This article integrates theory and data culled from two largely unrelated subdisciplines—biopolitics and constitutional politics—to provide a “bioconstitutional” overview of power relationships among Homo sapiens. That overview features three aspects of constitutional configuration: (1) the biopsychological, evidence of which is drawn chiefly from neuroscience, primatology, biochemistry, and championship chess play; (2) the biosocial, evidence of which is drawn chiefly from gene-culture coevolutionary analysis, anthropology, social psychology, jurisprudence, and political science; (3) the biopolicy aspect, evidence of which is drawn exclusively from the American scene, most particularly Supreme Court decision making involving reproductive choice and governmental constraints on gene-cloning. Constitutionalism is conceived as a thought-action field theory, whose values are not only dynamic and functional, but also both politically influential and subject to political influence. Bioconstitutionalism supplies the requisite life science context for these patterns, and itself presents notable feedback features as humans acquire greater capacity to order their adaptive strategies through biological intervention programs.

Biopolitics should be offered as a separate, independent course in the undergraduate curriculum, and graduate training should be offered within the rubric of political science. The primary reason that biopolitical materials should be covered in the undergraduate, liberal arts curriculum is that there is a need to train students to be vigilant, i.e., to have a critical capacity to confront ideas. Since so much of their lives will be intertwined with the political and so much of the political is better explained by considering biopolitical variables than by not considering them, students need exposure and academic coverage of biopolitical concepts and findings. Biopolitics represents only minor change in the general behavioralistic framework of explaining political phenomena, but represents the introduction into political science of some concepts and variables more widely used in the life sciences. Because biopolitical materials are high in quantity and because they are per se important and increase the explanatory power of traditional behavioralism, a biopolitics course belongs in the political science curriculum. The preparation of qualified teachers and researchers argues for graduate training in biopolitics. Without such graduate training in political science departments, the biopolitical inquiry will primarily be undertaken in disciplines other than political science.

Biopolitics must be taught in a context that makes it possible for students to acquire competence in at least evolutionary biology, genetics (with the proper molecular biology perspective), biological anthropology, neurobiology, and the evolution of behavior. A more modest beginning may be necessary, however, and actually has been pursued at various institutions.

Although a systematic study of experiences in teaching biopolitics has not been prepared, various impressions have been obtained. In spite of some seemingly discouraging situations with respect to biopolitics, expectations that a biobehavioral perspective ultimately will be the principal and pervasive frame of reference for a proper study of political processes and institutions are justified.

In recent years many scholars in political science have begun to employ the data of the life sciences in their studies. The emerging field of biopolitics is now an identifiable scholarly pursuit. The question now arises as to how that pursuit can and should be taught.

This article describes several courses which I have offered in the past few years in which I have attempted to integrate political philosophy and biopolitics. Course content, along with student and peer reaction are discussed, as are the advantages and disadvantages of interdisciplinary collaboration. This approach is rejected in favor of a design which would begin with a departmental core of courses which would then provide a base for inter-institutional collaboration among students and faculty.

Biopolitics can be taught as a curriculum, a “free standing course,” or as a component of mainstream political science courses. This essay contends that the free standing course is the most difficult of the three to do well. The problem lies in how to organize such a course. To introduce students to (a) biology, (b) politics, and (c) the union of the two, is asking a great deal of one course.

When I was invited to participate in a symposium designed to consider the possible implications of the theory of punctuated equilibria for the study of political science, I faced the need to reexamine some fundamental questions. These transcended such issues as whether and how frequently the phenomenon referred to as punctuated equilibrium occurred, and whether it might indeed be similar to some phenomena studied by political scientists. Rather, I felt it necessary to establish for myself whether, when, and how any biologically based theory or set of hypotheses could be applied to the realm of the social sciences and what cautions might be demanded by such application.

Curriculum change in colleges and universities depends in some situations on issues other than the substance or content of the proposed changes.

If introduction of courses such as those which incorporate the literature of biopolitics take the interdisciplinary form, the innovator must develop appropriate political strategies and tactics. The particular politics so developed must identify critical environmental constraints, including departmental jurisdiction, the prevailing reward structure within the institution, and relative importance of the formal and informal governance procedures.

Most critical in certain relatively small and not particularly “bureaucratized” institutions are the attitude of the institution's president toward academic innovation and the degree of threat posed by the new course to the traditional turf of relevant departments. If presidential and vice presidential support for academic innovation are widely perceived and if departmental concerns are satisfied, much latitude for the persistent academic politician exists.

It is entirely possible that a politics which understands and accepts the institution's formal and informal governance procedures is more critical than the content of proposed courses even when the course content is biopolitics.

Teaching about the biological perspective on human behavior offers numerous benefits to the instructor. Students, however, are often plagued by numerous common misconceptions concerning genetic influences on behavior, political implications of sociobiology, and evolved sex differences. These are discussed in that order. Lastly, some books are recommended as texts and references.

This article pursues two goals. It sets forth a framework for incorporating life sciences materials into introductory or advanced courses in international relations. It also presents a format for processing these materials in the classroom. In pursuit of these aims, the article addresses problems commonly encountered when initially undertaking a more balanced biopolitical approach to international relations, and sets forth proposals designed to treat these problems.

By combining one-half of a regular genetics course with a special half describing the use of genetics in legal decisions, a new course, “Genetics and the Law,” has been offered at Union College for the past few years. The course stresses the interface between strictly genetic discoveries and their use in all fields of law as a basis for judicial actions. The course, open to all except biology majors and premedical or predental students, serves as part of Union College's “Liberal Learning Program,” and as one of the two courses, among many, serving as science credits needed for graduation. The special conditions under which this course is possible, as well as the methods of teaching and the problems encountered both in attracting students and in designing a comparable course are presented.

This article considers the ways in which teachers of public administration can address biopolitical issues within an established professional curriculum. The author distinguishes between the teleological and instrumental aspects of a belief system, holding that biobehavioral explanation can be pedagogically useful and can provide public administrators with a model for assessing and responding to workplace phenomena. The article proposes that undergraduate and graduate teaching impose different standards on an instructor seeking to introduce biobehavioral and biostructural concepts. The different standards arise out of the explicit and focused career instrumentality of graduate study in public administration, as well as age graded differences in receptivity to particular propositions about human nature. Finally, this article details some ways in which biobehavioral explanation can be introduced in organizational behavior classes and in classes that consider the structure of public organizations and their decision-making processes.