Jan 31 | Research Justice 101: Tools for Feminist Science

How do we practice a socially just science? Join Free Radicals, a Los Angeles-based feminist and anti-racist community organization of scientists, that aims to incorporate a critical social justice lens into science, for an interactive workshop on feminist practices and socially conscious frameworks for building feminist research and engineering practices. Justice provides a framework for scientists to think through the hidden assumptions in their methodological approaches, and challenges researchers to think more deeply about the political implications of their work.

Participants will be challenged to apply principles and practices of justice to their own work, interrogating questions such as: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who is most vulnerable?

In our communities of practice and beyond, whose well-being are we responsible for? How do our individual and collective identities affect the questions we ask? And ultimately, who do we do science for, and why? The workshop will conclude with practical skills and resources for participants to push their research communities to be more inclusive, equitable and attentive to social justice.

Free Radicals is a collective that envisions an open and responsible science that works toward progressive social change. Our work focuses on creating resources for political education through workshops and our blog: freerads.org.

Paloma Medina is a second year Ph.D. student in Biomolecular Engineering and Bioinformatics (UCSC) studying genetic ancestry and the evolution of sex. She has worked with the science of de-extinction, developmental biology, and animal behavior. As part of the Science and Justice Research Center Training Program, she helped initiate the Queer Ecologies Research Cluster and is continually seeking new creative ways to promote biodiversity. More information about Queer Ecologies can be found at: https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~pmedina/queer_ecology_reading_list.html.

 

Co-Sponsored by the UC Santa Cruz Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD), Institute for Scientist and Engineer Educators (ISEE), Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE)

 

Wednesday, January 31, 2018 | 4:00-6:00 PM |Engineering 2, room 599

Event Description

Event description by Bradley Jin

Research Justice 101 participants

Paloma Medina and Free Radicals pose with SJRC's Jenny Reardon and Karen Barad. Photo credit: Bradley Jin.

In a packed room in the E2 building at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Paloma Medina stood before an attentive audience. She spoke about why she loves biology. For her, biology is a way to redefine the word ‘natural.’ To many, what is ‘natural’ is the difference between right and wrong, normal and abnormal. She finds this definition lacking; it does not reflect the diversity of people and things that she sees every day. Medina wanted to find a new, better ‘natural.’ To do this, she had to take a journey of self-reflection. Through careful consideration and thought, she found what she was looking for: feminist science.

Medina wants to share feminist science with others. To help others practice feminist science, she, along with the Free Radicals, hosted Research Justice 101: Tools for Feminist Science. On a cool February afternoon, faculty, professors, and graduate and undergraduate students alike came together to learn about and discuss feminist sciencewhat it is, and why we need it. Medina focused on the uses of reflexivity, critical theory, and feminist standpoint theory in her work. She and the Free Radicals asked the audience to consider how communities, cultures, and historical locations all factor into the viewpoints from which they interpret the world. By interrogating where we stand, we can better understand what assumptions we bring to scientific inquiry. Participants divided into pairs to try to apply this to their own research, as well as to each other. Each pair discussed their current research or research aims. Attendees asked each other how, why, and for whom their research existed: Is it accessible? What will it be used for? Attendees considered these questions and more.

Each pairing then assembled together to form larger discussion groups. Each group was led by a faculty advisor as well as a member of the Free Radicals. Groups collaborated to explore ways in which they could practice feminist science. Each group produced something different. Some spoke about how to communicate feminist science to the public, while others discussed how to redefine objectivity. At the end, the groups came together and shared what they had learned.

The event concluded with a request: Medina and the Free Radicals asked the audience to not only leave with a better understanding of feminist science, but to actually commit to practicing it. In unison, the audience shouted out what they would do to to make their science better. Some pledged to talk to colleagues or friends about feminist science. Others promised to make sure that their research was accessible and not hidden behind academic paywalls, or to remain conscious of their social and economic status so that they wouldn’t undervalue their privileged positions. The attendees left with both a new set of tools for practicing feminist science and a renewed sense of purpose.

