States’ policy decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 have often been explained as predominantly, if not solely, partisan. Might rival explanations also apply? Using a cross-sectional 50-state regression model, we studied standard political variables coupled with public-health indicators. This work differs from existing research by employing a dependent variable of five additive measures of ACA support, examining the impact of both political and socioeconomic indicators on state policy decisions. Expanding on recent empirical studies with our more nuanced additive index of support measures, we found that same-party control of a state’s executive and legislative branches was indeed by far the single best predictor of policy decisions. Public-health indicators, overwhelmed by partisan effect, did not sufficiently explain state policy choice. This result does not allay the concerns that health policy has become synonymous with health politics and that health politics now has little to do with health itself.

Given the complexity of the current nuclear age and the absence of work on deterrence under true multipolarity, interdisciplinary models can provide new perspectives on tailored deterrence. Drawing from recent findings in the life sciences, this article offers a cultural neuroscience approach to deterrence decision-making, with special attention given to the ways in which culture interacts with cognition and the security environment to shape behavioral outcomes during conflict. Since North Korea remains largely a “black box” in international relations, a cultural neuroscience perspective can provide valuable insight into the effects of cultural conditioning on perception and cognition within the context of nuclear deterrence on the Korean Peninsula. Through an analysis of the bureaucratic and military structures, leadership characteristics, and institutional landscapes shaping North Korean strategic culture, this article examines the influences of historical memory and cultural values, such as collectivism, honor, and face-saving, on political decision-making in Pyongyang.

The Royal Society of London held a scientific meeting in September 2000 focusing on two theories of the origin of AIDS: one, that it occurred through “natural transfer” of immunodeficiency virus from monkeys or chimpanzees to humans; and the other, that it occurred through iatrogenic transfer via contaminated polio vaccines used in Africa in the late 1950s. This meeting was the culmination of years of public contention over the polio-vaccine theory. Several dimensions of the politics of science are revealed by analysis of this issue, including the power of scientific editors, the use of the mass media, decisions regarding selection of speakers and organization of the meeting, and epistemological assumptions made by participants.

This article examines several trends that have combined to veil the new field of biotechnology in secrecy: the transformation of biotechnology from an essentially academic field characterized by strong norms of openness to a field with extensive corporate connections that have reached even to research in leading universities; the establishment of intellectual property rights for life-forms initiated by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Diamond vs. Chakrabarty; and the limiting of public access to information about the genetically altered organisms whose use in agriculture, industry, and medicine falls under government controls. The article also examines the effects of the U.S. biotechnology industry's demand for secrecy on the negotiations for a protocol to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, particularly the turn from requirements for transparency to protection of opacity with respect to biotechnology and other biological processes, equipment, and production.

A theory of social stratification is proposed that was derived from combining two conceptual continuums, both referring to phenomena that appear to be genetically influenced: pro/antisociality and r/K selection. Pro/antisociality refers to behavioral tendencies epitomized at one end by altruism, and, at the other end, by victimizing behavior (particular violent offenses). r/K selection refers to a variety of physiological and behavioral traits, epitomized at the r-end by organisms that reproduce in large numbers, while committing minimal time and energy to the nurturing of each offspring, and at the K-end by organisms that reproduce in small numbers, but make maximum commitments to nurturing each offspring. The theory postulates that the space created by the right-angle intersection of these two variables gives rise to human social stratification. Variations in educational achievement, earnings, and occupational prestige within the theoretical space created by these two variables in industrial societies are hypothesized and discussed.

The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of studies employing psychophysiological methods to explain variation in political attitudes and behavior. However, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of physiological data present novel challenges for political scientists unfamiliar with the underlying biological concepts and technical skills necessary for utilizing this approach. Our objective in this article is to maximize the effectiveness of future work utilizing psychophysiological measurement by providing guidance on how the techniques can be employed most fruitfully as a complement to, not a replacement for, existing methods. We develop clear, step-by-step instructions for how physiological research should be conducted and provide a discussion of the issues commonly faced by scholars working with these measures. Our hope is that this article will be a useful resource for both neophytes and experienced scholars in lowering the start-up costs to doing this work and assessing it as part of the peer review process. More broadly, in the spirit of the open science framework, we aim to foster increased communication, collaboration, and replication of findings across political science labs utilizing psychophysiological methods.

Politics and the Life Sciences is about to enter its second pioneering decade. Its first decade has been exciting and productive; its second should prove even more so. I am honored to serve as editor as we enter that second decade. I hope I will be a worthy successor to Tom Wiegele, the extraordinary man who founded the journal and guided it for almost ten years. This issue is dedicated to Tom's memory, with affection, respect, and gratitude.

