Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Politics and the Life Sciences
  4. Most cited
Journal Home
Refine listing
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Most cited

This page lists all time most cited articles for this title. Please use the publication date filters on the left if you would like to restrict this list to recently published content, for example to articles published in the last three years. The number of times each article was cited is displayed to the right of its title and can be clicked to access a list of all titles this article has been cited by.

Contents

Page 21 of 44

  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by 3

  • A founder's reflections

  • Steven A. Peterson
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 91-94

  • 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.

  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by 3

  • Deciding on human embryonic stem cell research: Evidence from Congress's first showdown by President George W. Bush

  • Eileen Burgin
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 3-16

  • This paper examines the influences that congressional staff people viewed as important in shaping legislators' voting decisions on the human embryonic stem (ES) cell research bill in the 109th Congress, the first legislation vetoed by President George W. Bush. The analysis illuminates factors that impact congressional decision making on a salient issue with a strong moral component. Constituent concerns, ideology, and a desire to make good public policy all centrally affected members' choices; however, moral overtones permeated considerations relevant to the human ES cell research question. In addition, at least three influences that directly reflect or relate to members' moral claims — religious convictions, personal connections to potential beneficiaries of human ES cell research, and moral pressure from outside interests — were important also. The analysis draws on data gathered from interviews with congressional aides.

  • Cited by 3

  • What hath biopolitics wrought?

  • Albert Somit
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 95-97

  • Although there may be some disagreement about the exact date, I think it safe to say that the biopolitics movement was launched in the 1960s. Now, a half century later, it may be appropriate to pose the rather obvious, if somewhat delicate, question: What has biopolitics contributed to political science? Here, I will try to persuade you that a biopolitical approach may have yielded answers to a couple of the most debated issues in political philosophy—one, the granddady of them all, is “What is the nature of political man?” The other, much more recent, but steadily increasing in importance, is “Why are democracies so rare and so fragile?”

  • Cited by 3

  • Biopolitics in 1983

  • Steven A. Peterson, Albert Somit
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 76-79

  • 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.

  • Cited by 3

  • The tempting illusion of genetic virtue

  • Athena Andreadis
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 76-78

  • Mark Walker has put forth a proposal which he calls the Genetic Virtue Program or GVP, whose kernel is that it is both possible and desirable to improve virtue by preimplantation selection or in utero engineering. Walker lists caveats to his thesis, although he consistently implies that their validity is doubtful by stating at each instance that he is including them “merely for the sake of completeness.”

  • Cited by 3

  • How should we theorize about justice in the genomic era?

  • Colin Farrelly
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    26 April 2021, pp. 106-125

  • The sequencing of the human genome and advances in gene therapy and genomic editing, coupled with embryo selection techniques and a potential gerontological intervention, are some examples of the rapid technological advances of the “genetic revolution.” This article addresses the methodological issue of how we should theorize about justice in the genomic era. Invoking the methodology of non-ideal theory, I argue that theorizing about justice in the genomic era entails theorizing about (1) the new inequalities that the genetic revolution could exacerbate (e.g., genetic discrimination, disability-related injustices, and gender inequality), and (2) those inequalities that the genetic revolution could help us mitigate (e.g., the risks of disease in early and late life). By doing so, normative theorists can ensure that we develop an account of justice that takes seriously not only individual rights, equality of opportunity, the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of disability, and equality between the sexes, but also the potential health benefits (to both individuals and populations) of attending to the evolutionary causes of morbidity and disability.

  • Cited by 3

  • Subduing attitude polarization?: How partisan news may not affect attitude polarization for online publics

  • Eulàlia P. Abril
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 May 2018, pp. 68-77

  • 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.

  • Cited by 3

  • Evolutionary ethics: An idea whose time has come? An overview and an affirmation

  • Peter A. Corning
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 May 2016, pp. 50-58

  • 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.

  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by 3

  • Ideology and social cognition: Are liberals and conservatives differentially affected by social cues about group inequality?

  • Jordan Mansell
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 February 2020, pp. 9-25

  • Research links liberal and conservative ideological orientations with variation on psychological and cognitive characteristics that are important for perceptual processes and decision-making. This study investigates whether this variation can impact the social behaviors of liberals and conservatives. A sample of subjects (n = 1,245) participated in a modified public goods game in which an intragroup inequality was introduced to observe the effect on individuals’ tendency toward self-interested versus prosocial behavior. Overall, the contributions of neither liberal- nor conservative-oriented individuals were affected by conditions of a general intragroup inequality. However, in response to the knowledge that group members voted to redress the inequality, levels of contribution among liberals significantly increased in comparison to the control. This was not true for conservatives. The results provide evidence that differences in ideological orientation are associated with individual differences in social cognition.

  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2

Page 21 of 44