While the country may not have recognized the impact of political scientists on the 1980 major party presidential conventions, we were indeed there. At least 19 known political scientists were among the 5381 Democratic delegates and alternates in New York City in August, and one known political scientist was among the 3988 Republican delegates and alternates in Detroit in July.

These relatively rare birds who combine the study and teaching of politics with the doing were asked by PS to write short essays on their observations of the delegate selection processes and of the conventions themselves. In addition, two staff participants, John F. Bibby, a veteran of five Republican conventions, and Elaine C. Kamarck, self-styled “hackademic” who served as Executive Director of the 1980 Democratic Platform Committee, have contributed thoughtful comments on their perspectives. Finally, Byron E. Shafer, political scientist practicing his profession, is the only one of our contributors to have observed both 1980 conventions.

By now most of you are aware of the severe cuts in federal funding for the social and behavioral sciences and for the humanities proposed by the Reagan Administration.

At the National Science Foundation, while support for the natural sciences is slated to increase, the proposed budget for the social and economic sciences calls for a 65 percent reduction.

At the National Institute of Mental Health (ADAMHA), the Administration proposes to eliminate all social research, which is expected to include research on the family, socialization of children, effects of separation and divorce, evaluation of prevention efforts with children, effects of mass media on behavior of children. In addition, the definition probably will include social policy research, research on race and ethnic relations, studies of community structure and change and studies of social institutions.

I must admit that, after more than a decade of teaching and researching political parties, I found being selected to and participating in the 1980 Democratic National Convention an exhiliarating experience.

The Alabama delegate-selection process was a very competitive primary with extensive activity by the Carter and Kennedy organizations and by the individual delegate candidates. In varying degrees, the delegate candidates stumped their constituencies with personal appearances, letters, rallies, sample ballots, newspaper ads, group endorsements, and assorted other campaign gimmicks.

The selection process consisted primarily of a statewide primary (1) to allocate Alabama's delegates and alternate delegates among the presidential candidates, and (2) to elect the members of that delegation. Over 500 candidates ran for the 45 delegate and 32 alternate delegate positions in that primary. The primary actually was conducted by congressional district, with 33 candidates running for four delegate and three alternate delegate positions in my CD. The ballot was structured by sex (females listed first) and the voter was instructed to vote for up to four females and up to four males. Delegates were allocated to presidential candidates according to a formula which was roughly proportional; and individual delegates were selected by an equally fair but more complex formula.

The Battelle Memorial Institute, which began operations in 1929 at its corporate site in Columbus, Ohio, is the largest multinational, public purpose, not-for-profit research organization in the world. Its 7,500 natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, and support personnel are engaged in a broad range of research which embraces the physical, life, and social/behavioral sciences. Battelle operates major research centers in Columbus, Ohio; Frankfurt, Germany; Geneva, Switzerland; and Richland and Seattle, Washington. Battelle's research volume in 1980 was $811 million, which included projects in 75 countries throughout the world. A major objective of Battelle is to benefit mankind by the advancement and utilization of science through technological innovation and educational activities and dissemination of knowledge through publications.

Until the late 1960s, Battelle was known primarily for its research in the physical and life sciences (including the basic research and development of xerography in the mid-1940s). In 1971 the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers (HARC) was created to do basic and applied research in the social and behavioral sciences. HARC is a multidisciplinary social science organization that conducts research and educational activities directed toward the solution of significant societal problems. Its staff of over 1 50, which is located in Seattle and Washington, D.C. and includes political scientists, policy analysts, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists, international affairs and defense specialists, urban planners, and statisticians, is one of the largest non-academic groups of social scientists in the United States.

My experiences as a delegate to the 1980 Republican National Convention seem to reflect the role of party professional more than that of political amateur. The professional seeks party unity, supports the nominee despite disagreements on issues, and works for the party year after year, win or lose, whether or not he likes the current candidates or some issue stands of the party (Soule and McGrath, 1975).

Having been active in the Republican Party for 12 years, including service on the state committee, as chairman of the Second Congressional District Committee, and currently as chairman of the State Platform Committee, I presumably qualified as a professional in terms of length and character of involvement (Roback, 1975). Furthermore, this service provided the wide recognition within the party that has traditionally been important for selection as national delegate by the Maine State or Congressional District Conventions.

If politics are based on the need, in any collectivity, to allocate scarce resources, then there should long ago have been a lively politics of social science information—but there has not been. However, political inaction can be attributed not only to non-scarcity, but also to the failure—for whatever reason—of affected persons to take action in their own interest.

The fact that scarcities do plague the field of social science information—especially at the international level—will be apparent if one reflects on the following facts:

• there is a growing output of social science research around the world, and much of it is carried out by scholars whose graduate education was completed at American universities;

• in more and more countries there is an increasing output of primary data—news, survey returns, census data, trade statistics, government documents, plans, maps, archeological findings—that can be used very fruitfully by social scientists in their research;

• the capacity of American researchers to secure support for research overseas, for field trips, for attendance at international conferences, and for the acquisition of foreign data has radically dwindled;

During the early 1960s, political scientists were afforded an opportunity to serve as participant-observers at both national party conventions under the convention fellowship program of the old National Center for Education in Politics (NCEP). With NCEP sponsorship, political scientists attached themselves to state delegations, convention committees and candidate organizations to observe at first hand the work of the conventions. A significant segment of our knowledge of conventions was derived from the writing of these NCEP fellows (see, for example, Paul Tillet, editor, Inside Politics: The National Party Conventions, 1960, which was cited frequently in the early editions of such standard texts as Polsby and Wildavsky's Presidential Elections. The NCEP fellows' work also provided a basis for more sophisticated research. Although the NCEP has lapsed, its national convention and national committee fellowship programs resulted in continuing participation by political scientists at Republican national conventions.

