This article outlines the proliferation threats of pathogen collections from the former Soviet biological weapons (BW) program and the inherent difficulties in safeguarding sensitive biological materials. It describes new U.S. government efforts to improve security conditions of these collections through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Finally, the article analyzes these U.S. programs and offers additional policy recommendations to reduce the proliferation threat from these dangerous pathogens.

In Born to Rebel (1996), Frank Sulloway proposed that laterborns are more rebellious than firstborns. In the context of Sulloway's theory, this article examines the difficulties of defining and measuring rebelliousness. Rebellious acts (such as attempting to overthrow a government) are one measure of rebelliousness. Using this measure, an analysis of six of Sulloway's samples undermines the theory. As a second measure of rebelliousness, Sulloway relies on the personality traits of his subjects. Many of the rebellious traits he selected, however, appear unrelated to rebellious behavior. A reexamination of 28 scientific revolutions Sulloway analyzed reveals other weaknesses. Finally, Born to Rebel contains a meta-analysis of the birth order literature. The application of two methodologies to the reconstructed data is discussed. Neither methodology appears to replicate the results in Born to Rebel. The conclusion is that Sulloway's claims for birth order effects should be rejected.

In my comments on Townsend's detailed critique of Sulloway's (1996) book, I want to make two general points about birth order research. The first is that several authors—including Ernst and Angst (1983), who are extensively quoted by Townsend—have concluded that the effects of birth order on adult personality and behavior are either completely nonexistent or else so negligible as to be useless to science. I agree that the methodology of birth order studies is often flawed, and that many, if not most, of their findings are probably irreproducible. However, an assertion that birth order has no effect on adult behavior would be as extreme in its way as the assertion that birth order's effect on behavior is decisive. My own research demonstrates that a categorical dismissal of any and all birth order effects is not only premature but demonstrably erroneous.

We model mates' interdependent parental investment decisions as a game of Chicken. An individual is better off (in terms of reproductive success) deserting one's offspring to start a new union if one's mate stays to raise the offspring, but better off not deserting if one's mate would in turn desert the offspring. Modelling the parental investment decisions as a game of Chicken leads to four hypotheses: An individual is more likely to desert if (1) the mate is more committed to the offspring, (2) the mate has more resources to invest in children, (3) the former mate is currently unmarried, and (4) the children are older (in sharp contrast to the prediction by both Trivers [1972] and Dawkins and Carlisle [1976]). Data from the 1992 U.S. Current Population Survey provide at least partial support for all hypotheses except Hypothesis 2. In particular, the data analysis strongly supports our prediction that individuals are more likely to desert older children than younger children even when time since separation is controlled for, and rejects the earlier prediction by Trivers (1972) and Dawkins and Carlisle (1976).

Iam surprised and glad that our book, Birth Order (Ernst and Angst), which appeared in 1983, is still quoted in a controversial discussion. We wrote the book with little support and even less sophistication. By the vote-counting method, the result was unequivocal: birth order did not appear as an environmental factor with predictable effects on personality or psychiatric disorder. When the book was written, we were unable to use meta-analysis. If someone found it worthwhile and possible to reanalyze by meta-analysis the studies mentioned in our book or published later, the result of this effort could determine the value of doing any further research.

Toward what kind of future is humankind now tending? Is human society engaged in a global gamble based on the assumption that technology, aided by human ingenuity and creativity, can remake the world and manage its resources for immediate material benefit to humanity without regard to natural law and the fate of other species? Infinite substitutability of species has been tested over evolutionary time, but infinite substitutability of resources is a relatively recent hypothesis based on a faith in human creativity and technological prowess. The choice made will affect both the future of human society and of many other species.

Developments in assisted human reproduction (AHR) have aroused considerable debate and interest around the world, with most governments accepting that they are matters of public policy. This politicization of AHR is explored in the context of a consideration of the oft-used term “the best interests of the child.” This “rallying call” is frequently cited as the primary concern in the determination of policy. This article is based on the contention that it is important to examine the interplay between the three main groups directly influencing “best interest” outcomes for AHR offspring. These groups are the professionals, the parents, and the state. It seeks to examine how this high-sounding and well-meaning commitment is addressed, advanced, or ignored in the interplay of these groups.

