Discussions of democratic involvement in science and technology are often marred by lack of clarity and consequent misunderstanding. In an effort to move beyond the bickering of the “science wars,” I outline several dimensions across which it is possible to distinguish cases of democratized science. In addition, I provide evidence from varied cases, which suggests that the inability of laypeople to grasp the subtle content, difficult concepts, and methodological complexity of science is not a valid basis for a priori rejection of efforts to democratize science. I suggest that the real obstacles to the democratization of science are rooted in widespread social and economic inequalities and an unexamined commitment to expert authority, and I provide some rudimentary proposals for overcoming these hurdles.

Germ-line gene therapy, in which genetic flaws are corrected in the DNA of externally fertilized human embryos, lies in the distant yet foreseeable future. Worries about germ-line therapy have prompted international bodies to craft guidelines that are unusual for their anticipatory nature. Motivating these guidelines is the idea that a “transnational harmonization” of principles should be reached before national policies are developed. This article reviews selected national policies and international recommendations, and it concludes that national policies should be precedents for, rather than descendants of, international normative codes. The inclination to develop morally-based codes, which is implicit in transnational harmonization, will be more useful if grounded in empirically-based medical technologies and politically-tested policies rather than on abstract principles developed well in advance of technological feasibility.

The smiles and affiliative expressions of presidential candidates are important for political success, allowing contenders to nonverbally connect with potential supporters and bond with followers. Smiles, however, are not unitary displays; they are multifaceted in composition and signaling intent due to variations in performance. With this in mind, we examine the composition and perception of smiling behavior by Republican presidential candidates during the 2012 preprimary period. In this paper we review literature concerning different smile types and the muscular movements that compose them from a biobehavioral perspective. We then analyze smiles expressed by Republican presidential candidates early in the 2012 primary season by coding facial muscle activity at the microlevel using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to produce an inventory of politically relevant smile types. To validate the subtle observed differences between smile types, we show viewers a series of short video clips to differentiate displays on the basis of their perceived reassurance, or social signaling. The discussion considers the implications of our findings in relation to political evaluation and communication efficacy.

Absent from most analyses of political news are detailed assessments of the candidates' nonverbal behavior, which has been shown experimentally to have considerable persuasive influence. Unlike attractiveness and other relatively stable aspects of appearance, facial displays are highly variable and reveal important moment-to-moment information about the emitter's internal state. In this paper we argue that facial displays are influential elements within political news and examine the character of televised candidate displays over four presidential election cycles. The analysis considers coverage of major party nominees shown during the general elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 on the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). To motivate our hypotheses, we draw on the biopolitics literature that has identified three classes of displays relevant to the study of nonverbal political behavior: happiness/reassurance, anger/threat, and fear/evasion. The analysis focuses on the relationship between the display types shown in election coverage, the context in which the displays are shown, and candidate standings in the polls.

Neuropolitics is the intersection of neuroscience and political science, and it has the interdisciplinary goal of transforming both disciplines. This article reviews the past 20 years of work in the field, identifying its roots, some overarching themes—reactions to political attitudinal questions and candidates faces, identification of political ideology based on brain structure or reactivity to nonpolitical stimuli, and racial attitudes—and obstacles to its progress. I then explore the methodological and analytical advances that point the way forward for the future of neuropolitics. Although the field has been slow to develop compared with neurolaw and neuroeconomics, innovations look ripe for dramatically improving our ability to model political behaviors and attitudes in individuals and predict political choices in mass publics. The coming advancements, however, pose risks to our current norms of democratic deliberation, and academics need to anticipate and mitigate these risks.

Research within security studies has struggled to determine whether infectious disease (ID) represents an existential threat to national and international security. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), it is imperative to reexamine the relationship between ID and global security. This article addresses the specific threat to security from COVID-19, asking, “Is COVID-19 a threat to national and international security?” To investigate this question, this article uses two theoretical approaches: human security and biosecurity. It argues that COVID-19 is a threat to global security by the ontological crisis posed to individuals through human security theory and through high politics, as evidenced by biosecurity. By viewing security threats through the lens of the individual and the state, it becomes clear that ID should be considered an international security threat. This article examines the relevant literature and applies the theoretical framework to a case study analysis focused on the United States.