Involvement at the staff level in Republican conventions by political scientists has been most extensive in the work of the Committee on Resolutions (Platform). Arthur L. Peterson, formerly of Ohio Wesleyan University and now Dean at Eckard College, was a key staff member (Executive Director in 1964, 1968, 1972) of the Platform Committees between 1960 and 1976.

At the 1980 APSA meeting in Washington, a group of approximately 25 political scientists and others, out of a much larger network of contributors and sympathizers, agreed to form an Association for Politics and the Life Sciences dedicated to the advancement of an integrated biosocial perspective in our discipline. Although this short article is intended primarily to announce that fact and detail plans for the immediate future, we feel that this might also be an appropriate occasion to review briefly the history and rationale behind this intellectual activity and describe some of the objectives of the Association.

The study of the relationship between biology and politics (sometimes called “biobehavioral political science” and sometimes also “biopolitics”) drew its initial impetus in the latter 1960s and early 1970s from emergent developments in a number of other disciplines, particularly (a) ethology (the naturalistic study of animal behavior and adaptation), (b) psychophysiology (specifically, efforts to correlate various physiological characteristics and “indicators” with various mental and behavioral states), (c) psychobiology (including neurological and endocrine influences on social behavior), (d) behavior genetics (involving both human and non-human animal research), (e) psychopharmacology (especially the chemical manipulation of behavioral states), (f) sociobiology (the application of modern Darwinian theory to the explanation of social behaviors), and (g) ecology (the study of the relationships between organisms and their environments, which gained visibility when the so-called “environmental crisis” erupted).

The Advanced Study Program of the Brookings Institution may be the largest continuing seminar on public policy in the United States, if not the world.

Is the American Constitutional system adequate to the needs of contemporary society?

Is the American system of government dominated by “special interests”?

Do “limits to growth” threaten to bring about increasing conflict among income groups in the United States?

Is the decline in economic productivity a threat to the international security of the United States?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of supply side economics?

What are the implications of the growth of the service economy for the various regions of the United States?

What are the relationships and tradeoffs among energy policy, inflation, environmental objectives, and regulatory policy?

What are the ethical implications of major public policies?

Each year, these and similar questions are explored in the approximately 100 seminars, conferences, and other educational programs conducted by the Advanced Study Program.

Reconciliation was marked by confusion and misunderstanding on Capitol Hill. Still, this unusual procedure permitted the Reagan Administration to have its budget considered and approved as a single package.

In 1974, Congress passed a budget act to assert control over the federal budget and free itself from executive dominance over spending plans. In 1981, that act instead provided the Reagan Administration with a tool to put forth its economic program as a single philosophical package and to restructure basic social legislation to reflect that philosophy. The tool is reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been slowly ripening on the budgetary vine for several years. The combined adroitness of key Administration budgeteer, David Stockman, who went from Michigan congressman to director of the Office of Management and Budget, along with the current economic climate, provided a unique opportunity for the executive branch to use congressional procedures to bypass normal congressional control over the federal budget.

On November 13–14, 1980, the Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation convened in Washington for its 24th annual meeting with the officers and staff of the Department of State concerned with the compilation, release and publication of historical documentation on American foreign relations. As usual, the chief consideration of the Advisory Committee was the problems, progress and prospects of the Foreign Relations of the United States. During the initial, open meeting the Office of the Historian reported on its activities and plans to the Advisory Committee. The principal concerns discussed were (a) the publication schedule of the Foreign Relations series, and (b) the problems confronted in the delivery of central services used by the Office of the Historian. Late in the afternoon the committee members had an opportunity to converse informally with staff members. The morning session on November 14 was closed because of the confidential nature of the material supplied to discuss the problems of de-classification. To assist the members of the committee in preparing themselves for the session, the Office of the Historian had compiled a reading file of documents relating to its activities, containing classified and controlled information which had been made available in the Office of the Historian for examination on the morning of November 13. This session proved to be particularly useful because of the participation of the heads of the three geographic divisions of the Office of the Historian. After lunch that day, the Committee reconvened in the Office of the Historian to hear a brief report on the status of policy-related research. The Committee then met alone to evaluate the year's progress of the Office of the Historian and to discuss the nature of its annual report.

This award, The 1981 National Capital Area Political Science Association Pi Sigma Alpha Award, presented to a political scientist who has made a substantial contribution to strengthen the relationship between political science and public service, appropriately goes to one who has, more than anybody else I know, worked to strengthen the relationship between political science and public service, Evron Kirkpatrick.

Kirk's own career reflects that relationship. He studied political science at the University of Illinois where he earned a B.A. and M.A. and learned all that he knows. Then he went on to Yale in order to bring enlightenment to that area and to teach them what we had taught him at Illinois and for which they so gratefully gave him a Ph.D.

Kirk is a teacher, one of the best. He has taught at Minnesota, Howard, and Georgetown, and he has never stopped teaching throughout his demanding career.

Upon advancement to candidacy in the political science department at the University of California, Berkeley, I joined the staff of the Democratic National Committee as Research Director for the Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. What was to be a short-term job ended up as a three and a half year commitment to the Democratic Party as I became, seriatim, program director for the Midterm Conference, executive director of the commission which established state party compliance with the delegate selection rules, and executive director of the 1980 Platform Committee.

During my first month at the National Committee I had the pleasure of meeting one Mark Siegel, a political scientist with several years of involvement in national politics. One afternoon we were discussing the experiences of academic political scientists turned practitioners. Mark coined a term I have used frequently since then—“hackademic”—or someone who is partially an academic and partially a political hack.