skip to content

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

 

Research Seminars

Graduate Workshops

Reading Groups

Language Groups

Departmental Seminars

Seminars are held on Thursdays from 3.30 to 5pm in Seminar Room 2. There is tea and coffee before the seminar at 3pm in Seminar Room 1, and there are refreshments afterwards at 5pm in Seminar Room 1.

Organised by Agnes Bolinska.

25 April Joseph Martin (HPS, Cambridge)
Rethinking industrial patronage of academic research in the early Cold War
Robert Maynard Hutchins, the University of Chicago's erstwhile chancellor, remarked in 1963: 'My view, based on long and painful observation, is that professors are somewhat worse than other people, and that scientists are somewhat worse than other professors.' This outlook motivated his efforts to insulate Chicago's scientists from industrial and military influence after World War II. Perhaps unexpectedly, Chicago's science faculty embraced Hutchins's plan to fund three ambitious new research institutes with numerous small subscriptions from industry, which Hutchins hoped would diffuse any one corporation's influence, seeing in the plan a way to protect their basic research ideal. The University of Michigan deployed a similar strategy to attract industry funding post–World War II. Michigan pursued industrial partnerships to support a laboratory that doubled as a living war memorial, enlisting businesses by appealing to corporate responsibility and suggesting a shared obligation to prevent government control over basic research. In each case, businesses contributed generously, often because they shared concerns about government monopoly on critical sectors of scientific research.

Historians have shown how some university-industry collaborations intertwined with the military-industrial-academic complex during the Cold War. MIT and Stanford, for instance, cultivated a cosy relationship with both industry and government, at times steering their research towards economic and military interests. Studies of this type of relationship have shaped current historical understanding of Cold War science. They suggest that individual institutions possessed little latitude to craft the relationships with industry they thought conducive to their institutional goals. A broader survey of institutions, and engagement with industry's own motives for supporting academic science, will situate existing understanding of academia-industry partnerships within a larger, knottier story about American science, technology, academia and industry. I present the Chicago and Michigan cases and describe how they motivate systematic re-evaluation of industrial patronage and its place in Cold War science.

2 May Darrell Rowbottom (Lingnan University)
The instrument of science
In my recently published monograph, The Instrument of Science: Scientific Anti-Realism Revitalised (Routledge), I develop and defend a position that I call 'cognitive instrumentalism'. This involves three core theses. First, science makes theoretical progress primarily when it furnishes us with more predictive power or understanding concerning observable things. Second, scientific discourse concerning unobservable things should only be taken literally in so far as it involves observable properties or analogies with observable things. Third, scientific claims about unobservable things are probably neither approximately true nor liable to change in such a way as to increase in truthlikeness. In this talk I will offer some arguments for each thesis, using examples from the history of science, and hence cognitive instrumentalism as a whole.
9 May Liam Kofi Bright (London School of Economics)
Du Bois' plan for scientific inquiry
Social epistemologists are increasingly coming to appreciate the importance of planning out a schedule of inquiry. How we decide what will be investigated, by who and on what schedule, are hugely influential on what we are capable of coming to know or reliably conclude. Presently one prominent social technology we have for allocating resources to projects of inquiry is the peer reviewed grant competition. In this talk I will review a number of critiques of this social technology, motivate an alternative grounded in the historical practice of W.E.B. Du Bois, and point to some relative advantages of the latter course. I end by calling for an integrated HPS project that might help us explore the social epistemic properties of Du Boisian scientific resource allocation.
16 May Twenty-Fourth Annual Hans Rausing Lecture
Ruth Oldenziel (Eindhoven University of Technology)
Whose history of technology? Path dependencies, contested modernities, and pockets of persistence
McCrum Lecture Theatre, Bene't Street, at 4.30pm
6 June Ofer Gal (University of Sydney)
From Kepler's optics to Spinoza's politics: Descartes' turn to the passions
In 1604 Kepler published his Optical Part of Astronomy, dramatically changing the role of optics and the fundamental concept of vision. Instead of a window through which visual rays informed reason about its surrounding objects, the eye became a screen on which light painted images of no inherent cognitive value. The naturalization of the senses required a corresponding naturalization of the mind, which Descartes attempted to offer with a theory of the passions. Kepler's optics turned sensations into purely causal effects, but the passions, indicators of benefit and damage to the individual, could provide them with meaning. This was a reversal of the traditional epistemological responsibilities of reason and the passions, and for Spinoza this demanded a reversal of their ethical and political roles. 'Desire is the very essence of man' he stated, and concluded: 'society can be established ... not by reason ... but by threats.'

