No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Politics and Biology
A Discussion of Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott's Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2013
Extract
Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics. Edited by Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. 352p. $80.00 cloth, $27.50 paper.
Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott's Man Is by Nature a Political Animal brings together some of the most important social scientists working at the intersection of political science, psychology, biology, and cognitive neuroscience. Given recent advances in cognitive neuroscience and given the proliferation of work in political science that draws on these advances, we have decided to invite a range of political scientists to comment on the promise and the limits of this line of inquiry. What can scientific developments in psychology, biology, and neuroscience tell us about “human nature”? Can these discourses reckon with the variation in time and space that has traditionally been at the heart of political science, perhaps even going back to the classic text from which Hatemi and McDermott derive their title, Aristotle's Politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
- Type
- Review Symposium: Politics and Biology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013
References
Bradshaw, Matt, and Ellison, Christopher G.. 2008. “Do Genetic Factors Influence Religious Life? Findings from a Behavior Genetic Analysis of Twin Siblings.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47(4): 529–44.Google Scholar
Champagne, Frances A., and Curley, James P.. 2009. “The Trans-Generational Influence of Maternal Care on Offspring Gene Expression and Behavior in Rodents.” In Maternal Effects in Mammals, ed. Maestripieri, Dario and Mateo, Jill M.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Charney, Evan. 2012. “Behavior Genetics and Postgenomics.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35(5): 331–58, 381–410. http://tinyurl.com/Charney-Behavior-Genetics (accessed January 10, 2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charney, Evan, and English, William. 2012. “Candidate Genes and Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review 106(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charney, Evan, and English, William. 2013. “Genopolitics and the Science of Genetics.” American Political Science Review 107(2): 382–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Onofrio, Brian M., Eaves, Lindon J., Murrelle, Lenn, Maes, Hermine H., and Spilka, Bernard. 1999. “Understanding Biological and Social Influences on Religious Affiliation, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Behavior Genetic Perspective.” Journal of Personality 67(6): 953–84.Google Scholar
Edwards, Alexis C., Zwarts, Liesbeth, Yamamoto, Akihiko, Callaerts, Patrick, and Mackay, Trudy F. C.. 2009. “Mutations in Many Genes Affect Aggressive Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster.” BMC Biology 7(1): 29. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-7-29.pdf (accessed January 10, 2013).Google Scholar
Heath, A. C., Whitfield, J. B., Madden, P. A. F., Bucholz, K. K., Dinwiddie, S. H., Slutske, W. S., Bierut, L. J., Statham, D. B., and Martin, Nicholas G.. 2001. “Towards a Molecular Epidemiology of Alcohol Dependence: Analysing the Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors.” British Journal of Psychiatry 178(suppl. 40): s33–s40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxley, Douglas R., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Miller, Jennifer L., Scalora, Mario, Hatemi, Peter K., and Hibbing, John R.. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.” Science 321(5896): 1667–70.Google Scholar
Smith, K., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M., Alford, J., and Hibbing, John. 2009. “The Ick-Factor: Physiological Sensitivity to Disgust as a Predictor of Political Attitudes.” Presented at the Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar