The same evolutionary and ecological principles that organize our understanding of organisms and organic communities can be used to help understand criminal behavior and our responses to it. This approach suggests solutions for an important dilemma that confronts the United States. The dilemma is that preoccupation with problems such as gang violence, drug abuse, and street crime increasingly diverts resources and attention away from child development problems associated with the health, education, and welfare of young people. Just as a consensus is emerging about the importance of balancing traditional criminal justice system approaches to crime control with nurturant approaches that address child development concerns, child development program resources are dwindling. This dynamic is driven by a vicious cycle of media sensationalism, political expediency, and public impatience that encourages ineffective “quick fixes” for crime. An evolutionary ecological approach to crime control suggests ways to reverse this vicious cycle and increase the political, programmatic, and economic feasibility of child development programs.

Although few companies are currently applying genetic tests or using genetic data, further developments in genetics will likely increase the role of genetics in the workplace. This article discusses the complex ethical issues raised by the variety of genetic tests that could become available and proposes guidelines for dealing with genetics in the workplace. It discusses how the results of genetic testing could be used for employment purposes, and argues that the existence of unequal bargaining power in the workplace limits the validity of consent as a basis for policymaking. Instead, two specific justifications for genetic testing in the workplace are proposed: the protection of health and the avoidance of harm to others. The author suggests that genetic testing should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances and that every genetic test should be evaluated on its scientific validity and submitted to rigorous review. Existing antidiscrimination law proves to be a useful model for examining the rationality and proportionality of genetic testing in the workplace.

In contrast to recent political, scholarly, and public misuse of the term, this essay articulates a more accurate definition of the hostage concept. This definition is not only consistent with a broad range of etymological sources, but is also in agreement with numerous examples from the historical and anthropological record. A possible application of the hostage idea to mid/late-twentieth-century superpower relationships, involving a distinctively different approach to nuclear deterrence, is also described. Attention is further called to the fact that the giving of hostages as confidence-building “emissaries of trust” incorporates several attributes that might be of interest to contemporary evolutionary theorists. A closer examination of the biological and behavioral underpinnings, the historical and anthropological precedents, and the political and psychological efficacy of this ancient idea might therefore prove to be a fruitful area for future empirical and theoretical research.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist from Royal Oak, Michigan, created an instant sensation on June 4, 1990, when he assisted Janet Adkins in committing suicide by lethal injection. Kevorkian's activities, and the ineffectual efforts of public officials to stop him, generated social conflict, issue expansion, and political theater. In this case, political theater involved acts of civil disobedience that resulted in arrests, three high-profile criminal trials, and three subsequent acquittals. As the participants in the conflict tried to generate public support for their respective positions, the debate degenerated into name-calling, hyperbole, and rights talk. This kind of public discourse limits the potential for self-governance and leads to reliance on the courts or other methods of conflict resolution.

The Fourth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was held November 25 to December 6, 1996. It successfully re-emphasized the norm against biological warfare, usefully broadening this to include molecular biology and applications resulting from genome studies. It also emphasized that use in any way and under any circumstances would be a violation of Article I. Disappointingly, compliance concerns regarding Iraq and the former Soviet Union were less strongly addressed. Article IV and the importance of national legislation as a potential counter to possible terrorist use was underlined. The importance of the existing confidence-building measures (CBMs) was confirmed and the work of the Ad Hoc Group was strongly endorsed, with a change to a negotiating format being explicitly stated, although without setting the target date of 1998 for completion. Article X was re-emphasized, with special note made of the advances made at the Rio Summit, Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and of the initiatives being taken by the World Health Organization to counter new, emerging, and re-emerging infectious diseases. This article addresses the issues, outcomes, and unfinished business of the Fourth Review Conference.

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.

Biological issues Have Become prominent in the national news, and the complexity of the science behind the issues has often tended to cloud the broader discussion. Examples include screening for genetic diseases and risk factors, issues of reproductive technology, and controversies over treatment of terminal illness and the “right” to die. Recent polls have indicated both intense interest in biotechnology and an often profound lack of understanding of the science behind it.