Twentieth Century Think Tank

The Twentieth Century Think Tank offers broad coverage of 20th- and 21st-century topics in the history, philosophy and sociology of science, technology and medicine. The regular programme of papers and discussions takes place on Thursdays over lunch.

Think Tank meetings are held on Thursdays, 1–2pm in Seminar Room 2. All welcome!

Organised by Mary Brazelton, Joseph Martin and Richard Staley.

9 May Ulrika Björkstén (Clare Hall; Sveriges Radio)
How wide and how tall? Genome Wide Association Studies in debate, from height to educational attainment and back
In April 2018 a study was published that claimed to have found evolutionary differences between human populations on different continents, with a larger selection in some populations for genes which could be linked to educational attainment (Racimo et al, Genetics, 208, 1565–1584). A few months later the same research group presented new results calling to question the very foundations of their own methodology (Jeremy Berg et al, BioRxiv, 23 June 2018).

In this paper based on a chapter in progress I trace how claims about evolutionary differences between human populations in the selection of complex traits were constructed from 2010 to 2018, starting with the publication of GWAS-data linked to height by the so-called GIANT-consortium in 2010 (Nature, 467, 832–838). This article was considered a breakthrough in GWA-studies of complex human traits, finding hundreds of genetic markers correlating to height differences between individuals. Although the authors carefully noted that these genetic markers could not be used for predictive purposes, but should rather be regarded as indicators of genetic loci suitable for further exploration of functional genetic links to height, this set of markers was subsequently used in a study investigating evolutionary explanations to height differences between different European populations (Nature Genetics, 44, 1015–1019). The article published in 2012 was hence one of the first to claim to have found active selection for a complex human trait which differed between populations.

After these two initial articles were published, several years of similar research followed on ever larger datasets, as the GIANT consortium grew. With the increasing power of new datasets, including genetic data from hundreds of thousands of individuals, the number of genetic markers that could be statistically linked to height differences between individuals also grew. These results were in their turn used as starting points for new studies of the evolutionary background to differences in height between different populations, notably between southern and northern Europeans. Simultaneously, the success of the 2010-study had sparked a whole new field of research applying GWAS to an increasing number of human traits, including one as complex and highly culturally dependent as 'educational attainment'. In 2018 the field hence culminated in a study claiming to have found an evolutionary background to differences between human populations in the frequency of genetic markers that could be linked to educational attainment. The political implications of this claim sparked a controversy within the population genetics community (Novembre et al, Genetics, 208, 1351–1355) which led to a reconsideration of earlier results. Comparing the GWAS-results from one data set (GIANT) to another (UK Biobank) researchers found that the statistical link between certain genetic markers and height all but disappeared. The explanation given was that the GIANT-dataset suffered from unknown population stratification. This finding brought to question the methodology as such, since it uncovered a hitherto underestimated sensitivity to confounding factors.

Interestingly, the seminal article of the field, published in 2010, included a clear warning of using GWAS-results for prediction. Instead it stated that the genetic markers found should only be used as a starting point for further investigations of genetic functionality. This story hence unfolds as a case study of how scientific results take on new meanings as they leave their original setting and are interpreted by other researchers and implemented as starting points for new studies.