Rapporteur Report

Critical Listener and Rapporteur Report by Dennis Browe

Convener: Paloma Medina

Participants:

Free Radicals, a “Los Angeles-based feminist and anti-racist community organization of scientists, that aims to incorporate a critical social justice lens into science.”

-       Sasha Karapetrova, laboratory assistant and prospective environmental science/biochemistry graduate student

-       Alexis Takahashi, multiracial community organizer, garden educator, and writer.

-       Linus Kuo, market researcher with a background in psychology, and current Masters of education student.

-       Andy Su, aspiring science educator and seeking to translate his experiences in community organizing toward transforming science institutions.

-       Paloma Medina, Ph.D. student in Biomolecular Engineering and Bioinformatics (UCSC) studying genetic ancestry and the evolution of sex.

Overview

The overall goal of this workshop was to introduce – and collectively think through – various tools for scientists from a range of disciplines to grapple with questions of justice in their research. The Free Radicals use feminist science studies as a guiding frame to grapple with these questions. Amidst upbeat music playing overhead, the workshop began within a warm and welcoming atmosphere. Soon the room was overflowing. By the start of the welcoming commentary participants lined the back and side walls. About forty participants were gathered, and an informal audience poll showed that there was a wide mix of people in the room – professors, graduate students, undergraduates, and some staff and community members, comprising a variety of backgrounds and disciplines spanning the computer, physical, natural and social sciences and the humanities – a perfect mix for the themes of this workshop.

Jenny Reardon (UCSC Professor of Sociology and SJRC Director) gave a brief welcome, happily acknowledging, with assent from the crowd: “I think we can conclude there is an interest in research justice on this campus.” Dr. Reardon then introduced Kate Darling (former SJRC Associate Director and UCSC Sociology adjunct faculty), who helped to further set the tone of the afternoon: “We don’t necessarily want to retreat from a move where we protect science, or only critique it, but to open up conversations of justice and equity in STEM fields, in health research and care.”  Dr. Darling then introduced the Free Radicals team to begin the workshop, which took the form of an interactive presentation (using Powerpoint on a large screen) interspersed with three participatory activities – individual, pairs, and larger groups, all focusing around locating participants’ own research projects and interrogating various assumptions and power dynamics built into these projects.

POLITICAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Sasha Karapetrova, a Free Radical, began with a political acknowledgment of the context in which the event was taking place: “We are gathered here and doing this workshop on the occupied lands of the Amah mutsun Tribe.”  Sasha then asked the room: “Is research just?” Almost no one raised their hand. She then asked if people think research is unjust. To this question there was a more varied response – some thought yes, some no, and others mentioned that they have mixed answers here. This helped situate the room further, illustrating that many attending this workshop share some overlapping concerns regarding justice and injustice in research. Here the workshop was still speaking of these issues at a high level, without delving into the specifics of how each might play out in more concrete practices, i.e. what are injustices participants encounter or notice in their own research and institutions, and what strategies they have pursued to attempt to rectify these issues.

EXAMPLES OF UNJUST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The Free Radicals team then launched into the main presentation, each team member stepping in and out, collaboratively taking turns leading various parts of the slideshow. They began by covering ways in which research can be unjust: science employed by the State or military can damage the land (such as DDT research and use); the process of conducting unethical experiments (such as the infamous Tuskegee syphilis case); and, third, ways that science is done, such as larger budgets into research for cystic fibrosis compared to sickle cell disease[PM1] .

THE FEMINIST SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The team moved onto discussing the scientific method, stating that this method or framework does not leave much room for scientists to interrogate their own process of research. They discussed the “God trick,” one assumption of science in which scientific research creates an illusion of pure objectivity (referencing Donna Haraway’s 1988 article on “Situated Knowledges”). The team explained that to move away from this “God trick” we need to embrace a feminist science, using tools from multiple theoretical lineages including feminist standpoint theory (Smith 1997, Harding 2004, Collins 1997, Haraway 1988)  and feminist intersectionality (Crenshaw 1991). The team further cited Dr. Deboleena Roy’s “Feminist theory in science: working toward a practical transformation” as a feminist model of inquiry, helping to put theory into practice. They stated that through using these feminist frameworks, science can and should benefit marginalized communities and challenge power and knowledge dynamics: working from these different assumptions could, ideally, help result in research justice.

