This article approaches the current global environmental crisis from an evolutionary perspective. It identifies two features in contemporary states' behavior: impotence and intransigence in the face of global crisis. These traits stem from humanity's evolutionary past, in which groups had to maintain their integrity while surviving intergroup competition. Contemporary sovereign states are groups that have survived this process, and they guard their sovereignty vigilantly. They do so by instituting coercive measures on the one hand and cultivating members' loyalty on the other. A belief of common descent must be articulated successfully in order for members to feel group solidarity. Hence, states are intransigent in maintaining that they truly represent the welfare of their members. To the extent that states are successful in inculcating a belief of common descent and identity, they are also constrained in acting altruistically—hence, their impotence in the face of deepening global crisis. To find a way out of this dilemma, strategic alternatives are explored. The emerging role of nongovernment organizations, with certain caveats, is seen as promising.

Germ-line gene therapy, in which genetic flaws are corrected in the DNA of externally fertilized human embryos, lies in the distant yet foreseeable future. Worries about germ-line therapy have prompted international bodies to craft guidelines that are unusual for their anticipatory nature. Motivating these guidelines is the idea that a “transnational harmonization” of principles should be reached before national policies are developed. This article reviews selected national policies and international recommendations, and it concludes that national policies should be precedents for, rather than descendants of, international normative codes. The inclination to develop morally-based codes, which is implicit in transnational harmonization, will be more useful if grounded in empirically-based medical technologies and politically-tested policies rather than on abstract principles developed well in advance of technological feasibility.

Several toxins are “dual-use” in that they have legitimate therapeutic, pharmaceutical, or scientific applications as well as potential military utility as toxin warfare (TW) agents. The growing peaceful applications of such toxins may complicate efforts to ban their use for warfare or terrorist purposes. Worldwide consumption of toxins for medical therapy and scientific research has increased from a few grams to the current level of hundreds of grams per year, and the projected future growth of toxin therapies will require tens to hundreds of kilograms of material annually, blurring the distinction between medically useful and militarily significant quantities. As a result, a proliferator might seek to acquire an offensive TW capability under the guise of “peaceful” activities permitted by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). To examine this problem more closely, the case of ricin—a putative toxin warfare agent with expanding scientific and medical applications—is discussed in detail. Finally, an analysis of policy options for regulating dual-use toxins concludes that precise monitoring of toxin production would be impracticable in many cases, and that international efforts to achieve greater openness and transparency offer the most realistic basis for distinguishing between the legitimate and banned uses of toxins.

Virtually all of the literature regarding liability for fetal health and well-being has concentrated on female behavior. Prosecution of women for “fetal abuse or neglect” has received widespread popular press coverage. Far less attention has been paid to the role of males in contributing to the health and welfare of newborns. This paper redresses this lack of attention by reviewing the ways in which males contribute to newborn health and by examining legal doctrine to determine if the same legal challenges that have been advanced against pregnant women are applicable to males as well. Questions are raised regarding the consequences of prosecuting males for their role in contributing to fetal harm.