Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 16,396 items :

Clear All
You do not have access to this content

Wendy Fox-Kirk, Constance Campbell and Chrys Egan

You do not have access to this content

Lynne E. Devnew, Ann M. Berghout Austin, Marlene Janzen Le Ber and Mary Shapiro

You do not have access to this content

Ruth Sealy and Charlotte Harman

You do not have access to this content

Katharina Pick

This content is available to you

Steven A. Peterson and Albert Somit

This chapter provides an overview of the Handbook. The narrative begins with an examination of some of the historical forebears of the study of biology and politics (or biopolitics, as some refer to it). Following that is a brief description of evolutionary theory—a key underpinning of this intellectual endeavor. What has this perspective contributed to political science as a discipline? The chapter discusses some of the research that has spoken to mainstream political science concerns. This allows the reader to see how biopolitics might fit within the larger discipline of political science. Finally, this introduction contains a roadmap to the rest of the volume, noting the organization of the Handbook and summarizing the chapters appearing in each section.

You do not have access to this content

Elias L. Khalil

You do not have access to this content

Chantal van Esch, Karlygash Assylkhan and Diana Bilimoria

You do not have access to this content

Roger D. Masters

The release of toxic chemicals in the environment can easily become the focus of vigorous political controversy if scientists claim to have evidence that big businesses (especially those engaged in manufacturing or in producing medical drugs or food supplies) or a local government are using a toxin that has harmful effects on exposed humans. In the US, such issues can be difficult to resolve because when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charges violation of the law, those charged often claim their practice is safe and use the absence of evidence presented by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to support this claim. Conversely, if the CDC, the agency responsible for the study of human health, makes the charge, offenders can claim the EPA has legal responsibility. Due to limited collaboration between the EPA and CDC, political controversy can result, especially if Congressmen or Senators seek to keep jobs involved for constituents. To demonstrate the potential of the new field of ‘Biology and Politics’, this research studies the effects of environmental exposures to lead, manganese and silicofluorides (chemicals added to many public water supplies) on learning, substance abuse, and violent crime. In each of these behaviors, public data on frequency can be assumed to have been collected without reference to exposure to toxic chemicals. Linking biological evidence of harm to the politics of policy-making and politics can therefore be useful to public decision-makers, academic researchers and citizens.