LOCATING YOURSELF, THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS RESEARCH JUSTICE

The Free Radicals began detailing the steps of how to do research with questions of justice remaining at the forefront, starting with locating oneself, the communities one comes from and lives in, and one’s historical and cultural locatedness. Questions of locatedness demonstrate how knowledge and knowledge-making is socially and historically situated. One participant asked for the team to distinguish between cultural and community. The team members helped each other out, answering that we can think of cultural as about broader norms in a society, versus more specific community norms we are a part of. Paloma, the Convener, helped illustrate these points by discussing her own research. She located her own background, describing her multiple identities as a queer woman of color and as a biologist. She explained how her locatedness has sparked her research goals, beginning to explore what is the “natural.” She thus applied her skills in biology to study sex chromosomes and their naturally occurring mutations in various species.

LOCATING YOUR RESEARCH

After doing an individual activity on “Locating your Research,” the Free Radicals introduced a simultaneously useful and humorous (for its overwhelming number of nodes) mindmap on the big screen – a chart borrowed from Charlotte Cooper on “Research Justice: Some Handy Questions.” They then led the room through the steps of thinking through a research project with a feminist lens: after locating one’s research, define the purpose and clarify the questions one is asking; then interrogate the hypothesis, meaning asking questions such as “how was the research done and who designed it? Who participated, and how?” The final step is to analyze power dynamics of the completed research – how was it disseminated? What was done afterwards? The relationship between the scientist and the subjects of the research must be recognized and articulated. The team mentioned the importance of turning to an interdisciplinary range of knowledge and theories for explanations and forms of evidence.

                                                                                             

GROUP ACTIVITY: TRANSFORMATION

For the final third of the workshop, the Free Radicals led a large-group activity. The activity involved participants splitting into five groups of seven with each Free Radical pairing with a professor in the room to co-lead their group. The task was to brainstorm how to transform institutions to more thoroughly include research justice and how to create strategies for social change (Figure 1). During report-back, one strategy discussed amongst the room is finding out where the momentum in funding sources currently is. One can figure out how their own research interests relate to the momentum of the already built research field/institution. Additionally, one can create a niche for their research, and build out community and ideally obtain funding toward researching this niche interest. A few participants expressed being uncomfortable letting personal passions drive their research for fear of it discrediting their research. By voicing concerns and hurdles met when applying the feminist model of inquiry, many strategies to overcome barriers to research justice were shared among the group. It is clear that discussions and events that center research justice strategies, potentially a grant writing workshop, are desired and needed to help researchers  

Research Justice 101 brainstorm

Figure 1. Photo of group activity brainstorm led by Professor Linda Werner, Computer Science, and Paloma Medina, Biomolecular Engineering.

GROUP ACTIVITY: SEMANTICS OF ‘FEMINIST’ SCIENCE

One question that came up during the group activity, which offers occasion for citizen-scientist groups such as the Free Radicals and SJRC to continually interrogate (because there is no final, perfect answer to arrive at) is the semantics and definitions used toward building justice in research practices. One participant commented that they understand issues of justice to be a daily concern in running a lab and research projects, yet do not understand why a specifically “feminist” lens is needed. They work in a lab led by a woman of color and see her daily handle practical issues – bureaucracy, funding stretched thin, implicit and structural issues of racism and sexism –  that tend to impede on her and her lab’s ability to more fully tackle issues of justice and inclusivity, such as training more young women of color scientists. These same practices might be termed “feminist” by some, but not by others, and a question becomes, do these semantic distinctions make a difference, and if so, what differences might they make?

GROUP ACTIVITY: SCIENTISTS NEED TO SHOW UP

The team spoke of encouraging scientists to “show up” as much as possible, to try and get communities to care and to foster citizen scientists from the community, while acknowledging that scientists need to be citizens too. A participant remarked that ethics within science is generally too narrow a framework for thinking about issues of inequality and equity; instead, questions of justice probe deeper than ethical legal frameworks for the scientific research being done. A further strategy discussed is how to diplomatically connect departments, such as life scientists, physicists, computer scientists, and/or engineers coming together with social scientists and humanities scholars. These themes clearly overlap and resonate with the mission of the Science and Justice Research Center, and this workshop proved to be a valuable encounter for furthering this mission. By bringing together a wide range of participants –in terms of both career-stage and disciplinary backgrounds – it helped foster a shared framework for thinking through concrete ways to put these goals into action.

