Does the prima facie contradiction between the Declaration of Independence's description of the separate and unique “creation” of human beings and Darwin's evolutionary account indicate a broader contradiction between theories of human rights and Darwinian evolution? While similar troubling questions have been raised and answered in the affirmative since Darwin's time, this article renews, updates and significantly fortifies such answers with original arguments. If a “distilled” formulation of the Declaration's central claims, shorn of complicating entanglements with both theology and comprehensive philosophical doctrines, may still be in contradiction with Darwinian evolutionary theory, this should be cause for substantial concern on the part of all normative political theorists, from Straussians to Rawlsians. Despite the notable recent efforts of a few political theorists, evolutionary ethicists and sociobiologists to establish the compatibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory with moral norms such as the idea of natural or human rights, I argue that significant obstacles remain.

In the wake of avian flu outbreaks in 2004, Cambodia received $45 million in commitments from international donors to help combat the spread of animal and human influenza, particularly avian influenza (H5N1). How countries leverage foreign aid to address the specific needs of donors and the endemic needs of the nation is a complex and nuanced issue throughout the developing world. Cambodia is a particularly compelling study in pandemic preparedness and the management of avian influenza because of its multilayered network of competing local, national, and global needs, and because the level of aid in Cambodia represents approximately $2.65 million per human case—a disproportionately high number when compared with neighbors Vietnam and Indonesia. This paper examines how the Cambodian government has made use of animal and human influenza funds to protect (or fail to protect) its citizens and the global community. It asks how effective donor and government responses were to combating avian influenza in Cambodia, and what improvements could be made at the local and international level to help prepare for and respond to future outbreaks. Based on original interviews, a field survey of policy stakeholders, and detailed examination of Cambodia's health infrastructure and policies, the findings illustrate that while pandemic preparedness has shown improvements since 2004, new outbreaks and human fatalities accelerated in 2011, and more work needs to be done to align the specific goals of funders with the endemic needs of developing nations.

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.

This study examines the cognitive and affective factors of candidate appraisal by manipulating candidate attractiveness and levels of issue agreement with voters. Drawing upon research in evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, this analysis proposes that automatic processing of physical appearance predisposes affective disposition toward more attractive candidates, thereby influencing cognitive processing of issue information. An experimental design presented attractive and unattractive candidates who were either liberal or conservative in a mock primary election. The data show strong partial effects for appearance on vote intention, an interaction between appearance and issue agreement, and a tendency for voters to assimilate the dissimilar views of attractive candidates. We argue that physical appearance is important in primary elections when the differences in issue positions and ideology between candidates is small.

This paper employs public opinion data from a nationally representative probability sample to examine how information encounters and exposure to different media sources relate to individuals' beliefs about global warming. The analyses indicate that media source exposure (i.e., exposure to news and information about science presented through different media outlets), intentional information exposure (i.e., deliberate exposure to global warming news coverage), and inadvertent information exposure (i.e., unplanned exposure to news and information about science that is encountered online while searching for other forms of information) relate to beliefs about global warming, in significant and meaningful ways. Namely, the findings show that both intentional information exposure and inadvertent online information exposure associate with disbelief in human-made causes, catalysts, and consequences of global warming. Theoretical and social implications of the findings are discussed and contextualized in light of the rapidly evolving media environment.

Last fall, the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) celebrated its 30th anniversary by holding the annual meeting on the picturesque campus of Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. The event was highlighted not only by a keynote address from Nobel Prize Laureate Elinor Ostrom but also featured several roundtables comprised of those most responsible for the establishment and growth of APLS over the past three decades. This Founders' Forum likewise celebrates 30 years of the journal's publication and provides the opportunity to reflect on where the field and the association have been, and where they are headed.

Research in recent decades has shown that although conventional fisheries management strategies such as fishing seasons, size limits, or gear restrictions can provide sufficient biological protection to fisheries stocks, they do not necessarily lead to satisfactory social or economic outcomes. In their stead, the merits and shortcomings of a variety of alternate management systems, including individual transferable quotas, have been proposed, implemented, and analyzed. Few investigations, however, have examined actual fishers' preferences for different management systems. Integrating results from a mail survey of North Carolina commercial fishers with their individual harvest histories and sociodemographic profiles shows that economic and cultural variables both play a significant role in management system preference. The analysis introduces the use of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of investment diversity, as a measure of diversity in fisheries harvests and demonstrates an association with management preferences. Social and family factors are also notable indicators.

Thirty years ago there were at most only a handful of political scientists who were interested in or publishing about policy issues in the life sciences, concentrated primarily in the health or environmental policy areas. As a result, political science was notably absent as a discipline either in the literature, at conferences, or as members of state or national commissions, advisory bodies, or institutional review boards involving the life sciences.

Politics and the life sciences—also referred to as biopolitics—is a field of study that seeks to advance knowledge of politics and promote better policymaking through multidisciplinary analysis that draws on the life sciences. While the intellectual origins of the field may be traced at least into the 1960s, a broadly organized movement appeared only with the founding of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) in 1980 and the establishment of its journal, Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS), in 1982. This essay—contributed by a past journal editor and association executive director—concludes a celebration of the association's thirtieth anniversary. It reviews the founding of the field and the association, as well as the contributions of the founders. It also discusses the nature of the empirical work that will advance the field, makes recommendations regarding the identity and future of the association, and assesses the status of the revolution of which the association is a part. It argues that there is progress to celebrate, but that this revolution—the last of three great scientific revolutions—is still in its early stages. The revolution is well-started, but remains unfinished.

