Tens of millions of Americans are subject to drug and alcohol tests each year. How did this biochemical surveillance become so routine and normalized? This article examines the historical emergence, contestation, and gradual acceptance of the first biochemical surveillance technology, the drunkometer—the predecessor of the breathalyzer—which analyzed blood alcohol content in the breath. In the 1930s, public concerns over drunk driving grew alongside mistrust of rapidly expanding policing and security apparatuses. In this context, the drunkometer emerged as a seemingly commonsense solution to the problems of drunk driving and police mistrust, using a scientific technology to decenter law enforcement testimony and, in turn, streamline difficult cases. By examining contestations to the drunkometer in newspapers, court records, and other public documents, we detail how courts and the public gradually accepted the biochemical constitution of the body as the legitimate domain of authoritative institutions. We introduce the concept of “chemical citizenship” to analyze this authoritative institutional use of biochemical technologies to extract and deploy “the truth” about substance use as a mode of governing access to the rights and benefits of citizenship. We apply this concept to demonstrate how the drunkometer laid the foundation for contemporary drug testing.

Existing research shows a significant relationship between state racial minority population, the proportion of racial minority welfare recipients, and state levels of racial resentment with the proposal and adoption of punitive welfare policies. This article contributes to the extant literature by expanding on Ledford’s (2018) 2008–2014 analysis of state drug testing proposals by evaluating state-level racial factors and the diffusion of drug testing proposals from 2009 to 2018. Moreover, the author accounts for the potential influence of drug-related variables on the proposal probability by including variables measuring opioid overdose deaths and illicit drug use estimates. Event history analyses do not find that the size of a state’s Black population or the percentage or proportion of Black welfare recipients significantly affects the proposal rates. However, higher estimates of state-level racial resentment increase the likelihood of proposing drug testing for welfare legislation, supporting Ledford’s conclusion that racial biases matter in the diffusion of these policies. In addition, the author has found evidence that while opioid overdoses are negatively associated with the likelihood of proposal, estimates of illicit drug use have the opposite effect. Finally, analyses suggest that liberalism in state governments actually increases the probability of a proposal.

Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was an extraordinary example of a public-private partnership (PPP) that brought together over thirty organizations and hundreds of individuals to address one of the most pressing global health needs in recent decades. In particular, ACTIV provided a key avenue for testing numerous therapeutics for their potential benefit in treating the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the resulting symptoms of acute COVID-19 infection. Given the speed and scale at which ACTIV designed and implemented master protocols across global networks that it was simultaneously working to create, the PPP can provide valuable lessons for best practices and avoiding pitfalls the next time the world is faced with a global pandemic of a novel pathogen. This report provides a general overview of the ACTIV partnership to set the stage and context for the subsequent articles in this issue that will relay these lessons learned.

Across the globe, welfare conditionality and sanctioning increasingly permeate social welfare programs. Paternalism is one of the key normative rationales invoked when both scholars and politicians debate the legitimacy of this reform. With a view to bringing the scholarly and political debates into closer conversation with each other, this paper examines how paternalism manifests in political debate. We systematically analyse the paternalist arguments made by Australian federal parliamentarians in favour of the virtually identical 2017 and 2018 policy proposals to drug test welfare recipients, both of which resulted in a stalemate. We find that paternalistic arguments primarily employed soft, weak, and welfare paternalism, with heavy emphasis on the purported benefits of the intervention, limited emphasis on the issue of personal liberty, and noticeable silence about autonomy and consent. These findings shed light on the scholarly features of paternalism that are obscured in contemporary political discourse. This analysis can direct political philosophers to features of paternalism that need more attention as well as suggest ways that drug and welfare policy advocates may engage more effectively with paternalist arguments.