To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Students of biopolitics and others are concerned with the relevance and contribution of this emergent subfield to the traditional or “normal” problems of more established areas in the discipline of political science (Hines, 1982; Blank, 1982). My article addresses this issue by illustrating how ethological methods of inquiry can be applied in research on collective political decision making in small groups. (Watts, 1981). Rather than presenting a final methodology and set of findings fait accompli, my primary purpose is heuristic and developmental-that is, to contribute to critical discussion, awareness, and application of alternative field research methods in political science.
Janus-like, biotechnology, like other high technologies, presents two sides to society. On the one hand, a benign, even benevolent countenance holds forth the promise of virtually unlimited possibilities for doing good. Yet, if proper care is not taken, this same technology can present a specter of chthonic forces, difficult to contain.
This essay represents a continuing update of the biopolitics bibliography (see Somit et aI., 1980; Peterson et al., 1982). We have recorded 93 items in our enumeration of biopolitical works which appeared in 1982. In this total are 1 book, 3 master's theses or doctoral dissertations, 30 published articles, monographs, or chapters in books, 49 conference papers, and 10 short commentaries (book reviews are not included in our tally).