CONCLUSIONS: FRAMEWORK OF CHANGE

The Free Radicals ended the workshop by briefly touching on the “Ecological Framework of Change” for doing feminist science and research: a diagram consisting of concentric circles, representing different levels at which change can be fostered: the individual is the innermost point or circle, surrounded by a working group, surrounded by an institution, which is lastly enveloped within a field of study. Before participants left, each person was also given an artistic postcard to take home with them, to write down an action that they could commit to taking as a result of coming to the workshop. These gestures provided a fitting linking of this ending to serve as a new point of departure for projects bringing together a range of scientists and humanists, academics and citizens, to continually build community in the interests of justice in science and research more broadly. Commonsensical in some ways, justice in research should never be a singularly taken-for-granted category, goal, or strategy for change. Through hosting future events, the Science & Justice Research Center can and will continue interrogating meanings of research justice and its promises offered of a better world, or worlds.

 

Works Cited

Collins, Patricia Hill. "Comment on Hekman's 'Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory

Revisited': Where's the Power?" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society22.2 (1997): 375-381.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color." Stanford law review (1991): 1241-1299.

Haraway, Donna. "Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective." Feminist studies 14.3 (1988): 575-599.

Roy, Deboleena. "Feminist theory in science: working toward a practical transformation." Hypatia 19.1 (2004): 255-279.

Smith, Dorothy E. "Comment on Hekman's 'Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited'." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22.2 (1997): 392-398.

Spring | Science and Justice Writing Together

Tuesday 9:00-11:30am | SJRC Common Room, Oakes 231

Wanting to establish a regular writing routine exploring science and justice? Join SJRC scholars in the SJRC Common Room for open writing sessions! Engage in six 25-minute writing sessions (with a 5 minute break in between).

Open to all students, faculty and visiting scholars. We will continue to schedule quarterly writing sessions based on interest and availability, please be in touch if you are interested in participating in the future.

For more information, please contact Lindsey Dillon (Assistant Professor of Sociology).

May 1 | Reading Group with Lesley Green

Tuesday, May 01, 2018

11:30-1:30 PM

Humanities 1, Room 408

Reading Seminar on #ScienceMustFall and ABC of Plant Medicine: On Posing Cosmopolitical Questions

Email Kristina Lyons (krlyons@ucsc.edu) for the readings.

Lesley Green | Fulbright Fellow, Associate Professor of Anthropology in the School of African and Gender Studies, Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Cape Town; Director of Environmental Humanities South, Faculty of Humanities, University of Cape Town

Hosted by the IHR Race, Violence, Inequality and the Anthropocene Cluster.

Co-Sponsored by the Science and Justice Research Center

May 2 | “Sons and Daughters of Soil?” reflections on Life Sciences and Decoloniality in South Africa

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

3:30-5:30 PM

Humanities 1, Room 210

Responding, as researchers, to Earth Mastery that includes not only violent machines, but a violation of evidence and epistemes including the scientific episteme, requires accumulating and presenting evidence for existences that do not exist — at least, not in neoliberal discourses. In trying to research and support specific situations of Black environmental struggle in South Africa, I find myself standing with that which has no existence in conventional discourses: for a cliff that no longer exists; for molecules that have no existence in local knowledge; for people who have no existence in the mining companies, for the assassinated Bazooka Radebe, whose existence is now with the Ancestors, and with the soil he died to conserve. Environmental Humanities South had begun by asking a question about how to generate evidence in the geological Anthropocene. By the time our first three years had ticked by and we had encountered the Capitalocene, I had learned that a far more fundamental struggle has to be the focus of our work. What exists? Who exists? In what registers and modes? How do we take on the new conquistadors with their machines called Earth Masters, given that it is their owners’ logic that has come to define who exists and what exists and what can be ground to dust? How can scholarship contribute to the building of a broad-based environmental public? Presented as a dilemma tale, this talk sketches six moves toward an ecopolitics in South Africa, with the question: what else could be in this discussion?

