Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:56:45.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biopolicy after three decades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Robert H. Blank
Robert H. Blank*
Affiliation:
Division of Social Sciences, New College of Florida, 5700 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34243-2197. [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Thirty years ago there were at most only a handful of political scientists who were interested in or publishing about policy issues in the life sciences, concentrated primarily in the health or environmental policy areas. As a result, political science was notably absent as a discipline either in the literature, at conferences, or as members of state or national commissions, advisory bodies, or institutional review boards involving the life sciences.

Type
Founders' Forum
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 52 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wiegele, Thomas C., Biopolitics: The Search for a More Human Political Science (Boulder: Westview Press, 1979).Google Scholar
2. Blank, Robert H. and Hines, Samuel M., Biology and Political Science (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 99–143.Google Scholar
3. Blank, Robert H., “Biopolicy: A restatement of its role in politics and the life sciences,” Politics and the Life Sciences, July 1982, 1(1):38–51.Google Scholar
4. Corning, Peter A., The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).Google Scholar
5. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven, Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (New York: Praeger, 1997).Google Scholar
6. Caldwell, Lynton K., Biocracy: Public Policy and the Life Sciences (Boulder: Westview Press, 1987).Google Scholar
7. Masters, Roger D., The Nature of Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Flohr, Heiner, “Bureaucracy and its clients: Exploring a biosocial perspective,” in Biology and Bureaucracy, White, Elliott and Losco, Joseph, eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 57–116.Google Scholar
9. Losco, Joseph, “Biology and public administration,” In Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 2, Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven, eds. (London: JAI Press, 1994), pp. 47–57.Google Scholar
10. Beam, David R., “Biological sciences and the art of government: A commentary,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1982, 1(1):42–44.Google Scholar
11. Funke, Odelia, “Can biopolicy ignore social policy?” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1982, 1(1):46–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Schubert, James N., “Biopolicy and biopolitics: A commentary on Blank's article,” Politics and the Life Sciences, July 1982, 1(1):47–48.Google Scholar
13. Caldwell, Lynton K., “Will biology change politics? A commentary,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1982, 1(1):44–45.Google Scholar