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.

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 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.

Background. Reproductive technologies allow women to embrace or forgo motherhood, but a woman’s ability to make autonomous reproductive choices depends on access to these technologies. In the United States, public policies — laws, regulations, appropriations, and rulings — have either broadened or narrowed this access.

Question. Have U.S. public policies affecting reproductive choices conformed to attitudinal distinctions about motherhood itself?

Methods. I identified policies covering infertility, contraception, and abortion and examined them contextually within the Ingram-Schneider social construction framework.

Findings. Women’s choices fell within social construction quadrants as being positively portrayed and powerful; negatively portrayed but powerful; positively portrayed but powerless; and negatively portrayed and powerless. Married heterosexual women embracing motherhood were likely to be viewed positively and to reap benefits. Women forgoing motherhood, poor women, and women seeking to form nontraditional families were likely to be viewed negatively and to bear burdens; critical among these burdens was restriction of access to technologies that could be used to support a decision to avoid motherhood or to achieve motherhood through nontraditional methods.

Conclusion. Yes, U.S. public policies affecting reproductive choices have conformed to attitudinal distinctions about motherhood itself. These policies may also have altered those choices.

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.

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.

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.

Twin studies have revealed political ideology to be partially heritable. Neurological research has shown that ideological differences are reflected in brain structure and response, suggesting a direct genotype-phenotype link. Social and informational environments, however, also demonstrably affect brain structure and response. This leads to a “chicken-and-egg” question: do genes produce brains with ideological predispositions, causing the preferential absorption of consonant information and thereby forming an ideology, or do social and informational environments do most of the heavy lifting, with genetic evidence the spurious artifact of outdated methodology? Or are both inextricably intertwined contributors? This article investigates the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to ideological development using a role-play experiment investigating the development of opinions on a novel political issue. The results support the view that the process is bidirectional, suggesting that, like most traits, political ideology is produced by the complex interplay of genetic and (social/informational) environmental influences.

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.

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.

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.

Although much of the social science literature supports the importance of community assets for success in many policy areas, these assets are often overlooked when selecting communities for new infrastructure facilities. Extensive collaboration is crucial for the success of environmental and economic projects, yet it often is not adequately addressed when making siting decisions for new projects. This article develops a social asset framework that includes social, creative, and human capital to inform site-selection decisions. This framework is applied to the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance project to assess community suitability for biofuel-related developments. This framework is the first to take all necessary community assets into account, providing insight into successful site selection beyond current models. The framework not only serves as a model for future biorefinery projects but also guides tasks that depend on informed location selection for success.

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.

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.

The German army's 1943 flooding of the Pontine Marshes south of Rome, which later caused a sharp rise in malaria cases among Italian civilians, has recently been described by historian Frank Snowden as a unique instance of biological warfare and bioterrorism in the European theater of war and, consequently, as a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting chemical and biological warfare. We argue that archival documents fail to support this allegation, on several counts. As a matter of historical record, Hitler prohibited German biological weapons (BW) development and consistently adhered to the Geneva Protocol. Rather than biological warfare against civilians, the Wehrmacht used flooding, land mines, and the destruction of vital infrastructure to obstruct the Allied advance. To protect its own troops in the area, the German army sought to contain the increased mosquito breeding likely to be caused by the flooding. Italians returning to the Pontine Marshes after the German retreat in 1944 suffered malaria as a result of environmental destruction, which was banned by the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and by subsequent treaties. In contrast, a state's violation of the Geneva Protocol, whether past or present, involves the use of germ weapons and, by inference, a state-level capability. Any allegation of such a serious violation demands credible evidence that meets high scientific and legal standards of proof.

Many treatments for infertility require the use of donated gametes or embryos. Arguments have been made that all parties involved (donors, recipients, and children) should have open access to information about one another. The present article reports a survey of attitudes of 77 donors and 327 recipients in the state of Western Australia. Donors and recipients endorsed a register of nonidentifying information, but were less keen on a register of identifying information. They believed that medical personnel should have access to such registers, and that donors and recipients (but not children) should have access to nonidentifying, but not identifying, information. Typically, the sort of information respondents wanted to access pertained to health status and physical characteristics. Overwhelmingly, both donors and recipients saw gamete and embryo donation as more like blood donation than like adoption.

In this article, we scrutinize a policy area in which the Russian government has had to react to negative publicity in the last few years, namely, the doping scandal surrounding the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. This scandal uncovered important aspects of Russia’s vulnerability in the global sports milieu, yet so far, it has remained almost unnoticed in the literature on mega sports events in Russia. Our analysis is premised on the convergence of two types and techniques of control and regulation: anatomopolitics, which presupposes, in Michel Foucault’s interpretation of the term, measures of control over individual bodies, and biopolitics, which refers to policy practices that target and concern the entire population. Their conflation in the Russian context results in a controversial effect: it strengthens relations of hegemony yet also exposes the sovereign power to the regulations of global sports organizations.

It has been suggested that diseases linked to mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) might be circumvented by transferring the nucleus from the egg of a woman with a mitochondrial disease to a donor egg from which the nucleus has been removed and discarded. Egg cell nuclear transfer would be a straightforward technique for preventing serious diseases, relying on a procedure used in embryo or somatic cell cloning. It might present a relatively uncontentious setting for the refinement of cloning procedures. Its proposal creates the opportunity to identify categories of germ-line interventions; explore whether ethical issues vary according to the category of germ-line intervention; and craft more precise policy guidelines in which graduated levels of germ-line interventions are recognized.