Blank, Robert H. "Biopolicy: A Restatement of Its Role in Politics and the Life Sciences." Politics and the Life Sciences 1, 1 (July, 1982):38-42.
[Four commentaries and author response, pp. 42-51]
Introduction. There is nothing unique in a call for increased attention to the policy dimensions of biological developments. Almost two decades ago, Caldwell (1964:2) urged a "policy synthesis of scientific knowledge and ethical values" in response to the public policy questions raised by the "explosion of biomedical knowledge and technology." Despite similar exhortations intermittently since that time, Somit and Peterson (1979) conclude that political scientists have yet to give adequate attention to the public policy implications of biological issues. Wiegele, too, (1979:151) sees the need for "some students of biopolitics to become interested in the political policy relevance of certain aspects of the life sciences" but sees only a few scholars interested in pursuing such an endeavor at this time.
The emergence of an Association for Politics and the Life Sciences is an ideal juncture to restate the significance of the policy dimensions of the life sciences. The action of reorganizing in this manner itself reflects a willingness if not an eagerness to expound a comprehensive approach to politics and the life sciences. This necessarily requires inclusion of a policy orientation (see Corning, 1978). Few students of politics and the life sciences reject the notion that policy concerns are critical, although for some of them policy might appear to be peripheral at this stage in development to the more central work on the refinement and application of biological models to human behavior. They hesitate to become too heavily involved in policy matters for fear that focusing on an applied orientation might detract from the fundamental requisite of basic research. Another objection is that emphasis on policy might diminish the distinctive features of biological contributions to the discipline by subm erging them under a policy approach. There is a genuine fear that life science issues might become yet one more substantive domain of policy analysts.
Although I agree with Wahlke (1979) and Wiegele (1979) that basic research in human behavior and broader theoretical and methodological concerns ought to take precedence now and that they represent areas where the most significant contributions to the knowledge of political behavior are to be made, I also believe there is a persuasive argument for a considerably expanded focus on biopolicy from several fronts. I will here discuss what I feel are a few of the most compelling reasons for paying close attention to the policy ramifications of the life sciences in society. I will also attempt to demonstrate how such an emphasis can come about without depreciating the basic objectives of biobehavioral research. I argue that students of politics and the life sciences have consequential contributions to make to biopolicy. Furthermore, they enjoy a unique position from which to influence biopolicy, both directly and indirectly.