In agreement with the overwhelming number of experts, I certainly share the view of Chevier and Hansen that the Biological Weapons Convention needs to be strengthened. Of course it is still a matter of discussion whether the military utility of biological and toxin weapons (hereafter, respectively, BW and TW) changed after the introduction of biotechnology. It is impossible, however, to ignore the 1986 statement of the U.S. Department of Defense (1988), that:

… perhaps the most significant event in the history of biological weapons development has been the advent of biotechnology. It enables the development of new microorganisms and products with new, unorthodox characteristics… Conceptually, then, a nation or terrorist group can design a biological weapon to meet a variety of contingencies or needs… The break through and the subsequent achievements make biological warfare much more feasible and effective for countries which either are not bound by the convention or which choose to violate it.

Though Hamilton's rule is commonly interpreted as relating to two individuals, an alternative interpretation is that it can apply to an altruistic act with respect to a large group of related persons, such as an ethnic group. Then provision of a public good to such a group can be explained by Hamilton's rule. An important class of public goods is the provision of a “legal system” for the group. Provision of this good can have positive feedback effects: as there is more enforcement, it pays to define more complex and valuable rights, and in turn such rights lead to larger and more effective societies. As societies become larger, the ability to enforce rights increases because the number of enforcers increases. However, as in many other human activities, there may be two conflicting systems for provision of this good. There is the evolutionarily old system that would involve face to face transactions, often with kin. There is also a newer, rule-governed legal system for impersonal exchanges. These may be in conflict. The older rules may sometimes frustrate the more efficient newer system. Moreover, those persons who benefit from kin-based transaction networks may resist the creation of a formal legal system. I also note that altruism within the group may lead to xenophobia outside the group and thus to ethnic conflict. Finally, I discuss some evidence consistent with this analysis.

The 2010 Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) treats abortion differently than any other health service, precluding public funding for abortion and imposing other restrictions on American states. To determine whether the ACA’s abortion restrictions are uniquely American or have counterparts in other national health systems, this study employs a cross-sectional design comparing abortion restrictions in the ACA with those in 17 Western European countries. Using a six-item scale, the intensity of abortion restrictions is compared across Western European nations. A similar scale is employed for a five-state sample of state-level abortion restrictions. Although the United States is not alone in having abortion restrictions, how abortion is proscribed in the ACA has no counterpart in Western Europe. Unlike many Western European countries, the ACA’s restrictions focus on abortion funding, not the length of gestation or the health of the pregnant woman.

Political philosophers have doubted the compatibility of various major values, such as equality and freedom. Ethnographic and historical evidence has indicated the presence of (1) economic equality and individual freedom in the absence of civil peace in segmentary societies based on self-help; (2) economic equality and civil peace in the absence of individual freedom in corporate societies; and (3) individual freedom and civil peace in the absence of economic equality in mercantile and capitalist societies. However, little if any evidence has documented all three — economic equality, individual freedom, civil peace — in stable coexistence. By way of delineating the relations between and among the values in question, I offer “The Iron Law of Politics,” which asserts that economic equality, individual freedom, and civil peace cannot all exist simultaneously in any society, although any two of the three can.

Some would argue there is a global movement afoot to study “biopolitics.” More and more scholarly reports that help shape our understanding of the political domain from this perspective are filling the pages of research journals. This is an important era of increasing scholarly interest in the intersection of the political and biological worlds and the rapidly evolving analytical innovations available to explore this still under-explored domain. With the arrival of these new opportunities comes a new editorial team at Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS). It is a team that extends its appreciation to the Council of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences for the trust they put in it to steer the journal forward at this interesting and critical time. As well, it is a team that expresses its heartfelt gratitude to its immediate predecessors, Tony Wohlers, Maggie Kosal, and their editorial colleagues, for their determined leadership of the journal over the last three years and the easy transition they facilitated for the new team. They clearly laid a firm foundation for the next stage of the development of the journal.

In recent decades, political psychologists have given a lot of attention to the role of emotions in politics. While there have been several different research programs, the dominant paradigm has been set by affective intelligence theory (AIT), developed by George Marcus, Russell Neuman, and Michael Mackuen. AIT has helped explain many puzzles in understanding how emotions influence political decisions, as any good paradigm should. At the same time, I argue it has also had the effect of limiting broader research into the range of discrete emotions, especially contempt. While recognizing the value of AIT, I call for more research that goes beyond its boundaries, showing through several recent studies how a focus on the additional effects of contempt can improve our understanding of voter decision-making.

Roger Masters promises that efforts to bridge the gap between the social sciences and the life sciences will clarify our concept of human nature. He presents a number of propositions derived from his own work during the past 15 years in order to explore the scientific meaning of human nature, of political thought, and political leadership.

This article is divided into three parts: “Faculty Preparation: Immersion in the Literature,” “Conceptualizing and Organizing the Course,” and “Course Design.” The first part is addressed particularly to readers without access to a computer search of the literature. It suggests resource materials for each of the technologies. It also speaks to the meanings of and approaches which may be used to study biopolitics. Biopolicy is the approach used in the course.

The second part addresses the problem of finding a unifying concept which would bring cohesion to the multiple and diverse materials and issues. It also includes the statement of purpose and course objectives. It is here that the development of identifying and demonstrating the nexus between the reproductive technologies and public policy begins. It also discusses methodologies used in the course.

The third part lists the activities that served as a guide in designing the course and cites remaining caveats in course development. The paper concludes with statements about required reading materials, review materials, audio-visual aids, and a broad outline of the course.

This article presents one method for building computer models that focus on understanding and resolving complex, or “wicked,” environmental issues. The method is designed to promote cooperative decision-making and consensus among stakeholders, scientists, and managers. The article argues that there are only two ways to resolve “wicked” environmental issues: regulation by conflict or regulation by consensus. It points out that regulation by conflict leads to coercion and further conflict. In contrast, regulation by consensus leads to acceptable and durable decisions. The article concludes that cooperation and consensus are superior to conflict and coercion. The method presented is illustrated with a successful project to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to protect the northern spotted owl in California.