Nutrition during the periconceptional period influences postnatal cardiovascular health. We determined whether in vitro embryo culture and transfer, which are manipulations of the nutritional environment during the periconceptional period, dysregulate postnatal blood pressure and blood pressure regulatory mechanisms. Embryos were either transferred to an intermediate recipient ewe (ET) or cultured in vitro in the absence (IVC) or presence of human serum (IVCHS) and a methyl donor (IVCHS+M) for 6 days. Basal blood pressure was recorded at 19–20 weeks after birth. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were measured before and after varying doses of phenylephrine (PE). mRNA expression of signaling molecules involved in blood pressure regulation was measured in the renal artery. Basal MAP did not differ between groups. Baroreflex sensitivity, set point, and upper plateau were also maintained in all groups after PE stimulation. Adrenergic receptors alpha-1A (αAR1A), alpha-1B (αAR1B), and angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT1R) mRNA expression were not different from controls in the renal artery. These results suggest there is no programmed effect of ET or IVC on basal blood pressure or the baroreflex control mechanisms in adolescence, but future studies are required to determine the impact of ET and IVC on these mechanisms later in the life course when developmental programming effects may be unmasked by age.

President Carter will perhaps be remembered most for his perceived incompetence, an impression produced largely by his inability to forge coalitions in Congress, and by his failure as an ‘outsider’ to intervene effectively in the established policy-making processes in Washington. In his farewell address, Carter alluded to what he believed to be the source of his troubles – the fragmentation of power and decision-making exploited by influential special interests. Carter believed that he was trapped in a web of organized groups allied with well-placed congressional and bureaucratic sympathizers seeking to protect their narrowly defined interests and frustrating his own broader vision of the public good.

Rather than striving to measure the influence of groups in the policy-making process this article concentrates instead on the ways in which interest groups are created and the means by which they remain in existence. A survey by mail was conducted during 1980-1981 of all voluntary associations that are open to membership and concerned with some aspects of public policy at the national level. The sample of groups was chosen from the Congressional Quarterly's Washington Information Directory. Questionnaires were delivered to 913 interest groups, and usable responses were received from 564, yielding a response rate of 64.8%.

Most studies of groups have concerned the tactics employed by group leaders in attracting and holding their members. This study demonstrates that the origins and maintenance of groups depends even more upon the success of group leaders in securing funds from outside their membership which are needed to keep their groups in operation. Estimates of patronage from different sources are provided as well as data on the congruence between the policy goals of groups and their patrons.

Political scientists have been experiencing a 30-year boom in students, resources, opportunities and salaries unlike none other in the history of the profession, but there is little doubt that trends in all these areas are now turning downward. Some lingering skepticism remains about the magnitude of the coming troubles, but most members of our profession are aware not only that the boom is over, but that something ranging from a recession to a thumping depression is almost upon us.

The Committee on Professional Development has been formed in response to the gathering difficulties faced by political scientists. The Committee's task is to identify and precisely describe the problems being encountered by the profession and to suggest solutions. We begin by communicating with members of the National Association through its committees and publications, but hope that our reports and proposals might also stimulate debate and action within political science departments across the country. The profession still is in the early stages of what surely will be an extremely trying period of its history. If foresight is exercised, however, and we are flexible enough to adapt to changing social needs, it is possible that some of our problems can be transformed into opportunities. Our Committee is intended to aid in this important process of adaptation by encouraging the entire profession to discover new bases for intellectual growth.

The choice of issues for debate is of central importance in any political system. By deciding what they will decide about, legislators also establish the terms and the most prominent participants in debate and, ultimately, the distribution of power and influence in the society. As Schattschneider has pointed out:

Political conflict is not like an intercollegiate debate in which the opponents agree in advance on a definition of the issues. As a matter of fact, the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; the antagonists can rarely agree on what the issues are because power is involved in the definition. He who determines what politics is about runs the country, because the definition of alternatives is the choice of conflicts, and the choice of conflicts allocates power.

Political science, if you haven't noticed, is a highly disjointed discipline. The staggering outpouring of articles and books produced each year testify to the prodigious energy of political scientists, but as we have been reminded over and over again in protest manifestos and addresses by presidents of the APSA, the discipline suffers from a chronic case of theoretical underdevelopment. Research methods have improved, to be sure, or at least more of us are “into” statistics these days, but despite the heroic efforts of functionalists, systems theorists, formal modelers, Marxists, and other more or less global thinkers, most empirical work in political science is either highly descriptive and exploratory, or is based on propositions drawn primarily from common sense speculation.

If political science lacks the kind of intellectual guidance that allegedly would stem from consensus on a macro-political theory a la Keynes, this does not mean that researchers in the discipline are left completely adrift. There may not be any ruling paradigm to shape their efforts, but political scientists still have firm ideas about what ought to be studied and what should be ignored. An inspection of political science journals during the past decade indicates that substantial agreement exists among political scientists about the subjects that demand their attention.

No government yet established has had the loyalty and trust of all its citizens. Regardless of the popularity of its leaders or how careful they are in soliciting opinions and encouraging participation in the process of policy-making, there are always those who see inequalities and injustices in the society and harbor suspicions of the government's motives and intentions. Resentment and distrust are elements of disaffection and the first step toward resistance. Therefore, even the most dictatorial governments have usually striven to increase their credibility and popularity. For democratic governments, however, the problem of combating distrust and encouraging voluntary acceptance of its institutions and decisions is a paramount concern. One of democratic theory's distinctive characteristics is its strong emphasis on voluntary consent, both as a basis of political obligation and as a central attribute of citizenship. The concern expressed by democratic thinkers about the elements of due process and the protection of opportunities for widespread participation is directed toward the creation of citizens who voluntarily accept the society's goals; “the demand for consent is the demand that the government must be more than self-appointed and must, in some significant way, be the chosen instrument through which the body politic and community acts ….”

Democracy's guiding ideal is the substitution of mutual understanding and agreement for coerciveness and arbitrary authority in all phases of social and political life. The existence of distrustful citizens who are convinced that the government serves the interests of a few rather than the interests of all is a barrier to the realization of the democratic ideal.