Another aspect of this case study is that the original datasets used had a very heavy bias of northern European genetic data. Recent studies have shown that genetic markers found by GWAS in one population cannot necessarily be transferred in a meaningful way to another population. This story hence also serves as a very concrete illustration of how a Eurocentric approach may skew scientific results.

16 May (1.00–2.30pm) Jenny Bangham (HPS, Cambridge), Marta Halina (HPS, Cambridge) and Ernesto Schwartz Marin (University of Exeter)
Thinking/researching/teaching race, genetics and intelligence in HPS and STS
This presentation will feature an open discussion exploring strategies and approaches towards thinking, researching and teaching these controversial topics of long-standing interest, with specialists in the history of genetics and anthropology, philosophy of intelligence, and the ethnography of biomedicine, forensics and citizen science.

Coffee with Scientists

The aim of this group is to explore and enhance the interface between HPS and science. Though many of us in HPS engage closely with science and scientists, we could benefit from more explicit discussions about the relationship between HPS and science itself, and from more opportunities for HPS-scholars and scientists to help each other's work.

We meet on Fridays, 3.30–5.00pm in Seminar Room 2. Further information and reading materials will be distributed through the email list of the group; please contact Hasok Chang (hc372) if you would like to be included on the list.

26 April Hope Bretscher and Carmen Palacios Berraquero (Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge), commentary by Hannah Tomczyk (HPS, Cambridge)
Confined and free: excitons in 2D
10 May Andrew Blake (Chairman, Samsung AI Centre, Cambridge), commentary by Marta Halina (HPS, Cambridge)
Should we trust machines that see?
17 May Jonathon Crystal (Program in Neuroscience, Indiana University Bloomington), hosted by Marta Halina (HPS, Cambridge)
Future planning in nonhuman animals

Cabinet of Natural History

This research seminar is concerned with all aspects of the history of natural history and the field and environmental sciences. The regular programme of papers and discussions takes place over lunch on Mondays. In addition, the Cabinet organises a beginning-of-year fungus hunt and occasional expeditions to sites of historical and natural historical interest, and holds an end-of-year garden party.

All seminars are held on Mondays at 1pm in Seminar Room 1. Please feel free to bring your lunch.

Organised by Laura Brassington (lb685).

29 April Rebecca Earle (University of Warwick)
The politics of the potato in the 19th century
Over the 19th century potatoes became deeply embedded in arguments about the merits of capitalism. Political radicals condemned potatoes as a tool of exploitation. Advocates of free trade denounced them as an obstacle to economic rationality (Ireland being a prime example), and nutritionists investigated the deleterious effects of 'sluggish potato blood' on the urban proletariat's productivity. This talk sketches out the ways in which potatoes, and the everyday eating practices of working people, became entangled in debates about industrialisation and economic change in 19th-century Europe, to show how talking about potatoes provided a way to talk about capitalism.
6 May Harriet Ritvo (MIT)
When is a cow not a cow?
When we think about animals in the 19th and 20th centuries, we notice two conflicting themes. Nineteenth-century breeders carefully policed the behaviour of their animals, in the interests of maintaining and enhancing quality. On the other hand, like many of their contemporaries, breeders were also attracted by quality of a very different, inconsistent kind: the Romantic cachet associated with wildness. The tension between these conflicting attractions produced divergent experiences for cattle and contrasting agendas for their proprietors; they also fuelled arguments in taxonomy about the degree of difference required for the recognition of separate species. These tensions continue to shape and inspire efforts to restore lost landscapes and their vanished inhabitants. This talk will explore these themes, considering the relationship between the constraints of domestication and an increasing appreciation for wildness.
13 May Luz Fernanda Azuela (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)
Mexican science at the crossroads of French imperialism and Maximilian's empire (1864–1867)
Mexico, which had been an independent nation since 1821, suffered a colonial takeover by the French between 1864 and 1867. During these years Mexican science was torn between the colonialist aims of the Napoleon III and the Hapsburg Empire of Maximilian that the French Intervention had enabled. Maximilian agreed with local scholars on the urgent need for scientific institutions that would foster practical research to support material and cultural progress. His main objective was his régime's legitimation. Napoleon III, in contrast, wanted to boost France's presence in the Americas, and restrain the expansionism of the United States. Both agreed on the need to exploit Mexican resources by promoting natural history, geography, geology and medicine.