What struck me most forcefully in Townsend's critique (this issue) was a pattern he observed: A large preponderance of the changes he documented in Sulloway's numeric or graphic descriptions of data resulted in improvements. The later data point was almost always a better fit to Sulloway's predictions than the earlier one. Townsend suggested that further analysis would be appropriate, which made me wonder why he stopped where he did, without doing any statistical tests on his findings. A possible next step would be to calculate the likelihood that the observed proportion of changes in the confirming direction occurred by chance alone.

Although I am intrigued by the recent efforts of several researchers who have taken issue with Sulloway's (1996) work on birth order, I experience some hesitancy to comment for a number of reasons. Birth order research has historically come up with contradictory findings (Nyman, 1995). In the main, I suspect that the apparent inconsistencies will be resolved not through commentary but with keener measuring tools, better experimental controls, and with the patience and energy to define each research condition so as to enable accurate replication. It is also not an easy assignment to critique the work of scientists whom I admire, especially when their inferences seem to be at odds. With this said, I shall attempt to deal with design issues inherent in birth order research in an effort to illustrate some of the factors that enter into the contradictory findings reported in the literature.

This article examines several trends that have combined to veil the new field of biotechnology in secrecy: the transformation of biotechnology from an essentially academic field characterized by strong norms of openness to a field with extensive corporate connections that have reached even to research in leading universities; the establishment of intellectual property rights for life-forms initiated by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Diamond vs. Chakrabarty; and the limiting of public access to information about the genetically altered organisms whose use in agriculture, industry, and medicine falls under government controls. The article also examines the effects of the U.S. biotechnology industry's demand for secrecy on the negotiations for a protocol to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, particularly the turn from requirements for transparency to protection of opacity with respect to biotechnology and other biological processes, equipment, and production.

Finding ourselves in general accord with the thrust of Frederic Townsend's meticulous and unsparing critique (this issue) of Frank Sulloway's Born to Rebel (1996), we devote this commentary to an amplification of some of Townsend's points.

It is often argued that ethnic conflict is an extreme example of nepotism, and is genetically based. This may be so: in the EEA (the environment of evolutionary adaptedness), such conflict may have been fitness improving, and we may be descended from those who participated successfully in such conflicts. This would provide us with a “taste” for xenophobia. But this taste can be overcome relatively easily, as shown by the changes in behavior in the United States in the 50 years since racial segregation was outlawed. Moreover, in today's world, such conflict does not provide benefits. There are several reasons for this, but the most important (and one that is often overlooked, even by evolutionists) is the possibility of gains from trade in exchanges between ethnic groups. While ethnic relations in the EEA may have approximated a zero-sum game, today a prisoner's dilemma is a more appropriate model for interactions, so that there are significant gains from cooperation. If we want to reduce the amount of conflict in the world, it is probably better to rely on increasing gains from trade than on increased size of in-groups, since the latter strategy will reach a natural limit.

Patterns of discretion and disclosure of fertility-related information among Israeli recipients of donor insemination (DI) are explored. Based on questionnaires completed by recipients in four sperm banks, we studied differences between married women and men. We found that most Israeli recipients conceal the treatment from their friends and relatives. Women and men, however, differ in their disclosure patterns: women are somewhat more open about the general fertility problem, but conceal the male factor; men are more discreet. However, men who disclose the fertility problem also tell about their own impairment. DI appears to be the most secretive issue in this context. Recipients who confided in anyone about their problem restricted it mostly to family relatives. The results are interpreted in terms of Israeli pronatalism, traditional concepts of the natural family, as well as elements of macho culture. Public education is highly recommended in order to open and “normalize” DI in Israel.

