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.

Roger Masters promises that efforts to bridge the gap between the social sciences and the life sciences will clarify our concept of human nature. He presents a number of propositions derived from his own work during the past 15 years in order to explore the scientific meaning of human nature, of political thought, and political leadership.

One does not have to be a natural scientist or a science writer to appreciate the possible benefits of biotechnology for the developing countries, but one cannot be a social scientist without being apprehensive about the costs and unforeseen consequences these almost miraculous advances may entail. In the past few decades, it has become obvious that development or modernization is much more complex and harder to achieve than was often supposed when decolonization inspired hope that economic growth could be achieved rapidly, and that with it would come social as well as material progress. In most, though not all, of the developing countries, sustained and balanced economic growth has so far not been attained, for reasons that include inability to control population growth, poor climate and soil conditions, inadequate energy resources, and—no less important—the difficulty of transforming and adapting traditional cultural values and social structures. These deeply entrenched social conditions often frustrate efforts of reform, whether they are aimed at increasing average per capita income or at assuring fair distribution of the benefits of economic growth.

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.