This study investigates whether observers react negatively to overly ambitious leaders, focusing on whether women are more sensitive than men in their perceptions of the traits of decision makers and whether men and women behave differently as a result of such perceptions. Results from two laboratory experiments show how participants react to ambitious decision makers in simple bargaining scenarios. The results indicate that observers tend to equate ambition for decision-making authority with self-interested, unfair, male behavior. Moreover, observers tend to be less satisfied with a decision made by an ambitious decision maker compared to the same decision made by an unambitious decision maker. That is, people generally dislike ambitious decision makers independent of the actual decision that is made. Further, there are important differences in male and female expectations of what decision makers will do that, when combined with perceptions of decision-maker gender, have more nuanced implications for outcome satisfaction and our understanding of “follower behavior.”

The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) is an international membership organization (with 965 current members in 50 countries) whose goal is to coordinate and enhance efforts in the Human Genome Project (HGP). Formally established in 1989 by a group of the world's leading scientists in order to promote genome activities internationally, HUGO operates as a global coordinating organization to create the networks and channels through which genome information, initiatives, and ideas can flow and be disseminated.

As a result of the initiative, ingenuity, and dedicated efforts of Steven Peterson and James Schubert, and the generous support of Alfred University, the Conference on Empirical Biopolitics was held from July 18 to July 22, 1990, on the campus of Alfred University. Six empirical studies were presented and extensively discussed at this small and intimate conference, with two or more hours devoted to each. Discussion focused not only on the specific research questions under investigation, but also on the ramifications for inquiry in the entire field of biopolitics. Odelia Funke and Fred Kort were the designated discussants, but all presenters took part in the stimulating discussions of each paper.

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the various commentators for their remarks about Born to Rebel, including some of the constructive criticisms of my research findings and conclusions. No book trying to set forth more than two decades of research on why historical figures as diverse as Martin Luther and Charles Darwin behaved the way they did can expect to pass muster without exception. At best, one hopes that any problems that come to light will prove to be relatively easy to correct (as I think they have been, so far) and thus do not undermine the validity of the book's central arguments.

As part of the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), David L. Huxsoll and Raymond A. Zilinskas convened a roundtable of biological weapons inspectors who have served in recent United Nations inspections in Iraq. The roundtable was presented over a three-hour period on May 22, 1995. To give the audience a “feel” for what inspectors do and the conditions under which they work, the roundtable session opened with a 35 mm slide presentation. The photos were taken by Zilinskas in the course of two 1994 inspections of Iraqi biological research and production facilities.

Arguably, no curve in the world increases indefinitely—certainly no growth curve of human society. The quest for sustainable use of the planet involves estimating levels of activity, particularly resource use, that can continue indefinitely. Since the biosphere is dynamic, this continuation is not a stagnant, steady-state situation but rather a mutualistic interactive relationship between human society and the planet's ecological life support system. Human technology, creativity, and ingenuity may modify natural laws, but cannot be used to repeal them. Attempts to maintain the recent exponential growth of the human population, affluence, and artifacts cannot continue forever, or probably even for another century. At best, quality of life will be diminished, and, at worst, a substantial loss of human life will occur if both ethical and ecological issues are not freely and openly discussed. Sustainability may be visionary and unattainable, but it does offer an opportunity to improve the quality of life for future generations of humans and the other life forms, an opportunity that is far greater than possible with present unsustainable practices.

Political science, as a discipline, has been reluctant to adopt theories and methodologies developed in fields studying human behavior from an evolutionary standpoint. I ask whether evolutionary concepts are reconcilable with standard political-science theories and whether those concepts help solve puzzles to which these theories classically are applied. I find that evolutionary concepts readily and simultaneously accommodate theories of rational choice, symbolism, interpretation, and acculturation. Moreover, phenomena perennially hard to explain in standard political science become clearer when human interactions are understood in light of natural selection and evolutionary psychology. These phenomena include the political and economic effects of emotion, status, personal attractiveness, and variations in information-processing and decision-making under uncertainty; exemplary is the use of “focal points” in multiple-equilibrium games. I conclude with an overview of recent research by, and ongoing debates among, scholars analyzing politics in evolutionarily sophisticated terms.

Due to the prevailing paradigms in the social sciences and humanities and due to some traditional reservations against biology in Germany, biopolitics is facing particular difficulties in German political science. At the University of Düsseldorf, the only place where biopolitics is taught in Germany, students take courses which deal explicitly with biopolitical topics or learn about biopolitics in seminars and lectures devoted to other aspects of political behavior. There are difficulties in teaching biopolitics; some will arise wherever biopolitics is taught, while some may be specific for Germany. These difficulties require special teching efforts in order to motivate the students; some experience in dealing with these problems has already been gained. As far as the desirable participation in research projects and the practical application of biopolitical knowledge in particular professions is concerned, there are some possibilities, but still too few. Besides working with students on biopolitical questions, there are useful opportunities of teaching biopolitics outside the university, especially in adult political education and in political consulting.

Arms control is not about agreements, but rather deals with creating enhanced security and international stability. Such objectives are difficult to realize in the field of biological and toxin weapons. The 1972 convention which bans them contains neither enforcement nor verification mechanisms. Rapid advancements in the fields of biochemistry and genetic engineering provide enormous potential for developing novel toxin weapons that defy virtually all conventional verfication methodologies. Moreover, it is widely assumed that the 1972 agreement has been violated by the Soviet Union and its client states in various parts of the world. This undermines the agreement's credibility as an effective international tool to prevent the exploitation of science and technology for ever more egregious weapons. Despite the troubled past and uncertain future of arms control in this area, every moral government must attempt to make arms control a viable element in the fight against the proliferation and use of biological and toxin weapons.