thus enhances our understanding of what does and does not underlie intrinsic motivation for political engagement.

This case study of the Australian Museum's Thylacine Cloning Project analyzes a frame dispute that emerged during public communication of a scientific project, which lasted from 1999 to 2005, and was premised on the idea of resurrecting an extinct species. In choosing the Tasmanian tiger—an iconic Australian marsupial officially declared extinct in 1986—the promoters of the cloning project ensured extensive media coverage. However, the popular and scientific attention generated by the idea of bringing back an extinct species challenged the Museum's efforts to frame the project in terms of scientific progress. The project repeatedly shifted from science to spectacle, as multiple stakeholders used the mass media to negotiate the scientific feasibility of trying to reverse extinction through the application of advanced biotechnology. The case study findings are relevant both to the emerging social issues surrounding the use of paleogenomics in wildlife conservation, and to the theoretical development of frame analysis as applied to scientific controversies.

“Founders” of new scholarly ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are people who advocate for such ideas before wider scholarly audiences accept them or even know they exist. Such scholars have an uphill battle. They must persuade journal and book editors to publish their work. Those gatekeepers depend on reviewers with established reputations in conventional terms, and these reviewers generally oppose anything that threatens their comfortable intellectual lives. If the idea is as stunningly simple as Darwin's natural selection theory, an innovator might have a somewhat easier time; Thomas Huxley reportedly remarked upon reading On the Origin of Species, “How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that.” But with conceptually and methodologically broad ideas, such as the application of biologically based psychological thinking to a traditional set of disciplinary problems, it can be tough to even get a foot in the door.

The study of bureaucratic behavior—focusing on control, decision-making, and institutional arrangements—has historically leaned heavily on theories of rational choice and bounded rationality. Notably absent from this research, however, is attention to the growing literature on biological and especially evolutionary human behavior. This article addresses this gap by closely examining the extant economic and psychological frameworks—which we refer to as “Adam Smith’s bureaucrat” and “Herbert Simon’s bureaucrat”—for their shortcomings in terms of explanatory and predictive theory, and by positing a different framework, which we call “Charles Darwin’s bureaucrat.” This model incorporates new insights from an expanding multidisciplinary research framework and has the potential to address some of the long-noted weaknesses of classic theories of bureaucratic behavior.

According to the bioethical principle of individual decisional autonomy, the patient has a right of informed consent to any medical or experimental procedure. The principle is politically liberal by advocating significant individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by civil liberties. When practiced in illiberal communities, might it have a political liberalizing effect? I respond first by analyzing cross-national norms of individual decisional autonomy to identify tensions with illiberal community; second, by examining examining Singapore in a single case study to show that liberal bioethics does not promote political liberalization; and third, by showing that the possibility of practicing liberal bioethics in research, clinically as well as in education, does not require a democratic order, and that liberal bioethics is unlikely to encourage the liberalization of illiberal political communities. Hence, it may never contribute to the development of globally effective cross-national norms for the legal regulation of bioethical research and clinical practice. Fourth, to bolster this analysis, I anticipate several possible objections to various of its aspects.

We introduce cognitive-affective maps (CAMs) as a novel tool to assess individual experiences and belief systems. CAMs were first presented by the cognitive scientist and philosopher Paul Thagard as a graphical representation of a mental network, visualizing attitudes, thoughts, and affective connotations toward the topic of interest. While CAMs were originally used primarily to visualize existing data, the recent release of the new software tool Valence has facilitated the applicability of CAMs for empirical data collection. In this article, we explain the concept and the theoretical background of CAMs. We exemplify how CAMs can be applied in research practice, including different options for analysis. We propose CAMs as a user-friendly and versatile methodological bridge between qualitative and quantitative research approaches and encourage incorporating the method into studies to access and visualize human attitudes and experience.

This essay reflects on the past, present, and future of biopolitics, starting with the academic interest in the link between biology and politics. Examples of primitive adumbrations of this approach appear throughout academic history; however, the modern roots of biology and politics began in the 1960s. This reflection traces biopolitics from its modern birth through the 1990s, and considers future research endeavors related to biology and politics.

Researchers have sought to understand the effects of like-minded versus contrary news exposure on attitude polarization, which can be a threat to democracy. The online news environment offers opportunities for exposure to both types of news, albeit unequally. This study tests the effects of exposure to heterogeneous partisan news bundles (both like-minded and contrary news) on attitude polarization. Because media exposure can lead to bias, attitude polarization is tested as a direct and indirect effect via hostile media perceptions. Data in this study are from a between-subjects experimental design about the issue of assisted suicide. Results indicate that even though the effect of the partisan news bundle on hostile media perceptions is significant, both direct and indirect effects on attitude polarization are null.

Evolutionary ethics is a subject that has been debated ever since Darwin's day. The basic issue, in a nutshell, is whether or not human ethical systems can be explained — and justified — in terms of evolutionary principles. In recent years there has been an upsurge of publications devoted to this issue, including many new books (as well as a number of books on Darwinism and religion) and countless journal articles. Indeed, an Internet search using the term “evolutionary ethics” yielded 65,400 citations of various kinds. As this outpouring of publications suggests, there has been a great diversity of views on the subject over the years.

In this bibliographic essay, we continue our annual updating of the biopolitics literature (see Somit et al., 1980; Peterson, Somit, and Slagter, 1982; Peterson, Somit, and Brown, 1983). We have identified 81 items appearing in 1983 (down a bit from last year's total of 93): 2 books (Corning, 1983b; Flohr and Tbnnesmann, 1983a), 22 full articles published in journals, 18 chapters in books (excluding reprints of previously published materials), 25 conference presentations, 4 master's theses and doctoral dissertations, and 10 commentaries, review essays, etc. It seems worth noting that 12 of the 80 works appearing in 1983 were published in the journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Politics and the Life Sciences.

This article reviews the regulation of the new agricultural-environmental biotechnology and recent changes in the regulatory framework in the United States. Regulations put in place in the mid-1980s were established due to concern over potential risks posed by products not yet released into the environment. Now that over a thousand small-scale field trials have been carried out and various new agricultural-environmental biotechnology products have been in farmers' fields for the past several years, questions are being raised about the current regulatory system by both proponents, who want greater deregulation due to the relative absence of ecological harm, and opponents, who warn against potential environmental catastrophe due to greater variety and amount of new agricultural-environmental products being released. Therefore, we focus on triggers for regulation, which appear to hinge on the “naturalness” of a product, and trends in field release of these products.