Founded in 1980, the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) sought to establish biopolitics as a recognized field and to integrate biologically based research methods into mainstream political science. The association's founders established these goals to encourage a generation of scholars and promote the spread of biopolitical knowledge. There was early success when the American Political Science Association (APSA) recognized biopolitics as an organized section. However, this development did not leave an appreciable imprint on the political science profession and the experiment conjoining the two did not last long. The other goal of the founders, to integrate biologically based research methods into mainstream political science, faced more formidable obstacles and still faces challenges, though not without some progress.

Few intellectual battles compare in depth of passion or theatrics to the outrage that greeted the publication of Edward O. Wilson's 1975 path-breaking volume, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Within days of publication, opponents organized symposia; wrote critical editorials; picketed in Harvard Square; and, at one meeting, assaulted Wilson with a bucket of cold water before he could deliver his address. Fueling this reaction was Wilson's temerity in asserting that the principles of the new synthetic theory applied no less to humans than to other species—and then to use the penultimate chapter to apply his theory to explaining human mating, aggression, and the development of moral and religious systems. Even some who were sympathetic with sociobiology were taken aback by some of the imperialistic sounding statements made by Wilson and his disciples, like Robert Trivers, who prophesized: “Sooner or later, political science, law, economics, psychology, psychiatry, and anthropology will all be branches of sociobiology.”

“Founders” of new scholarly ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are people who advocate for such ideas before wider scholarly audiences accept them or even know they exist. Such scholars have an uphill battle. They must persuade journal and book editors to publish their work. Those gatekeepers depend on reviewers with established reputations in conventional terms, and these reviewers generally oppose anything that threatens their comfortable intellectual lives. If the idea is as stunningly simple as Darwin's natural selection theory, an innovator might have a somewhat easier time; Thomas Huxley reportedly remarked upon reading On the Origin of Species, “How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that.” But with conceptually and methodologically broad ideas, such as the application of biologically based psychological thinking to a traditional set of disciplinary problems, it can be tough to even get a foot in the door.

This essay reflects on the past, present, and future of biopolitics, starting with the academic interest in the link between biology and politics. Examples of primitive adumbrations of this approach appear throughout academic history; however, the modern roots of biology and politics began in the 1960s. This reflection traces biopolitics from its modern birth through the 1990s, and considers future research endeavors related to biology and politics.

Although there may be some disagreement about the exact date, I think it safe to say that the biopolitics movement was launched in the 1960s. Now, a half century later, it may be appropriate to pose the rather obvious, if somewhat delicate, question: What has biopolitics contributed to political science? Here, I will try to persuade you that a biopolitical approach may have yielded answers to a couple of the most debated issues in political philosophy—one, the granddady of them all, is “What is the nature of political man?” The other, much more recent, but steadily increasing in importance, is “Why are democracies so rare and so fragile?”

These reflections attempt to revive the IMPPISH perspective; otherwise known as the interaction, mentalist, populational, process, intelligence, self selection, and hypertrophy approach. Despite the clever acronym, the IMPPISH perspective struggles to stay on life support. This essay takes a fresh look at the IMPPISH approach, and breaks down each tenet into three parts: its theoretical proposition, relevance to the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, and research implications for biopolitics.

To his colleagues and the generations of students who had the privilege of knowing him, Jim Schubert was an inventive scholar, dedicated teacher, and tireless mentor. An innovative political scientist, Jim was skilled at incorporating the latest technologies and methods into his research. Engaging and creative as a teacher and mentor, Jim, according to a student and collaborator, “was maybe the kindest, smartest man you could ever meet.” Jim's pioneering work in the field of biopolitics reflect these qualities—he was truly “one of a kind.” As a scholar of biopolitics, Jim left behind a legacy that reflects what Gary Johnson, former editor of Politics and the Life Sciences, describes as the mission of both the journal and the association: “to advance knowledge of politics and promote better policymaking through multidisciplinary analysis that draws on the life sciences.”

Scholars, scientists, and policymakers converged last fall at the annual meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) held on the Indiana University campus in Bloomington from October 14–16, 2010. Founded in 1980, the association uniquely merges evolutionary, genetic, and ecological knowledge with the study of political behavior, public policy, and ethics. This year's annual meeting celebrated the diversity of scholarship embodied by the association with the theme, “Toward Consilience: Thirty Years of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences.”