Lesley Green | Fulbright Fellow, Associate Professor of Anthropology in the School of African and Gender Studies, Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Cape Town; Director of Environmental Humanities South, Faculty of Humanities, University of Cape Town

Hosted by the IHR Race, Violence, Inequality and the Anthropocene Cluster.

Co-Sponsored by the Science and Justice Research Center and the Anthropology Department.

May 09 | Timescales, Memory, and Nuclear Geographies: A Conversation with Gabrielle Hecht and Julie Salverson

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

4:00-6:00 PM

Humanities 1, room 210

Source: Michael Brill, Site Design to Mark the Dangers of Nuclear Waste for 10,000 Years. Buffalo: The Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation Inc. (BOSTI). 1991, pl 15.

Source: Michael Brill, Site Design to Mark the Dangers of Nuclear Waste for 10,000 Years. Buffalo: The Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation Inc. (BOSTI). 1991, pl 15.

Writers and activists researching nuclear things face “the challenge of rendering visible occluded, sprawling webs of interconnectedness” (Nixon 2011, 13). This discussion features two writers whose work traces the sprawling webs of nuclear geographies, binding uranium mining and its dispersed radioactive legacies. Julie Salverson (Professor of Drama and Cultural Studies, Queen’s University) links the mines of Northern Canada with the U.S.’s use of nuclear weapons in Japan, and the later disaster at Fukushima, while Gabrielle Hecht (Professor of History and Nuclear Security, Stanford) examines the afterlives of neocolonial uranium mining by French companies in Gabon. Salverson and Hecht experiment with different conceptual and writerly methods to trace the geographies of these extractive economies and their uneven effects.

This discussion with Salverson and Hecht is moderated by UCSC’s Science and Justice Research Center. We invite event attendees to read a representative article from each author, email Lindsey Dillon at lidillon@ucsc.edu for a copy of the readings.

  • Salverson, Julie and Peter C. van Wyck. “Through the Lens of Fukushima.” Forthcoming in Through Post Atomic Eyes, edited by Claudette Lauzon and John O’Brian. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  • Hecht, Gabrielle. “Interscalar Vehicles for an African Anthropocene: On Waste, Temporality, and Violence.” Cultural Anthropology 33, no. 1 (2018): 109-141.

References

Nixon, Rob. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press, 2011.

Jan 23 | Webinar: Talking Biopolitics with Alondra Nelson and Jenny Reardon on Racial and Genetic Justice

On January 23rd, Alondra Nelson and Jenny Reardon, both authors of recent books about genomics and social justice, will engage in conversation about their work. They’ll explore how institutions are responding to histories of racism in which genetics plays a role; the problems of knowledge that living in a genome-oriented world present; and how we can develop new understandings of racism, morality, and genetic justice.

This live webinar is part of Talking Biopolitics 2018, a continuing series by the Center for Genetics and Society, where cutting-edge thinkers talk about the social meanings of human biotechnologies. For updates and background materials, check out the Facebook event page and join the conversation on Twitter using #TalkingBiopolitics.

More information can be found on the Center for Genetics and Society website.

Reserve your spot now, by registering.

 

Alondra Nelson is Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at Columbia University, where she has served as the inaugural Dean of Social Science and Director of the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality. She is president of the Social Science Research Council and chair of the American Sociological Association Section on Science, Knowledge, and Technology. Nelson’s most recent book, The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation after the Genome (Beacon Press, 2016), traces how claims about ancestry are marshaled together with genetic analysis in a range of social ventures.

Jenny Reardon is Professor of Sociology and the Founding Director of the Science and Justice Research Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Reardon’s most recent book, The Postgenomic Condition: Ethics, Justice & Knowledge After the Genome (Chicago University Press, Fall 2017), critically examines the decade after the Human Genome Project and the fundamental questions about meaning, value and justice this landmark achievement left in its wake.

