Why do some people vote and others stay home on Election Day? For years, scholars have assumed that a voter pulls the lever because she grew up in a voting household or perhaps sat through a lot of civics classes. But this year two political scientists published studies claiming that in addition to environment, genes may be a primary influence on political engagement. Not only that, they think they have identified the genes that increase the likelihood of voting. A political scientist who advocates this approach calls this emerging field genopolitics.

The book made them wonder whether political science had been wearing blinders for the past half-century. "That was the inspiration for both of us to look at our discipline and say: To what degree are we guilty of implicitly assuming that for politics, the human brain is a blank slate?" says Alford. They wondered whether ideology in fact has roots in biology, whether people's genes could predict how they might vote.

The two didn't realize it at the time, but they would soon reinvent themselves and help found the new field of genopolitics. To do that, they had to learn genetics and brain anatomy, forge ties with neuroscientists and molecular biologists, and do battle against skeptical colleagues.

The pioneering work of James H. Fowler and others in a (yet) small contingent of behavior genetic political scientists (I’m not sure if there is an established name for their approach yet in political science) demonstrates the importance of genetic influences for a whole host of personality and behavioral measures, including political attitude and partisan strength.

P.S. James now tells me that his favored name for the field that he is helping to create is "genopolitics."