With sing. concord. The interaction between politics and biology; spec. (a) politically motivated intervention in the growth or development of a population; (b) the use of biological science to explain human social or political behaviour; (c) environmental policy.

The term “biopolitics” carries multiple, sometimes competing, meanings in political science. When the term was first used in the United States in the late 1970s, it referred to an emerging subdiscipline that incorporated the theories and data of the life sciences into the study of political behavior and public policy. But by the mid-1990s, biopolitics was adopted by postmodernist scholars at the American Political Science Association's annual meeting who followed Foucault's work in examining the power of the state on individuals. Michel Foucault first used the term biopolitics in the 1970s to denote social and political power over life. Since then, two groups of political scientists have been using this term in very different ways. This paper examines the parallel developments of the term “biopolitics,” how two subdisciplines gained (and one lost) control of the term, and what the future holds for its meaning in political science.

In March 2008, I published an article in this journal that examined the ways in which the White House managed the news—and minimized the political impact—of Dwight D. Eisenhower's massive 1955 heart attack. In addition, the analysis explored the manner in which Eisenhower himself, in handling this issue, had brilliantly “manipulated his medical team, safeguarded his image, cajoled his staff, confused the press, managed his advisers, dominated his party, and ran a campaign that was virtually impossible for the opposition to counteract” (p. 18).1 This article expands on my previous work by considering the ways in which Eisenhower's ill health had significant public policy repercussions that went beyond the immediate political effects evaluated in 2008. These included the drawbacks associated with Eisenhower's concept of “Team Government,” a tragic war in the Middle East, a serious deterioration of the U.S. relationship with three very close allies and, finally, the beginnings of a presidentially led effort to add a much needed “presidential disability” amendment to the United States Constitution. These latter effects have been studied here through use of primary source materials located at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, commentaries written by Eisenhower himself, members of his family and other close associates and the voluminous secondary literature that has appeared over the years focusing on the Eisenhower presidency.

Despite large-scale investments and government mandates to expand biofuels development and infrastructure in the United States, little is known about how the public conceives of this alternative fuel technology. This study examines public opinion of biofuels by focusing on citizen knowledge and the motivated processing of media information. Specifically, we explore the direct effects of biofuels knowledge and the moderating effect of partisanship on the relationship between media use and benefit vs. risk perceptions in the following four domains: environmental impacts, economic consequences, ethical/social implications, and political ramifications. Our results suggest that more knowledgeable respondents see fewer benefits of biofuels relative to risks, and that Democrats and Republicans are affected differently by media use when forming opinions about biofuels. Among Democrats, greater attention to political media content leads to a more favorable outlook toward the technology across several domains of interest, while among Republicans, an increase in attention to political content has the opposite effect. Possible reasons for these results, as well as implications of the findings at the intersection of politics and the life sciences, are discussed.

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) pose international security threats because of their potential to inflict harm upon humans, crops, livestock, health infrastructure, and economies. Despite the scale of this threat, there are inherent limitations in preventing and controlling EIDs, including the scope of current disease surveillance efforts. All of this leads to the following questions in the context of Mexico's recent swine flu experience: What were the cultural, political, and economic challenges to Influenza A/H1N1 virus response in Mexico? By way of comparison, what can we learn from the U.S. experience in 1976 with A/New Jersey/76 (Hsw1N1), later referred to as H1N1? This article explores the comparative political economy of Mexico's handling of influenza virus A/H1N1 outbreak in 2009. Research provides notable observations—based on the strengths and weaknesses of each country's response—that can be used as a starting point of discussion for the design of effective EIDs surveillance programs in developing and middle-income countries. In the U.S., the speed and efficiency of the 1976 U.S. mobilization against H1N1 was laudable. Although the U.S. response to the outbreak is seldom praised, the unity of the scientific and political communities demonstrated the national ability to respond to the situation. Mexico's strongest characteristics were its transparency, as well as the cooperation the country exhibited with other nations, particularly the U.S. and Canada. While Mexico showed savvy in its effective management of public and media relations, as the article details, political, economic, and cultural problems persisted.

Researchers in the twenty-first century face a set of challenges unknown to researchers a half century ago—the need to justify the moral acceptability of their research methods through formal review processes. However, the role that moral constraints play in the development and demise of scientific theories has largely gone unappreciated. The rise of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the 1960s compounded the impact of moral constraints on scientific research and on the theories that develop out of such highly monitored research. To demonstrate the effects of moral constraints on scientific theory and research, this paper offers a history and analysis of the interaction between evolving moral standards and twentieth century emotion theory. Recommendations regarding IRB reform are also reviewed. The paper concludes by arguing that, while appropriate IRB reform is important, it cannot eliminate the need for careful reflection on the broader forces that shape scientific practice and understanding.

A subtle but important shift is unfolding in the capture and distribution of news events brought about largely due to advances in ubiquitous communication technology. This shift has spawned a new kind of witnessing, or firsthand observation, that has the potential to change the very notion of public affairs news. To understand this shift the idea of news has to be grounded on a functional, biological foundation, first for what will be called “hard news,” and then for the more problematic genre called “public affairs reports.”

This study analyzes the issue attention cycle for print and online media coverage of a scientific publication examining the deaths of Chinese factory workers due to lung damage from chronic exposure to nanoparticles. The results of the nanoparticle study, published in 2009, embody news values that would make the study a prime candidate for press coverage, namely, novelty, negativity, controversy, and potential widespread impact. Nevertheless, mentions of the event in traditional English-language print media were nearly nonexistent. Online media, on the other hand, gave the story greater coverage. This case study exemplifies why online media may not be bound to the same issue attention cycle that print media are for controversial scientific events.

On June 12, 2012 Elinor Ostrom died. She was Distinguished Professor, Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science, and founder of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University (now renamed in honor of her and her husband Vincent, who also passed away this year). Lin served as the President of the American Political Science Association and the Public Choice Society and was the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics (2009). She was an enthusiastic contributor to APLS Annual Meetings—she organized panels, served as a plenary speaker at our 2006 meeting on the IU campus, and gave the keynote address at the 2010 meeting in Bloomington.