Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:13:12.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identity challenges Facing the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

David Goetze
David Goetze*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Utah State University, Old Main 320, Logan, UT 84322-0725. [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Founded in 1980, the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) sought to establish biopolitics as a recognized field and to integrate biologically based research methods into mainstream political science. The association's founders established these goals to encourage a generation of scholars and promote the spread of biopolitical knowledge. There was early success when the American Political Science Association (APSA) recognized biopolitics as an organized section. However, this development did not leave an appreciable imprint on the political science profession and the experiment conjoining the two did not last long. The other goal of the founders, to integrate biologically based research methods into mainstream political science, faced more formidable obstacles and still faces challenges, though not without some progress.

Type
Founders' Forum
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 77 - 79
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. Orbell, John, Morikawa, Tomori, Hartwig, Jason, Hanley, James, and Allen, Nicholas, “‘Machiavellian intelligence’ as a basis for the evolution of cooperative dispositions,” American Political Science Review, 2003, 98(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
2. Morikawa, Tomonori, Hanley, James E., and Orbell, John, “Cognitive requirements for hawk-dove games: A functional analysis for evolutionary design,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2002, 21(1): 3–12.Google Scholar
3. Hanley, James E., Orbell, John, and Morikawa, Tomonori, “The cost of misinformation in deadly conflicts: Hawk-dove games and suicidal terrorism,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2002, 21(1): 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Masters, Roger, The Nature of Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
5. Vanhanen, Tatu, Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries (New York: Routledge, 1997).Google Scholar
6. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997).Google Scholar
7. Thayer, Bradley and Ibryamova, Nuray, Debates in International Relations (New York: Longman, 2009).Google Scholar
8. Somit, Albert, “Biopolitics,” British Journal of Political Science, 1972, 2: 209–238.Google Scholar
9. Somit, Albert, Peterson, Steven A., Richardson, William, and Goldfischer, David S., The Literature of Biopolitics, 2nd ed. (DeKalb: Program for Biosocial Research, 1980).Google Scholar
10. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., Biopolitics and Mainstream Political Science (DeKalb: Program for Biosocial Research, 1990).Google Scholar
11. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., “Biopolitics after three decades – A balance sheet,” British Journal of Political Science, 1998, 28: 559–571.Google Scholar
12. Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R., “Are political orientations genetically transmitted?” American Political Science Review, 2005, 99(2): 153–167.Google Scholar
13. Fowler, James H., Baker, Laura A., and Dawes, Christopher T., “Genetic variation in political participation,” American Political Science Review, 2008, 102(2): 233–248.Google Scholar
14. Johnson, Gary, “Politics and the Life Sciences: A journal, a mission, a vision,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1992, 11(1): 3–4.Google Scholar
15. Johnson, Gary, “Politics and the Life Sciences: A second decade and a continuing mission,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2001, 20(2): 109–118.Google Scholar
16. Wilson, Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).Google Scholar
17. Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975).Google Scholar