Lundin, Rosenberg, and Woodall all comment, rightly, that a program of global epidemiological surveillance should be justified first on the basis of its benefits to global public health, and only secondarily on the basis of its contribution to weapons control. I agree, but I present my proposal in the context of weapons control because it is in that context that I became convinced of the necessity of such a program. My intent was to determine how one would recognize, and thereby deter, the clandestine use of biological agents (which I believe to be the most likely form of use). This analysis led to the conclusion that a global program of epidemiological surveillance is essential for biological weapons control.

Broadly defined, political activity normally involves some form of coalition, usually centering upon resource acquisition, and is not restricted to humans. Male and female mammals appear to have evolved to seek and use resources differently—males to get mates (mating effort) and females to raise healthy, successful offspring (parental effort). Because the return curves for these two types of effort differ in shape, several predictions follow about sex differences in political activity. These predictions are tested using the 93 odd-numbered societies of the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Results offer insights into current patterns of male and female political activity in Western societies.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS short note is to update readers on recent developments in, and political implications of, genetic engineering, a critical tool in the expanding field of biotechnology. Based on new understanding of the mechanisms of DNA, molecular biologists are now able to chemically cut genes or sets of genes from one organism and splice them into the DNA of another. This is called recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology. Although these techniques were first applied to bacteria and yeasts, in the last decade researchers have made remarkable strides in putting foreign genes into more complex plants and animals.

This article examines the recent political-cumepistemological criticism of reductionism in fields such as sociobiology, behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, and IQ research. It identifies and challenges some unexamined assumptions underlying current “anti-reductionist” reasoning, especially the belief that there are inherent links between political motivations and scientific convictions, between “bad” science and undesirable political consequences, and between methodological and ontological reductionism. The author analyzes the conflict in scientific world views between anti-reductionist “weeders” and reductionist “planters.” Paradoxically, in their criticism of research strategies routinely used by alleged reductionists, anti-reductionists often sound like arch-reductionists themselves. The author argues that the various linked beliefs in anti-reductionist reasoning should be uncoupled, not only for intellectual, but also for political reasons.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling in the Johnson Controls case that fetal protection policies that exclude women from workplaces deemed hazardous to the fetus are in clear violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment, the issue of fetal health remains on the policy agenda. This article summarizes the rationale behind fetal protection policies and the current scientific evidence over workplace hazards. It also discusses the disparate court response to these policies before Johnson Controls and the confusing regulatory framework. Finally, it makes a case for including consideration of the paternal contribution to fetal injury in the workplace and calls for a balanced approach to accommodate both women's rights to employment and society's interest in healthy children.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 bans the development and possession of biological and toxin weapons. Yet the threat that a country may acquire and use biological and toxin weapons (BTW) persists—not all nations are party to the treaty, and doubts remain about the compliance of countries who are. Seventy of the 118 nations who are parties to the treaty met in Geneva from September 9 to 27, 1991, to review the performance of the treaty and to grapple with its weaknesses. This was the third such conference convened since the treaty went into force in 1975. The relatively low level of participation in the Third Review Conference was not the result of any protest, but most likely a reflection of disinterest or neglect.

In order to honor Tom Wiegele on the occasion of his retirement, we planned to carry in this issue a profile of his career and his contributions to our field. As the journal's founding editor and the association's founding executive director, Tom's extraordinary accomplishments deserved to be publicly applauded. We are all greatly saddened that Tom's sudden death from an aneurysm on August 9, 1991, just two days after a retirement celebration, has converted our profile into a tribute in memoriam. We share with Tom's family, his friends, his students, and his other colleagues our sorrow and our sense of loss over his premature passing.

This article recommends establishment of an international Vaccines for Peace (VFP) program to undertake research on and production of vaccines against pathogens (and possibly toxins) that pose natural health threats and that are also putative biological (and toxin) weapons. Vaccines for Peace is designed to contribute to health care in developing countries, enhance international cooperation in biotechnology, and reduce the danger of weapons proliferation. Vaccine development would be carried out openly and would involve scientists from developing countries that are States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as personnel and facilities from the former Soviet Union. The program would thus help convert biological defense personnel and facilities to peaceful purposes. The program would be administered by the World Health Organization.

Tom Wiegele was a class act. Tall, white-haired, distinguished, thoughtful, and, above all, principled, he appeared too good to be true. Tom exemplified that precious and, it sometimes seems, increasingly rare combination, a gentleman and a scholar.

Will the Human Genome Project'S (HGP) social policy research program function as an “enhancer” and “promoter” for the entire “sequence,” or will it result in missense and nonsense mutations? The jury, of course, is still out, but we believe it is more properly viewed as a key promoter that is integral to the proper functioning of the HGP itself.