This essay explores efforts to establish interdisciplinary research associations by comparing two organizations that were founded in the early 1980s. One has focused on the field of politics and the life sciences and the other on health services research. Both are involved in securing recognition for a research area—or “field of research”—that had not previously been conceptualized as a coherent academic or professional enterprise. The motivation for this paper is my interest in politics and the life sciences (the field), the organization—the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that was established in 1980 to foster scholarly study of the field—and its journal Politics and the Life Sciences. (For the sake of clarity I adopt the convention of signifying a field entirely in lower-case orthography, beginning an organizational name with capital letters and naming the related journals in italics.)

Editor's note This well circulated but heretofore unpublished report is the summary statement of an interdisciplinary meeting of scholars convened by the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia on June 28, 2010. The workshop, which was funded by the NSF's Political Science Program (Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Grant #1037831), was convened to answer two compelling questions: Are studies of social behavior that build from discoveries about genes and/or cognition of greater social and scientific value than studies of the same topics that ignore such factors? And, how can fundable research on genes, cognition, and politics generate transformative scientific practices, infrastructure, and findings of high social value? Assembled for the workshop were a group of scholars representing diverse yet increasingly connected research areas, including genetics, cognitive science and neuroscience, decision making and risk analysis, economics, political science, and sociology. The resulting report outlines the substantial challenges facing interdisciplinary research but also describes the considerable contributions to knowledge that could result from sustained collaborations between biologists, geneticists, and brain scientists on the one hand and social scientists on the other. Following this main report are three white papers by Jeremy Freese. Elizabeth Hammock, and Rose McDermott, which address importmant considerations related to the discussion. For a download of the full report, see http://www.isr.umich.edu.cps/workshop.Welcome.html.

Why should social scientists be interested in using molecular genetic data? Here are five reasons:

I think it is fair to say that synergy is an idea whose time has finally come. It seems that every week another new example of synergy is reported in some scientific journal, and articles about synergy are nowadays routinely accepted for publication in various disciplines. This was certainly not the case 30 years ago. Back then using the term “synergy” in a journal submission was an almost certain kiss of death. I speak from personal experience. So times have changed. However, the theory proposed in my 1983 book, The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution^ has had a more complex journey, and herein lies a bit of intellectual history and some lessons about the culture and politics of science.

Reviewing the work of Lynton Caldwell, Robert Blank, and Andrea Bonnicksen is both a privilege and a challenge. These three scholars rank among the key figures in the development of biopolicy as a legitimate research and teaching subfield within political science. Each of them worked in academia, on significant bioethical advisory boards, and with policymaking entities, and also contributed to numerous externally funded research projects. Across long and prolific careers, Caldwell, Blank, and Bonnicksen engaged seriously with the political, social and ethical issues raised by significant advances in many bio-scientific domains. This essay analyzes several of their works across two broad themes: 1) the development of the subfields of biopolitics and biopolicy, and 2) the tension between science policy and democratic governance. While each of them wrote significant and well-received books, the focus here is on insights to be gleaned from an idiosyncratic selection of their scholarly articles across the time period, 1966 to 2007. To borrow Michel Foucault's term, this brief and necessarily selective archaeology of the published journal record nevertheless demonstrates the significance, durability and prescience of the authors' insights. (I expect that at least one, if not all three, of these authors might raise objections to the mention of Foucault, but the term “archaeology” in this instance is apt.)

From a biologist's perspective, social behavior includes any behavior that involves at least two actors. By this definition, social behavior can include aggregation in slime molds, the colony structure of the eusocial insects, or the coordinated efforts of humans across vast distances to successfully land on the moon. The diversity of this range of behavior shares one driving force: natural selection. While natural selection acts at the level of phenotype (e.g., morphology, metabolism, behavior) the ultimate unit of natural selection is the gene contained in DNA-the object of inheritance. The relationship between DNA and social behavior is uncovered in the field of sociogenomics, defined as the mechanistic study of genes, gene products, and gene × gene interaction networks supporting emergent social behaviors.

Over the past 25 years, my academic and work experiences have involved and intersected with biopolitics, particularly environmental policy, international relations, and ethics. My academic and teaching experience was in political theory and ethics, and my early research interests turned to emerging recombinant DNA issues, involving the complex interaction of biological science, technology and public policy processes. My scholarly contacts included those with similar concerns, and so I joined with a group of scholars creating the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. Several years later, my interests brought me to work in a federal agency where public policy decisions often raise important ethical choices, and the political and behavioral aspects of the policy process became more evident. My research centered on issues related to environmental protection. This work was also influenced by my professional friendship with Lynton Caldwell, another APLS founder and a remarkable scholar, whose work on environmental politics was internationally recognized. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, teaching environmental policy for the Agency in Eastern Europe renewed my interest in international relations, which had been my undergraduate focus. The topic of environmental security combined all of these interests. This topic gained substantial attention in policy circles, then declined, but is now being discussed again.

The current research climate provides an auspicious opportunity to undertake foundational investigations at the intersection of the natural and social sciences to produce transformative work with broad import for society. A great deal of relevant work examining the genetic, neurobiological and neuropsychological bases of social and political behavior has already taken place. But much of this work has been conducted simultaneously in a variety of different fields and disciplines. In addition to needlessly duplicating some research paradigms, thus wasting time and resources, such efforts have often also lacked a coherent core of social and political models and theories to guide such inquiry. With proper coordination and leverage, such efforts can achieve tremendous gains in terms of harnessing the skills, methods, and models of the natural sciences in service of addressing some of the most destructive and endemic social and political problems which plague our planet.