This article reviews the regulation of the new agricultural-environmental biotechnology and recent changes in the regulatory framework in the United States. Regulations put in place in the mid-1980s were established due to concern over potential risks posed by products not yet released into the environment. Now that over a thousand small-scale field trials have been carried out and various new agricultural-environmental biotechnology products have been in farmers' fields for the past several years, questions are being raised about the current regulatory system by both proponents, who want greater deregulation due to the relative absence of ecological harm, and opponents, who warn against potential environmental catastrophe due to greater variety and amount of new agricultural-environmental products being released. Therefore, we focus on triggers for regulation, which appear to hinge on the “naturalness” of a product, and trends in field release of these products.

The literature on stress and political leadership typically views such potential stressors as time-pressure, severe consequences for bad decisions, inadequate information, and conflicting demands as negative influences on political performance. We know, however, that many politicians thrive on or even require such circumstances. Drawing on medical, historical, psychiatric, psychological, and political science literature, this essay proposes that there are at least three major types of leaders in regard to potential stressors: sturdy warriors (who cope with or who even enjoy and are helped by events commonly reacted to by others as stressors), battle-hungry warriors (who are psychologically drawn to potential stressors and “cannot function,” well or badly, without them), and frail warriors (who are unable to cope with stressors). Subcategories, including psychological and political dynamics, are provided.

“The philosophic attitude is a resolute attempt to enlarge the understanding of the scope of application of every notion which enters into our current thought” (Whitehead, 1938:233-34). There is probably no parallel in the history of thought either to Aristotle's breadth of scholarly attainment or to the historical reach of his intellectual influence. Sociobiologists, therefore, can only be enthusiastic about any attempt, such as Arnhart's, to bring such resources to bear on their still young endeavors.

This paper examines the influences that congressional staff people viewed as important in shaping legislators' voting decisions on the human embryonic stem (ES) cell research bill in the 109th Congress, the first legislation vetoed by President George W. Bush. The analysis illuminates factors that impact congressional decision making on a salient issue with a strong moral component. Constituent concerns, ideology, and a desire to make good public policy all centrally affected members' choices; however, moral overtones permeated considerations relevant to the human ES cell research question. In addition, at least three influences that directly reflect or relate to members' moral claims — religious convictions, personal connections to potential beneficiaries of human ES cell research, and moral pressure from outside interests — were important also. The analysis draws on data gathered from interviews with congressional aides.

Although there may be some disagreement about the exact date, I think it safe to say that the biopolitics movement was launched in the 1960s. Now, a half century later, it may be appropriate to pose the rather obvious, if somewhat delicate, question: What has biopolitics contributed to political science? Here, I will try to persuade you that a biopolitical approach may have yielded answers to a couple of the most debated issues in political philosophy—one, the granddady of them all, is “What is the nature of political man?” The other, much more recent, but steadily increasing in importance, is “Why are democracies so rare and so fragile?”

In the recent United States–led “war on terror,” including ongoing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, news organizations have been accused of showing a negative view of developments on the ground. In particular, news depictions of casualties have brought accusations of anti-Americanism and aiding and abetting the terrorists' cause. In this study, video footage of war from television news stories was manipulated to investigate the effects of negative compelling images on cognitive resource allocation, physiological arousal, and recognition memory. Results of a within-subjects experiment indicate that negatively valenced depictions of casualties and destruction elicit greater attention and physiological arousal than positive and low-intensity images. Recognition memory for visual information in the graphic negative news condition was highest, whereas audio recognition for this condition was lowest. The results suggest that negative, high-intensity video imagery diverts cognitive resources away from the encoding of verbal information in the newscast, positioning visual images and not the spoken narrative as a primary channel of viewer learning.

Mark Walker has put forth a proposal which he calls the Genetic Virtue Program or GVP, whose kernel is that it is both possible and desirable to improve virtue by preimplantation selection or in utero engineering. Walker lists caveats to his thesis, although he consistently implies that their validity is doubtful by stating at each instance that he is including them “merely for the sake of completeness.”

The sequencing of the human genome and advances in gene therapy and genomic editing, coupled with embryo selection techniques and a potential gerontological intervention, are some examples of the rapid technological advances of the “genetic revolution.” This article addresses the methodological issue of how we should theorize about justice in the genomic era. Invoking the methodology of non-ideal theory, I argue that theorizing about justice in the genomic era entails theorizing about (1) the new inequalities that the genetic revolution could exacerbate (e.g., genetic discrimination, disability-related injustices, and gender inequality), and (2) those inequalities that the genetic revolution could help us mitigate (e.g., the risks of disease in early and late life). By doing so, normative theorists can ensure that we develop an account of justice that takes seriously not only individual rights, equality of opportunity, the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of disability, and equality between the sexes, but also the potential health benefits (to both individuals and populations) of attending to the evolutionary causes of morbidity and disability.

This article pursues two goals. It sets forth a framework for incorporating life sciences materials into introductory or advanced courses in international relations. It also presents a format for processing these materials in the classroom. In pursuit of these aims, the article addresses problems commonly encountered when initially undertaking a more balanced biopolitical approach to international relations, and sets forth proposals designed to treat these problems.