Primatology supports a feminist ethical naturalism rooted in evolutionary biology. Patriarchal exploitation can be condemned as contrary to women's natural needs and capacities, although prudence is required in recognizing how ecological circumstances limit the range of practicable reform. Donna Haraway's history of primatology, however, illustrates the tendency of some feminists to reject naturalistic realism in favor of nihilistic relativism. Such relativism is disastrous for the feminist position, because it deprives the feminist of any ground in nature for criticizing patriarchal customs. The scenario of “Woman the Gatherer” illustrates feminist naturalism in primatology. Judging female circumcision as frustrating the natural needs of both men and women illustrates the power of feminist naturalism for cultural critique.

Arnhart clearly had a lot of fun writing this piece. He has done an impressive amount of research and brings considerable passion to his subject matter. I am happy to offer a few brief comments.

Important insight into a problem can result from cross-disciplinary thinking. And yet, when I read an argument such as Arnhart's, I am often struck by the difficulty of bridging the gaps between disciplines, especially in relation to words that may be commonly used but differentially understood. The word nature is used without definition in many different forms and contexts in Arnhart's paper; and yet, throughout my reading of it, I felt that the author and I had not arrived at a firm and common understanding of the word.

Arnhart argues that a scientific understanding of women's nature, achieved through primatology and related disciplines, can serve as a basis for judging social arrangements. Those arrangements that promote the expression of women's “natural potentials” should be encouraged. Based on this argument, the key issues are (1) how to determine the “natural” potential of women, and (2) how to use this information to judge social arrangements. I will begin by focusing on the second and more fundamental issue; I will return later to the first.

I am grateful to the three commentators for raising many good questions that I shall have to ponder for a long time. In this brief response, I can comment on only a few of their points.

A global epidemiological surveillance system is needed both for verification of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and as a confidence-building measure for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This proposal should be part of the agenda of the Fourth Review Conference of the BWC, with preliminary consideration and analysis conducted at the national level and by appropriate international expert groups in preparation for the Review Conference. An example of the kind of program that might be constructed is described. Such a program would make it very difficult for hostile use of biological agents to remain undetected, would catalyze a dramatic increase in global public, agricultural, and veterinary health, and would offer reasonable assurance that emerging diseases would be detected at an early stage. These benefits easily justify the expenditures that would be required.

There seems to be an obvious contradiction in the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Whereas Article III reasonably requests restriction of transfer of biological warfare (BW) and toxin warfare (TW) agents, equipment, and means of delivery, Article X not less reasonably calls for peaceful international cooperation in microbiology. This contradiction became especially obvious in the late 1980s, for two reasons: (1) regional conflicts increased as one of the consequences of the peaceful end of the Cold War, with a corresponding increase in the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) the technology gap between North and South continued to expand, not least as a direct consequence of the rapid development of molecular biotechnology in industrialized countries.

Since my background includes involvement in the negotiations for the BWC and for the future Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), I have some general comments concerning possible implications of the program.

Mark Wheelis makes a thoroughly scientific case for deterring the covert use of biological weapons through a program of global epidemiological surveillance, thoughtfully laid out in terms of function, organization, and goals. In tactical terms, however, it seems a bit like the tail of biological weapons control wagging the dog of the “other benefits”—as Dr. Wheelis recognizes in discussing the latter. The driving force for such a program would surely be its benefits for world public and economic health.

Wheelis's idea of a global network of “epidemiological watch towers” is a great one, but I do not see any realistic prospect of getting adequate multilateral funding for such a network if its avowed main aim is to deter biological warfare (BW). To accelerate our understanding of disease processes—yes; to enhance microbiological technology transfer—yes. The BW watchtower function would be an incidental but very desirable side effect.

Lundin, Rosenberg, and Woodall all comment, rightly, that a program of global epidemiological surveillance should be justified first on the basis of its benefits to global public health, and only secondarily on the basis of its contribution to weapons control. I agree, but I present my proposal in the context of weapons control because it is in that context that I became convinced of the necessity of such a program. My intent was to determine how one would recognize, and thereby deter, the clandestine use of biological agents (which I believe to be the most likely form of use). This analysis led to the conclusion that a global program of epidemiological surveillance is essential for biological weapons control.

This article examines the recent political-cumepistemological criticism of reductionism in fields such as sociobiology, behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, and IQ research. It identifies and challenges some unexamined assumptions underlying current “anti-reductionist” reasoning, especially the belief that there are inherent links between political motivations and scientific convictions, between “bad” science and undesirable political consequences, and between methodological and ontological reductionism. The author analyzes the conflict in scientific world views between anti-reductionist “weeders” and reductionist “planters.” Paradoxically, in their criticism of research strategies routinely used by alleged reductionists, anti-reductionists often sound like arch-reductionists themselves. The author argues that the various linked beliefs in anti-reductionist reasoning should be uncoupled, not only for intellectual, but also for political reasons.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling in the Johnson Controls case that fetal protection policies that exclude women from workplaces deemed hazardous to the fetus are in clear violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment, the issue of fetal health remains on the policy agenda. This article summarizes the rationale behind fetal protection policies and the current scientific evidence over workplace hazards. It also discusses the disparate court response to these policies before Johnson Controls and the confusing regulatory framework. Finally, it makes a case for including consideration of the paternal contribution to fetal injury in the workplace and calls for a balanced approach to accommodate both women's rights to employment and society's interest in healthy children.

