The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) is an international membership organization (with 965 current members in 50 countries) whose goal is to coordinate and enhance efforts in the Human Genome Project (HGP). Formally established in 1989 by a group of the world's leading scientists in order to promote genome activities internationally, HUGO operates as a global coordinating organization to create the networks and channels through which genome information, initiatives, and ideas can flow and be disseminated.

As part of the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), David L. Huxsoll and Raymond A. Zilinskas convened a roundtable of biological weapons inspectors who have served in recent United Nations inspections in Iraq. The roundtable was presented over a three-hour period on May 22, 1995. To give the audience a “feel” for what inspectors do and the conditions under which they work, the roundtable session opened with a 35 mm slide presentation. The photos were taken by Zilinskas in the course of two 1994 inspections of Iraqi biological research and production facilities.

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the various commentators for their remarks about Born to Rebel, including some of the constructive criticisms of my research findings and conclusions. No book trying to set forth more than two decades of research on why historical figures as diverse as Martin Luther and Charles Darwin behaved the way they did can expect to pass muster without exception. At best, one hopes that any problems that come to light will prove to be relatively easy to correct (as I think they have been, so far) and thus do not undermine the validity of the book's central arguments.

Political science, as a discipline, has been reluctant to adopt theories and methodologies developed in fields studying human behavior from an evolutionary standpoint. I ask whether evolutionary concepts are reconcilable with standard political-science theories and whether those concepts help solve puzzles to which these theories classically are applied. I find that evolutionary concepts readily and simultaneously accommodate theories of rational choice, symbolism, interpretation, and acculturation. Moreover, phenomena perennially hard to explain in standard political science become clearer when human interactions are understood in light of natural selection and evolutionary psychology. These phenomena include the political and economic effects of emotion, status, personal attractiveness, and variations in information-processing and decision-making under uncertainty; exemplary is the use of “focal points” in multiple-equilibrium games. I conclude with an overview of recent research by, and ongoing debates among, scholars analyzing politics in evolutionarily sophisticated terms.

Baer and Bositis's openness in taking biology seriously is welcome and refreshing. For good reasons and bad, social scientists, including those who see themselves as feminist, have suppressed consideration of biological realities. They have tended, implicitly, to accept the notion of tabula rasa-that “blank” creature waiting to be written on by the organized forces of society-that underlies so much political theorizing in the West. As the philosopher Mary Midgley points out in her fascinating book, Beast terpretive account of human thought and action that aims for understanding and probes meaning.) The method understood as scientific, and the authors implicitly endorse it, is one that may broadly be called methodological individualism. One builds from certain rock-bottom particulars- adding them up, or relating them to one another- and the sum of these particulars is one's explanation of a given phenomenon. “Science,” says Hobbes, “is the knowledge of consequences and the dependence of one fact upon another.” I Baer and Bositis implicitly endorse this model, despite the fact that natural sclentists long ago gave up on this understanding of causality. So-although they are absolutely correct to argue that “psychological” explanation alone will not serve, nor will social learning arguments-the particular way in which they draw biology into the picture simply affixes it to the multi-causal scene as another variable or set of variables to be concatenated with many others.

As a result of the initiative, ingenuity, and dedicated efforts of Steven Peterson and James Schubert, and the generous support of Alfred University, the Conference on Empirical Biopolitics was held from July 18 to July 22, 1990, on the campus of Alfred University. Six empirical studies were presented and extensively discussed at this small and intimate conference, with two or more hours devoted to each. Discussion focused not only on the specific research questions under investigation, but also on the ramifications for inquiry in the entire field of biopolitics. Odelia Funke and Fred Kort were the designated discussants, but all presenters took part in the stimulating discussions of each paper.

Arguably, no curve in the world increases indefinitely—certainly no growth curve of human society. The quest for sustainable use of the planet involves estimating levels of activity, particularly resource use, that can continue indefinitely. Since the biosphere is dynamic, this continuation is not a stagnant, steady-state situation but rather a mutualistic interactive relationship between human society and the planet's ecological life support system. Human technology, creativity, and ingenuity may modify natural laws, but cannot be used to repeal them. Attempts to maintain the recent exponential growth of the human population, affluence, and artifacts cannot continue forever, or probably even for another century. At best, quality of life will be diminished, and, at worst, a substantial loss of human life will occur if both ethical and ecological issues are not freely and openly discussed. Sustainability may be visionary and unattainable, but it does offer an opportunity to improve the quality of life for future generations of humans and the other life forms, an opportunity that is far greater than possible with present unsustainable practices.

This article presents a discussion of neurocognitive hacking and its potential for use at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of cyber conflict. Neurocognitive hacking refers to the ability to activate specific neural areas of the brain, via subliminal or supraliminal stimuli, to shape the behavioral outcomes of an adversary. Research suggests that awareness of mortality-related stimuli has neural correlates in the right amygdala and left anterior cingulate cortex and mediates negative behavior toward out-group members, including unconscious discriminatory behavior. Given its in-group/out-group dynamic, the phenomenon could be exploited for use in information operations toward target populations, specifically ones that are multiethnic, multicultural, or multireligious. Although development of the theoretical framework behind neurocognitive hacking is ongoing, mortality-related stimuli are proposed to activate one’s unconscious vigilance system to further evaluate the locus and viability of the suspect stimuli. Research suggests that the subsequent discriminatory affective reactions directed toward out-group members are representative of automatic heuristics evolved to protect the organism in the event a stimulus represents a more serious threat to survival. Therefore, presenting mortality-related stimuli over computer networks to targeted audiences may facilitate the ingestion of tailored propaganda or shaping of specific behavioral outcomes within a population, including sowing division in a target community or weakening support for a specific political regime.

North Carolina, a federally facilitated marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), stumbled in 2013 when opening its health-insurance exchange. Trouble was easy to foresee, as North Carolina had instituted a law barring any state agency from assisting enrollment in health-insurance plans made available through the ACA. Trained workers were needed to help citizens and legal immigrants “navigate” to these plans. Some of these “navigators” could be paid with federal funds, but many others had to work as volunteers. I was one of these volunteer navigators. Much went wrong in training, staffing, and operations, but much still was accomplished. Here I report observations, share assessments, and offer suggestions for similarly complex situations.

This study investigates whether observers react negatively to overly ambitious leaders, focusing on whether women are more sensitive than men in their perceptions of the traits of decision makers and whether men and women behave differently as a result of such perceptions. Results from two laboratory experiments show how participants react to ambitious decision makers in simple bargaining scenarios. The results indicate that observers tend to equate ambition for decision-making authority with self-interested, unfair, male behavior. Moreover, observers tend to be less satisfied with a decision made by an ambitious decision maker compared to the same decision made by an unambitious decision maker. That is, people generally dislike ambitious decision makers independent of the actual decision that is made. Further, there are important differences in male and female expectations of what decision makers will do that, when combined with perceptions of decision-maker gender, have more nuanced implications for outcome satisfaction and our understanding of “follower behavior.”