 

Wednesday, January 23, 2018  **online**

May 16 | Bioengineering in the Open

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

4:00-6:00 PM

Engineering 2, room 599

Bioengineering is an ascendant and elite field. Advocates of “open” bioengineering propose to expand the participants, methods and scope of practices & ideas for intervening in biology. Drawing on the perceived innovative successes of Silicon Valley, these advocates often promote analogies to computer and information technology to both frame and direct biological engineering’s development as a definitive technology of the twenty-first century. “Bioengineering in the Open” will explore the points of agreement and contention between different versions of “open” bioengineering, including what sources of inspiration and promise they find outside of biotechnology’s conventional borders.

Specifically, the event will compare the versions of “open” biotechnology espoused by a university-based bioengineer and a DIY biohacking collective. Drew Endy, Assistant Professor of Bioengineering at Stanford University, promotes the development of standardized biological engineering through the open-source Registry of Standard Biological Parts, working with biological systems to make them more “engineerable.” Oakland-based DIY “biohacking” and citizen science collective Counter Culture Labs compares the innovative powers of community laboratories to the garages that birthed many Silicon Valley startups and emphasizes “democratizing” and “demystifying” biotechnology by taking it outside the ivory towers of universities and research laboratories.

The Science and Justice Working Group will bring these advocates of different visions of “open” bioengineering together to discuss common concerns of innovation, accessibility, and intellectual property. Politics of openness in bioengineering have clear justice implications, as they present cases for who should be allowed to contribute to and benefit from the biology of the future. By shaping bioengineering in the image of computer and information technology, these political visions adopt some familiar models of participation and regulation. This raises some concerns, however: What lessons do these bioengineering advocates take from the less desirable features and outcomes—demographic inequality, monopoly, and information insecurity, for example—of the information technology industry? And does the push to equate biological engineering with computer engineering eclipse features that are unique to working with biomatter, like the ethics or risks of intervening in life forms that grow, mutate, and reproduce?

This working group event aims to discuss the following questions:

  • What ends (Knowledge production? Innovation? Profit? Ethics?) do advocates of “open bioengineering” expect it to better serve?
  • What does approaching biology as a form of engineering accomplish? What distinguishes “open,” as opposed to “closed,” engineering? What other analogies and metaphors do we have for developing and understanding biotechnology?
  • Who does “open” biotechnology help get involved and how? Who should have the right to participate in and benefit from bioengineering? What are the benefits that they receive from open biotechnology?
  • What are the risks and responsibilities of “open” bioengineering, and how are they distributed? How does “open bioengineering” anticipate and mitigate its own potential for harm?

Event Host:

Andy Murray, Sociology PhD Candidate and SJRC Graduate Student Researcher

Participants:

Drew Endy, Associate Professor, Stanford University

Patrik D’haeseleer, Co-founder and Chair, Counter Culture Labs

Jenny Reardon, Professor and SJRC Director, UCSC

 

Co-Sponsored by the UCSC Departments of Biomolecular Engineering; Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, and the UCSC Genomics Institute.

Winter | Science and Justice Writing Together

Mondays | 1:00-4:00pm | SJRC Common Room, Oakes 231

Wanting to establish a regular writing routine exploring science and justice? Join SJRC scholars in the SJRC Common Room for open writing sessions! Engage in six 25-minute writing sessions (with a 5 minute break in between).

Open to all students, faculty and visiting scholars. We will continue to schedule writing sessions on a quarterly basis based on interest and availability, please be in touch if you are interested in participating in the future.

For more information, please contact Lindsey Dillon (Assistant Professor of Sociology).

Jan 17 | Visiting Scholars Roundtable

S&J welcomes Lesley Green, (Fulbright Scholar, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Founding Director of Environmental Humanities South at the University of Cape Town, South Africa) to the S&J Visiting Scholars Program who will share an overview of a forthcoming book, “Rock | Water | Life” and a wider Environmental Humanities South project building on soils scholarship, while visiting Santa Cruz. This will be a great chance for everyone to meet the new visiting faces of the Center, learn about their work and foster emerging collaborations!

Interested in visiting Science & Justice? Visit our website for more information on the SJRC Visiting Scholar Program.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018 | 4:00-5:30 PM | SJRC Common Room, Oakes 231