Born to Rebel (Sulloway, 1996) embeds a theory of birth order within an evolutionary perspective that gives a refreshing new twist to theorizing about family structure. Most past birth order “theorizing” is of the type that both begins and ends with “Isn't it interesting that….” In Rodgers and Thompson (1985/86), we documented birth order research on presidents and strippers, artists and assassins, hockey players and cigarette smokers; even the birth order of birth order researchers has been investigated. Sulloway (1996), in contrast, provided explicit mechanisms to explain why he believes that birth order plays an important role in revolutionary behavior. The mechanisms derive from sophisticated thinking about both evolution and family dynamics.

Frank Sulloway (1996) has stirred up great debate with his thesis that birth order explains and predicts people's proclivity to rebel. Scientists, scholars, business writers, and the broad reading and talk-television public alike all have weighed in to discuss the value and veridicality of Sulloway's thesis. Though many think he may be on to something, certain voices—Frederic Townsend's included—argue that his opus is simply bunk.

This article reviews the regulation of the new agricultural-environmental biotechnology and recent changes in the regulatory framework in the United States. Regulations put in place in the mid-1980s were established due to concern over potential risks posed by products not yet released into the environment. Now that over a thousand small-scale field trials have been carried out and various new agricultural-environmental biotechnology products have been in farmers' fields for the past several years, questions are being raised about the current regulatory system by both proponents, who want greater deregulation due to the relative absence of ecological harm, and opponents, who warn against potential environmental catastrophe due to greater variety and amount of new agricultural-environmental products being released. Therefore, we focus on triggers for regulation, which appear to hinge on the “naturalness” of a product, and trends in field release of these products.

At the outset I should admit that I am more positively disposed toward Sulloway's (1996) magnum opus than is the author of the target article (see Simonton, 1997). My positive disposition stems from three sources—substantive, theoretical, and methodological. Concerning the first source, I am more receptive to the notion that birth order may bear some relation to various forms of exceptional achievement. Galton (1874) was the first behavioral scientist to report such an empirical linkage, and his findings have been replicated and extended many times (Simonton, 1994). Indeed, I am among those who have discovered some of the relationships.

Mental health textbooks sometimes provide inaccurate information, typically supporting common beliefs in the field. Psychiatry and psychology textbooks' discussion of the schizophrenia adoption studies is examined. Particular attention is paid to the earlier studies, which helped pave the way for the current widespread acceptance of the importance of genetic factors influencing psychological trait differences. This article compares the accounts of 30 textbooks to the original studies they reviewed. Generally, problems with these textbooks' accounts include (1) the failure to critically assess the original researchers' methods and conclusions, (2) some textbooks' reliance on secondary sources, (3) the failure to discuss published critiques of the schizophrenia adoption studies, (4) inaccuracy in reporting the original findings, (5) the claim that studies finding nonsignificant results support the genetic position, and (6) a failure to discuss the potentially invalidating environmental confounds in the schizophrenia adoption studies (through the selective placement of adoptees). It is concluded that, in general, these textbooks have served to rubber-stamp mainstream psychiatry's questionable claims about the schizophrenia adoption studies at the expense of a thorough critical analysis.

In accordance with the principle of full disclosure, we believe we should inform the reader about several matters. First, as associate book review editors of the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, we recommended for publication (but did not commission) a review by Frederic Townsend of Born to Rebel (Townsend, 1997). That recommendation was accepted, and the review appeared in the journal's Volume 2, Issue 2 in 1997.

The history of Margaret Mead's Samoan research is an important anthropological issue. In 1925, Franz Boas, “the father of American anthropology,” faced by what he called “the difficulty of telling what part of our behavior is socially determined and what is generally human,” arranged for his 23-year-old-student, Margaret Mead, to go to Samoa in Western Polynesia. Her task was to obtain, under his direction, an answer to “the problem of which phenomena of adolescence are culturally and which physiologically determined.” In 1928, in Coming of Age in Samoa, after a woefully inadequate period of fieldwork, Mead concluded, unreservedly, that the phenomena of adolescence are due not to physiology, but to “the social environment.”