As a field of study international relations has always been concerned with the problem of war. Since the second world war much attention has been given to the impact of weapons of mass destruction, most commonly in the form of nuclear weapons. More recently, a wider variety of issues have been addressed by the field, notably widening its coverage of economic, welfare and social issues. Three broad approaches to international relations have emerged: political realism, pluralism, and globalism.

Biotechnology represents a major technological revolution which will have enormous impact on the world at many levels. One impact which cannot be ignored is its potential for weaponry. This paper assesses the three international relations approaches with respect to their elucidation of biotechnology and its potential for violent and aggressive applications.

At the outset I should admit that I am more positively disposed toward Sulloway's (1996) magnum opus than is the author of the target article (see Simonton, 1997). My positive disposition stems from three sources—substantive, theoretical, and methodological. Concerning the first source, I am more receptive to the notion that birth order may bear some relation to various forms of exceptional achievement. Galton (1874) was the first behavioral scientist to report such an empirical linkage, and his findings have been replicated and extended many times (Simonton, 1994). Indeed, I am among those who have discovered some of the relationships.

This study tests two sets of competing hypotheses about the relationship between trait reactivity to positive and negative stimuli (i.e., motivational reactivity), moral stances on social principles (i.e., social morality), and political ideology. The classic view contends that a specific political ideology or social morality results from a specific motivational reactivity pattern, whereas the dynamic coordination account suggests that trait motivational reactivity modulates an individual’s political ideology and social morality as a result of the majority political beliefs in their immediate social context. A survey using subjects recruited from a liberal-leaning social context was conducted to test these hypotheses. Results support the dynamic coordination account. Reactivity to negativity (indexed by defensive system activation scores) is associated with the adoption of the dominant social morality and political ideology. Reactivity to positivity (indexed by appetitive system activation scores) is associated with the adoption of nondominant social moral and political stances.

In recent decades, political psychologists have given a lot of attention to the role of emotions in politics. While there have been several different research programs, the dominant paradigm has been set by affective intelligence theory (AIT), developed by George Marcus, Russell Neuman, and Michael Mackuen. AIT has helped explain many puzzles in understanding how emotions influence political decisions, as any good paradigm should. At the same time, I argue it has also had the effect of limiting broader research into the range of discrete emotions, especially contempt. While recognizing the value of AIT, I call for more research that goes beyond its boundaries, showing through several recent studies how a focus on the additional effects of contempt can improve our understanding of voter decision-making.

This article presents one method for building computer models that focus on understanding and resolving complex, or “wicked,” environmental issues. The method is designed to promote cooperative decision-making and consensus among stakeholders, scientists, and managers. The article argues that there are only two ways to resolve “wicked” environmental issues: regulation by conflict or regulation by consensus. It points out that regulation by conflict leads to coercion and further conflict. In contrast, regulation by consensus leads to acceptable and durable decisions. The article concludes that cooperation and consensus are superior to conflict and coercion. The method presented is illustrated with a successful project to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to protect the northern spotted owl in California.

Roger Masters promises that efforts to bridge the gap between the social sciences and the life sciences will clarify our concept of human nature. He presents a number of propositions derived from his own work during the past 15 years in order to explore the scientific meaning of human nature, of political thought, and political leadership.