The present discussion of sociobiological approaches to ethnic nepotism takes Pierre van den Berghe's theory as a starting point. Two points, which have not been addressed in former analyses, are considered to be of particular importance. It is argued that the behavioral mechanism of ethnic nepotism—as understood by van den Berghe—cannot explain ethnic boundaries and attitudes. In addition, I show that van den Berghe's central premise concerning ethnic nepotism is in contradiction to Hamilton's formula, the essential principle of kin selection theory. It is further discussed how other approaches that make reference to ethnic nepotism are related to van den Berghe's account and its problems. I conclude with remarks on the evolutionary explanation of ethnic phenomena.

The absence of comprehensive federal oversight of human biotechnologies in the United States continues to stimulate academic discourse on the relative merits of European-style regulatory agencies as compared to the current, decentralized approach. Many American bioethicists support the latter, maintaining that the key features of federalism—policy experimentation and moral pluralism—allows for the efficient regulation of these complex and contentious issues. This paper examines state-level regulation of oocyte donation to assess claims regarding the superiority of this decentralized regulatory approach. Further, this paper introduces an additional element to this examination of state law, which concerns the degree to which the health and safety of key participants is addressed at the state level. This inquiry assesses one facet of fertility medicine and biomedical research law, oocyte donation, an analysis that can be used to inform the broader discourse regarding the regulation of human biotechnologies and bioethical issues by the states.

Intuitive thinking would argue that political or ideological orientation does not correlate with nonpolitical decisions, and certainly not with nonideological cognitive tasks. However, that is what happens in some cases. Previous neuropolitics studies have found that liberals are more adept at dealing with novel information than conservatives. This finding suggests that conservatives and liberals possess different cognitive skills. For the purposes of this article, two studies were executed to test whether this difference remained in alternative environmental settings. To this end, two novel cognitive tasks were designed in which one type of ideology or another was privileged according to the cognitive environment created by the tasks. Experimental findings indicate that liberals committed fewer errors than conservatives in one kind of cognitive environment, while conservatives scored higher in another.

Three North Carolina Medicaid surveys conducted from 2000 to 2012 reported increasing numbers of Hispanic children enrolled in Medicaid and much lower trust in providers expressed by their adult caregiver respondents compared with responses for non-Hispanic Black and White children. To verify and explain this apparent trust chasm, we used bivariate and regression analyses. The variables employed included trust (dependent variable); child’s race/ethnicity, age, and sex; satisfaction and health status scales; two utilization measures; respondent’s age, sex, and education; geographical region; and population density of county of residence. Race/ethnicity was strongly associated with trust (p < .001), controlling for other independent variables. Access, satisfaction, and respondent’s age and education were also significant. Our results fit the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations, which maps the role of significant variables in health-seeking behavior. After analyzing the concept of trust, we argue that lower acculturation explains lower Hispanic trust compared with non-Hispanic Blacks. We suggest policies to improve acculturation.

The Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) has primary responsibility within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for developing and implementing policies, procedures, and regulations for the protection of human subjects involved in research. It also has primary responsibility within the U.S. Public Health Service for developing and implementing policies and procedures for the care and use of laboratory animals. And, it has responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of policies, procedures, and regulations for the protection of human subjects involved in research for all U.S. federal departments and agencies that conduct or support such research.

A 1995 survey of 1,257 scientists working in the field of recombinant DNA research indicates wide areas of agreement as well as some noteworthy divisions when it comes to such thorny questions as patenting, germ-line research, food labeling, and biodiversity. In general, the scientists surveyed approve of patenting living organisms that result from rDNA research, but vary significantly on what should be patentable. They advocate human germ-line therapy, yet have reservations about using it for any but serious diseases. They oppose mandatory labeling of biologically engineered food products, but understand that the public has a right to know and advocate openness. Finally, they favor development of genetically modified crops, but recognize potential threats to biodiversity and maintain that publicly funded researchers should be legally obligated to consider the potential environmental effects of their research. Some clear differences arise between scientists working in industry and those in academia and between men and women.

Land is necessary for human flourishing, and its use remains a compelling concern for every society, even those wherein industrialization has sharply diminished people's awareness of land. Here, we consider land's influence on political thinking, particularly thinking about democratic governance, and ask if this influence might be made more beneficial by the application of lessons drawn from ecological research. We identify five such lessons and apply them in six ways to the institution of private-property rights in nature — the main legal institution that allocates and perpetuates power over land — and to modern assumptions about liberal individualism and rights to health. We conclude that people can live well on land, promoting both human and land health, only in governmental forms engaging more citizens more deliberatively than now typical even in democracies. Implications for political institutions and human welfare are discussed under conditions of globalizing interdependence.

Toward what kind of future is humankind now tending? Is human society engaged in a global gamble based on the assumption that technology, aided by human ingenuity and creativity, can remake the world and manage its resources for immediate material benefit to humanity without regard to natural law and the fate of other species? Infinite substitutability of species has been tested over evolutionary time, but infinite substitutability of resources is a relatively recent hypothesis based on a faith in human creativity and technological prowess. The choice made will affect both the future of human society and of many other species.

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.

Famine, a complex phenomenon with multifactorial causes, produces starvation and associated diseases resulting in unusually high mortality from a lack of food. Devastating famines in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s may have provided an impetus for scholars to find additional analytical tools for predicting famines. Two predominant theories of famines causality are (1) food availability decline (FAD), a supply failure; and (2) the entitlement approach based on a demand failure. Findings from both theories are applied to specific examples from Ethiopian famines to analyze the composition and effects of famine. The limited success of contemporary famines studies in anticipating famine suggests the need for improved analytical tools. Risk factor analysis, used successfully in the social sciences and the medical sciences to predict the occurrence of complicated phenomena, is developed to identify controllable, uncontrollable, and contributing factors to famine. Based on the experience of Ethiopia in 1983-86, categorical cutoff values for identifying a high risk of developing famine are formulated.