Increasing numbers of female candidates are running for Congress in American national elections. Despite the rise in female candidates running for office, women are not significantly increasing their presence in the House and Senate. A much hypothesized influence over the electoral fates of female candidates is the role of gender stereotypes. However, political science scholars have struggled to pinpoint the effect of stereotypes on vote choice, if there is any effect. This essay compares the way social psychology and political science scholars theoretically, conceptually and empirically test for gender stereotype influence over evaluations of female candidates and politicians. Differences emerge in the theoretical assumptions made in the two disciplines, the types of measures used in research, and the empirical tests conducted to demonstrate the presence or absence of stereotypes in evaluations of women. The discussion explores how scholars studying female candidates and politicians can integrate insights from social psychology to clarify the role of stereotypes in candidate evaluation and choice.

Advances in biomedical research and health care simultaneously create practical benefits and ethical dilemmas. These bioethical dilemmas are the subject of intense social and political debate. Recent attempts in the United States to address these issues in a national, public policy setting have had mixed success. The absence of a single national voice has resulted in many voices at many levels. This article describes and analyzes past national bioethics bodies in an effort to find commonalities for both success and failure. It concludes that reconstitution of an Ethics Advisory Board within the Department of Health and Human Services and the formation of a President's Bioethics Commission are needed as the nation confronts new and difficult choices in research ethics and the delivery of health care.

Often since the early 1990s, feminist evolutionists have criticized evolutionary psychologists, finding fault in their analyses of human male and female reproductive behavior. Feminist evolutionists have criticized various evolutionary psychologists for perpetuating gender stereotypes, using questionable methodology, and exhibiting a chill toward feminism. Though these criticisms have been raised many times, the conflict itself has not been fully analyzed. Therefore, I reconsider this conflict, both in its origins and its implications. I find that the approaches and perspectives of feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are distinctly different, leading many of the former to work in behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology. Invitingly to feminist evolutionists, these three fields emphasize social behavior and the influences of environmental variables; in contrast, evolutionary psychology has come to rely on assumptions deemphasizing the pliability of psychological mechanisms and the flexibility of human behavior. In behavioral ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, feminist evolutionists have found old biases easy to correct and new hypotheses practical to test, offering new insights into male and female behavior, explaining the emergence and persistence of patriarchy, and potentially bringing closer a prime feminist goal, sexual equality.

This research uses evolutionary theory to evaluate followers' preferences for physically formidable leaders and to identify conditions that stimulate those preferences. It employs a population-based survey experiment (N ≥ 760), which offers the advantages to internal validity of experiments and external validity of a highly heterogeneous sample drawn from a nationally representative subject pool. The theoretical argument proffered here is followers tend to prefer leaders with greater physical formidability because of evolutionary adaptations derived from humans' violent ancestral environment. In this environment, individuals who allied with and ultimately followed physically powerful partners were more likely to acquire and retain important resources necessary for survival and reproduction because the presence of the physically powerful partner cued opponents to avoid a challenge for the resources or risk a costly confrontation. This argument suggests and the results indicate that threatening (war) and nonthreatening (peace, cooperation, and control) stimuli differentially motivate preferences for physically formidable leaders. In particular, the findings suggest threatening conditions lead to preferences for leaders with more powerful physical attributes, both anthropometric (i.e., weight, height, and body mass index) and perceptual (i.e., attributes of being “physically imposing or intimidating” and “physically strong”). Overall, this research offers a theoretical framework from which to understand this otherwise seemingly irrational phenomenon. Further, it advances the emerging but long-neglected investigation of biological effects on political behavior and has implications for a fundamental process in democratic society, leader selection.

There is nothing unique in a call for increased attention to the policy dimensions of biological developments. Almost two decades ago, Caldwell (1964:2) urged a “policy synthesis of scientific knowledge and ethical values” in response to the public policy questions raised 1JY the “explosion of biomedical knowledge and technology.” Despite similar exhortations intermittently since that time, Somit and Peterson (1979) conclude that political scientists have yet to give adequate attention to the public policy implications of biological issues. Wiegele, too, (1979: 151) sees the need for “some students of biopolitics to become interested in the political policy relevance of certain aspects of the life sciences” but sees only a few scholars interested in pursuing such an endeavor at this time.