Tom Wiegele will be sorely missed by all who knew him. No single person had more influence on my career than Tom. My first contact with him came in 1979 when he telephoned me to express his interest in my work in genetic technology and to invite me to serve as a discussant on a panel he was chairing. His sincere interest in my work was most welcome at that point and hastened my transition to biopolitical research.

“The Parties to This Treaty…are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense,” and to a fairly large extent, the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have done just that for nearly 50 years. “During fights, individuals compare the strength of their own group with that of the opponent. When they perceive that group members locally outnumber opponents, they behave aggressively, recruiting to the battle and cooperating” (Adams, 1990:326). This second quote is not an account of the behavior of NATO soldiers; it is a description of boundary disputes between colonies of a territorial ant, altered only to remove references to ants.

In the Late 1960s and early 1970s, a revolution occurred in evolutionary biology when several investigators, including most notably W. D. Hamilton, R. L. Trivers, and G. C. Williams, began to apply Darwin's theory of natural selection to the social behavior of animals. This new approach to behavior, which came to be known as “sociobiology” after the title of E. O. Wilson's influential 1975 book, was rapidly applied to human, as well as nonhuman, animal behavior. These applications often represented a serious challenge to the theories of the social and behavioral sciences, many of which rested on the assumption that behavior could be profitably analyzed in terms of its effects on the group or species. Sociobiologists, in contrast, argued that an adequate understanding of animal, including human, societies can be gained only by viewing selection as operating at the level of the individual (and sometimes at the level of the gene) rather than at the group level. The resultant controversies continue to this day, and sociobiological approaches to human behavior have had an important impact on anthropology, psychology, and other behavioral sciences, including political science.

Among the founders of our interdisciplinary field of inquiry, Tom Wiegele was preeminent. He was the catalyst in drawing together in a collegial association the many of us who, from different backgrounds, had come to see the unfolding social implications of advances in the life sciences for both public policy and the study of politics. He possessed a combination of leadership skills in both concepts and organization that is rarely found in academia.

The manufacturing industry that has driven much of Maryland's economic progress is regressing. Financial service firms are in decline. Real estate, once a producer of wealth, is in a slump and is unlikely to return to its former grandeur. The governor and legislators are trying to fix the state's billion dollar budget deficit. In this otherwise gloomy situation, the success of the state's life science development strategy stands out. Maryland is the home of 53 dedicated biotechnology firms, more than all other states except California and Massachusetts. State economic development officials estimate that biotechnology-related jobs in the state will grow from 4,000 to more that 70,000 in the next ten years.

Tom Wiegele had a very special influence on my life, as he did on the lives of many. He was first my teacher, then my mentor, my colleague, and, most importantly, my friend. It was easy to be infected by Tom's enthusiasm for his work. Although trained in traditional international relations theory, Tom was convinced that all politics, including international relations, is fundamentally the behavior of human beings. The more one understands about humans as humans, the better one's explanations of political behavior will be.

I first met Tom Wiegele sometime in the early 1970s. Our chats about kindred interests became increasingly frequent thereafter, whether they occurred at professional meetings, by phone, or by letter. By 1976, when we spent some time together at the IPSA Congress in Edinburgh, I had become greatly impressed with his talents and dedication as a scholar, and with his commitment to promoting biopolitical study.

A conference titled “The Biology of Morality: A Multidisciplinary Dialogue” was held at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 13 and 14, 1992. Organizers James Hurd (anthropology) and Carole Young (psychology) focused the conference around the question, “Are adaptation and natural selection sufficient explanations for the rise of morality and moral systems, or must we seek explanation beyond the natural sciences?” The presenters came from a variety of fields, including biology, theology, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology.

Although the author is now with the World Bank, he was a research fellow at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, when conducting research for this book. He focuses on the Wollo region of Ethiopia, where, as he describes it, “to Wollo peasants, famine is as familiar as their villages” (p. 69). The book is based on surveys given to peasants in the Wollo region in 1987-88, participant observation, and examination of governmental policies. Appendices contain the texts of two questionnaires. One questionnaire was designed to understand the types of environmental degradation, the peasants' reaction to it, and the peasants' strategies in times of famine. The other was given to peasants affected by the government's resettlement scheme and was designed to determine the conditions under which they lived.

Alemneh (the Ethiopian family name) presents a case study documenting the ineffectiveness of governmental policies imposed from above with little consultation with the individuals most affected by the policies. He develops the theme that environmental degradation—and subsequently famine—is shaped by local and national social and political forces. He recommends alternatives throughout the book that, to be effective, must be developed with grassroots peasant participation. The government's role in a long-term solution is “central,” but the peasants must be a part of that decision making. The original survey research is a major strength of the book. Information about the observations and activities of peasants support Alemneh's message that peasant based policies are workable.

During the 1980s, there was substantial growth in biopolitical scholarship and organizational activity. In addition to the many articles and books that were published, the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences was formed, this journal was launched, and a Politics and the Life Sciences Organized Section was established within the American Political Science Association.