The program on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of human genome research is a branch of the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NCHGR is responsible, in conjunction with the Office of Health and Environment at the Department of Energy (DOE), for administration and coordination of the U.S. component of the Human Genome Project.

This article develops a theoretical framework for biopolitical science as a science of political animals. This science moves through three levels of deep political history: the universal political history of the species, the cultural political history of the group, and the individual political history of animals in the group. To illustrate the particular application of biopolitical science, this essay shows how this science would help us to understand Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863.

The cognitive deterioration of politicians is a critical emerging issue. As professions including law and medicine develop and implement cognitive assessments, their insights may inform the proper strategy within politics. The aging, lifetime-appointed judiciary raises legal and administrative questions of such assessments, while testing of older physicians experiencing cognitive decline provides real-life examples of implementation. In politics, cognitive assessment must contend with the field’s unique challenges, also taking context-dependent interpretations of cognitive-neuropsychological status into account. These perspectives, from legal and medical experts, political scientists, and officeholders, can contribute toward an equitable, functioning, and non-discriminatory system of assessing cognition that educates the public and enables politicians to maintain their public responsibilities. With proper implementation and sufficient public knowledge, we believe cognitive assessments for politicians, particularly political candidates, can be valuable for maintaining properly functioning governance. We offer recommendations on the development, implementation, and execution of such assessments, grappling with their democratic and legal implications.

To update the view of human nature that undergirds eighteenth-century British/American political economy, this article reviews literature from diverse subfields of psychobiology. Findings on the structure, function, and evolution of the human brain confirm the duality between reason and passion that is at the core of the science of Hobbes. Contemporary findings across fields indicate that people become emotionally attached to objects, including verbal abstractions, through experiences with pleasure and pain. In contrast, human reasoning is essentially scientific. The duality between passionate motivation and humanity's unique capacity for reasoning makes political science important. By applying the scientific method to the subject of politics, people can design institutions that channel quasi-rational behavior toward outcomes that are mutually beneficial, rather than mutually destructive. Defining human nature correctly is the key to political science, and Smith's addition of the passion of sympathy to Hobbes's narrow definition of human motivation is essential.

From a psychological perspective, Cass R. Sunstein’s 2016 book The Ethics of Influence is an insightful examination of the ethics of using social and cognitive psychological principles to influence behavior and decision-making. The United States has been experiencing what can only be described as an obesity epidemic. Scientists know that this epidemic has been brought about in part by the prevailing choice architecture, which influences what we eat, how much we eat, and how little we exercise. From a public health perspective, the policy issue centers on how a democracy can employ a combination of bans, mandates, and nudges to reshape our dietary habits to combat obesity. In this article, I will address how policymakers must nudge and change the existing psychological and physical choice architecture to combat obesity. The obesity epidemic cannot be won solely by increasing taxes, mandates, and bans on certain food items as that infringes on the personal liberty, welfare, autonomy, and dignity of citizens.

Editor's note This well circulated but heretofore unpublished report is the summary statement of an interdisciplinary meeting of scholars convened by the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia on June 28, 2010. The workshop, which was funded by the NSF's Political Science Program (Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Grant #1037831), was convened to answer two compelling questions: Are studies of social behavior that build from discoveries about genes and/or cognition of greater social and scientific value than studies of the same topics that ignore such factors? And, how can fundable research on genes, cognition, and politics generate transformative scientific practices, infrastructure, and findings of high social value? Assembled for the workshop were a group of scholars representing diverse yet increasingly connected research areas, including genetics, cognitive science and neuroscience, decision making and risk analysis, economics, political science, and sociology. The resulting report outlines the substantial challenges facing interdisciplinary research but also describes the considerable contributions to knowledge that could result from sustained collaborations between biologists, geneticists, and brain scientists on the one hand and social scientists on the other. Following this main report are three white papers by Jeremy Freese. Elizabeth Hammock, and Rose McDermott, which address importmant considerations related to the discussion. For a download of the full report, see http://www.isr.umich.edu.cps/workshop.Welcome.html.