This paper examines whether national differences in political culture add an explanatory dimension to the formulation of policy in the area of biotechnology, especially with respect to genetically modified food. The analysis links the formulation of protective regulatory policies governing genetically modified food to both country and region-specific differences in uncertainty tolerance levels and risk perceptions in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Based on polling data and document analysis, the findings illustrate that these differences matter. Following a mostly opportunistic risk perception within an environment of high tolerance for uncertainty, policymakers in the United States and Canada modified existing regulatory frameworks that govern genetically modified food in their respective countries. In contrast, the mostly cautious perception of new food technologies and low tolerance for uncertainty among European Union member states has contributed to the creation of elaborate and stringent regulatory policies governing genetically modified food.

Scholars increasingly use Twitter data to study the life sciences and politics. However, Twitter data collection tools often pose challenges for scholars who are unfamiliar with their operation. Equally important, although many tools indicate that they offer representative samples of the full Twitter archive, little is known about whether the samples are indeed representative of the targeted population of tweets. This article evaluates such tools in terms of costs, training, and data quality as a means to introduce Twitter data as a research tool. Further, using an analysis of COVID-19 and moral foundations theory as an example, we compared the distributions of moral discussions from two commonly used tools for accessing Twitter data (Twitter’s standard APIs and third-party access) to the ground truth, the Twitter full archive. Our results highlight the importance of assessing the comparability of data sources to improve confidence in findings based on Twitter data. We also review the major new features of Twitter’s API version 2.

Conflicting U.S. statutes exist governing adolescent sexuality. While parents are allowed to remove their children from sex education, they cannot prevent their children from procuring medical care and contraception without parental awareness or consent. I argue that specialized consent statutes—statutes which empower adolescents to seek confidential reproductive and sexual health care—are an inappropriate solution to adolescent sexuality because (1) they empower individuals whom we otherwise believe are not ready for autonomous decision-making; (2) they endorse deception, which is the wrong message to be sending to our children; and (3) they are illiberal in that they circumvent parental decision-making authority to promote a particular conception of the good life. I argue that we should rescind these statutes and return these decisions to the family.

This study offers the first systematic analysis of the impact of press-state relations, or media systems, on the HIV/AIDS news agenda in African news coverage. The premise is that media systems play a determining role in the degree to which journalists can independently advocate for social change when covering HIV/AIDS. Drawing on comparative research, four sub-Saharan countries were categorized into two media systems: Contained Democratic (South Africa, Nigeria) and Repressive Autocratic (Zimbabwe, Kenya). A sample of HIV/AIDS stories (n = 393) published from 2002–2007 in each country's leading Anglophone newspaper was content analyzed. Across all coverage, the topic of social costs was framed more for the responsibility borne by nongovernmental agents than governmental agents. In Contained Democratic media systems, however, story emphasis shifted toward government agents taking responsibility for addressing the social costs of HIV/AIDS. Prevention campaigns were framed more as progress than decline across all newspapers; however, campaigns were reported as being more efficacious in Contained Democratic systems than in Repressive Autocratic systems. No impact of media system on framing of medical developments was found. Results show the value of comparative analysis in understanding the agenda-setting process: with greater emphasis on positive efficacy and government initiative, the news agenda in Contained Democratic media systems can facilitate stronger positive societal-level responses than the news agenda in Repressive Autocratic media systems.

A global epidemiological surveillance system is needed both for verification of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and as a confidence-building measure for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This proposal should be part of the agenda of the Fourth Review Conference of the BWC, with preliminary consideration and analysis conducted at the national level and by appropriate international expert groups in preparation for the Review Conference. An example of the kind of program that might be constructed is described. Such a program would make it very difficult for hostile use of biological agents to remain undetected, would catalyze a dramatic increase in global public, agricultural, and veterinary health, and would offer reasonable assurance that emerging diseases would be detected at an early stage. These benefits easily justify the expenditures that would be required.

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,” summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report’s effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report’s release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report’s conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) have become widely accepted as therapy for a wide array of fertility problems and accompanied by the rapid expansion of clinics that provide a full range of ARTs. Although these technologies undoubtedly offer benefits for some individuals, they raise important questions over reproductive rights to safe and effective treatment as well as access. This article analyzes current data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and cost of IVF. It concludes that IVF and related techniques have been transformed too rapidly and easily from experimental to therapy status, despite evidence that suggests considerable caution is warranted. Unfortunately, the widespread diffusion of IVF has preceded rather than followed firm evidence of its value in extending the reproductive rights of women and couples. Resources might better be directed toward prevention of fertility problems and discovering the causes of infertility.