This article recommends establishment of an international Vaccines for Peace (VFP) program to undertake research on and production of vaccines against pathogens (and possibly toxins) that pose natural health threats and that are also putative biological (and toxin) weapons. Vaccines for Peace is designed to contribute to health care in developing countries, enhance international cooperation in biotechnology, and reduce the danger of weapons proliferation. Vaccine development would be carried out openly and would involve scientists from developing countries that are States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as personnel and facilities from the former Soviet Union. The program would thus help convert biological defense personnel and facilities to peaceful purposes. The program would be administered by the World Health Organization.

Will the Human Genome Project'S (HGP) social policy research program function as an “enhancer” and “promoter” for the entire “sequence,” or will it result in missense and nonsense mutations? The jury, of course, is still out, but we believe it is more properly viewed as a key promoter that is integral to the proper functioning of the HGP itself.

“The Parties to This Treaty…are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense,” and to a fairly large extent, the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have done just that for nearly 50 years. “During fights, individuals compare the strength of their own group with that of the opponent. When they perceive that group members locally outnumber opponents, they behave aggressively, recruiting to the battle and cooperating” (Adams, 1990:326). This second quote is not an account of the behavior of NATO soldiers; it is a description of boundary disputes between colonies of a territorial ant, altered only to remove references to ants.

In the Late 1960s and early 1970s, a revolution occurred in evolutionary biology when several investigators, including most notably W. D. Hamilton, R. L. Trivers, and G. C. Williams, began to apply Darwin's theory of natural selection to the social behavior of animals. This new approach to behavior, which came to be known as “sociobiology” after the title of E. O. Wilson's influential 1975 book, was rapidly applied to human, as well as nonhuman, animal behavior. These applications often represented a serious challenge to the theories of the social and behavioral sciences, many of which rested on the assumption that behavior could be profitably analyzed in terms of its effects on the group or species. Sociobiologists, in contrast, argued that an adequate understanding of animal, including human, societies can be gained only by viewing selection as operating at the level of the individual (and sometimes at the level of the gene) rather than at the group level. The resultant controversies continue to this day, and sociobiological approaches to human behavior have had an important impact on anthropology, psychology, and other behavioral sciences, including political science.

The manufacturing industry that has driven much of Maryland's economic progress is regressing. Financial service firms are in decline. Real estate, once a producer of wealth, is in a slump and is unlikely to return to its former grandeur. The governor and legislators are trying to fix the state's billion dollar budget deficit. In this otherwise gloomy situation, the success of the state's life science development strategy stands out. Maryland is the home of 53 dedicated biotechnology firms, more than all other states except California and Massachusetts. State economic development officials estimate that biotechnology-related jobs in the state will grow from 4,000 to more that 70,000 in the next ten years.

A conference titled “The Biology of Morality: A Multidisciplinary Dialogue” was held at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 13 and 14, 1992. Organizers James Hurd (anthropology) and Carole Young (psychology) focused the conference around the question, “Are adaptation and natural selection sufficient explanations for the rise of morality and moral systems, or must we seek explanation beyond the natural sciences?” The presenters came from a variety of fields, including biology, theology, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology.

Although the author is now with the World Bank, he was a research fellow at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, when conducting research for this book. He focuses on the Wollo region of Ethiopia, where, as he describes it, “to Wollo peasants, famine is as familiar as their villages” (p. 69). The book is based on surveys given to peasants in the Wollo region in 1987-88, participant observation, and examination of governmental policies. Appendices contain the texts of two questionnaires. One questionnaire was designed to understand the types of environmental degradation, the peasants' reaction to it, and the peasants' strategies in times of famine. The other was given to peasants affected by the government's resettlement scheme and was designed to determine the conditions under which they lived.

Alemneh (the Ethiopian family name) presents a case study documenting the ineffectiveness of governmental policies imposed from above with little consultation with the individuals most affected by the policies. He develops the theme that environmental degradation—and subsequently famine—is shaped by local and national social and political forces. He recommends alternatives throughout the book that, to be effective, must be developed with grassroots peasant participation. The government's role in a long-term solution is “central,” but the peasants must be a part of that decision making. The original survey research is a major strength of the book. Information about the observations and activities of peasants support Alemneh's message that peasant based policies are workable.