Politics and the life sciences—also referred to as biopolitics—is a field of study that seeks to advance knowledge of politics and promote better policymaking through multidisciplinary analysis that draws on the life sciences. While the intellectual origins of the field may be traced at least into the 1960s, a broadly organized movement appeared only with the founding of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) in 1980 and the establishment of its journal, Politics and the Life Sciences (PLS), in 1982. This essay—contributed by a past journal editor and association executive director—concludes a celebration of the association's thirtieth anniversary. It reviews the founding of the field and the association, as well as the contributions of the founders. It also discusses the nature of the empirical work that will advance the field, makes recommendations regarding the identity and future of the association, and assesses the status of the revolution of which the association is a part. It argues that there is progress to celebrate, but that this revolution—the last of three great scientific revolutions—is still in its early stages. The revolution is well-started, but remains unfinished.

Developments in assisted human reproduction (AHR) have aroused considerable debate and interest around the world, with most governments accepting that they are matters of public policy. This politicization of AHR is explored in the context of a consideration of the oft-used term “the best interests of the child.” This “rallying call” is frequently cited as the primary concern in the determination of policy. This article is based on the contention that it is important to examine the interplay between the three main groups directly influencing “best interest” outcomes for AHR offspring. These groups are the professionals, the parents, and the state. It seeks to examine how this high-sounding and well-meaning commitment is addressed, advanced, or ignored in the interplay of these groups.

Two hypotheses about belief in high gods supportive of human morality were tested with data from the Ethnographic Atlas and the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. A significant positive relation between the size of societies and such a belief is demonstrated, and this relation appears to be independent of both regional differences and differences in stratification of the societies. On the other hand, stratification itself is also significantly related with the belief in high gods supportive of human morality, but this relation could not be shown to be independent of regional differences or differences in size.

This analysis seeks to identify factors that may shape the policy stance — whether restrictive or permissive — that each state in the United States with a human cloning law in place takes toward human therapeutic cloning. The investigation also considers if cloning policy is more the product of morality politics or political economy. Results show that among states with human cloning policies in place, those with a greater biotechnological capacity, more permissive abortion laws, fewer Evangelical Protestants, and higher political liberalism rankings are more likely to have permissive cloning laws. A higher Roman Catholic population is strongly associated with permissive cloning laws, rather than restrictive cloning laws as originally supposed. Factors with morality policy and economic bases were both found to be associated with cloning policy outcomes. Results suggest that morality policies, though distinct in some ways, do share determinants with public policies based on political economy.

In 1967 Congress passed the Twenty-fifth Amendment to rectify an apparent inadequacy in the U. S. Constitution dealing with one of the gravest dangers to executive function–disability in the presidency. For 180 years, imprecise wording had bound the public welfare beneath a constitutional sword of Damocles which threatened to sever the legal discovery of inability in our Chief Executive from its occurrence. On at least four occasions during the last 100 years alone, executive function has been paralyzed by medically defined presidential inability, while two perplexing questions restricted a satisfactory resolution to the problem. First, in such a circumstance, does the office of the presidency devolve to the vice-president, or does the vicepresident merely serve as an acting president, assuming only its powers and duties? Second, who shall determine when the president is disabled and, its corollary, when that disability has ended? In the first instance, the amendment's sponsors ultimately determined that the vice-president assumes the powers and duties, but not the office itself, when the president becomes disabled. In the second, the sponsors proposed that the vice-president and the cabinet are jointly responsible for determining the duration of inability when, for medical or other reasons, the president is unable to do so.

How do members of different ethnic or racial groups differ in their responses to the same political events? Previous research has shown that when leaders are seen on television, the viewers' episodic emotional and cognitive responses can influence their attitudes and subsequent voting behavior. In an experimental replication, using excerpts of all candidates in the 1988 American presidential election, episodic emotions elicited by facial displays were again found to produce positive attitude change in white viewers. For blacks, however, the emotions felt while watching leaders—including Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis, who elicited highly favorable responses—did not influence posttest attitudes. This contrast between black and white viewers' emotions and attitudes differs from the effects of nonverbal behavior associated with personality or gender. These findings suggest that nonconscious factors may play an important role in the way blacks perceive and react within the American political system.

In recent years policymakers in a number of American states have chosen biotechnology as a key element in their economic development efforts. With visions of business growth and new jobs, state officials have targeted biotechnology as an important industry of the future. In this paper we focus on the political dynamics that underlay the choice of biotechnology in eleven states. With those states providing examples, we identify three major models of policy choice. The first involves an interest-based process in which state policymakers respond to explicit or implicit pressures from different parties. The second involves a strategic planning exercise in which state officials analyze the economic structure of the state and seek to develop a comparative advantage in the field of biotechnology. And the third starts with a strategic analysis but then relies upon a competitive, interest-based process to determine the allocation of state funds. We conclude by briefly discussing major issues for science policymaking at the state level.