Local advances in those disciplines had been pursued for over three centuries, a tradition of research practically unknown in Europe. This led to a distorted appreciation of Mexican scholarship and qualifications, especially from the French Scientific Commission. Conversely, Maximilian engaged with the local scientific community on several projects, whose excellence contradicted the French evaluation of their expertise.

This paper aims to explain the dismissal of Mexican scientific capabilities by the invaders, even when local insight and scholarship proved to be instrumental in achieving the foreigners' goals. It will also point out the asymmetric nature of the conditions in which their collaboration took place, as an expression of imperial subjugation and eurocentrism. And it will echo Kapil Raj's statements on the reconfiguration of 'existing knowledges and specialized practices on both sides of the encounter'.

Friday 17 May Cabinet Excursion: John Clare Cottage, Swaddywell Pit and Helpston Village Church
We will be visiting the village of Helpston, the home of poet, farm labourer and naturalist John Clare (1793–1864). We will begin by exploring his cottage and garden, before walking or driving about a mile to a local nature reserve, Swaddywell Pit. In addition to viewing its beautiful orchids and hearing about its geological history, we will learn about the site's connection with John Clare through his criticism of the enclosure movement. We will then receive a guided tour of the local medieval church, where Clare and his parents are buried. We will depart from the Department at 10am and return to Cambridge by 5pm. Cabinet will provide transport and lunch. Due to the capacity of the minibuses, places will be limited to 18 participants. RSVP to Laura Brassington (lb685).
20 May James Ryan (Victoria & Albert Museum/University of Exeter)
Men of eminence: science, photography and biography in the self-fashioning of Robert Hunt in 19th-century England
This paper considers the way the one Victorian man of science – Robert Hunt (1807–1887) – employed biography and the photographic portrait in his wider self-fashioning. A chemist, experimental researcher on light and photography, folklorist, geologist and writer, Hunt manoeuvred his way from humble beginnings in Devon and Cornwall to the relative heights of metropolitan science in mid-19th century London. He used his talents in chemistry, photography and writing, together with support from powerful patrons, to enter the world of science and social respectability. He is a good example of men who, through their talents, exertions and institutional networks, forged careers in professional science in this period. Like many such men, Hunt lacked the gentlemanly background that had hitherto dominated the world of science. While Hunt's experiments in genres of science writing and his romantic geological interests have recently received scholarly attention, notably from historian of science Melanie Keane, the connections between his literary exertions and his experiments in visual culture have been little studied. This paper considers Robert Hunt's own photographic image and how he used the art of biography to write himself into the history of science. It pays particular attention to Hunt's work in one particular experimental photographic and biographical publication: photographic portraits of men of eminence in literature, science and art, with biographical memoirs, published in six volumes from 1863 to 1867, with photographs by Ernest Edwards, edited by Lovell Augustus Reeve (1814–1865) and E. Walford. In doing so the paper seeks to open up questions about the significance of the photographic portrait and biography in the cultural framing of scientific, gender and class identities in mid-19th century Britain.
Friday 14 June Garden Party, 1–3pm, Caius Fellows' Garden
Nick Jardine (HPS, Cambridge)
Fungi and feelings
Dramatic pronouncements have been made about the transformative impacts of fungi on human history. My focus will be on the forms of anachronism involved in claims about the foundational roles of the hallucinogenic Fly Agaric in world religions. I shall suggest that these claims are distorted by affective anachronism, inappropriate projection onto past agents of our own feelings, concerns and attitudes, this being a form of anachronism that is especially insidious given historians' need to understand and convey past experiences and values.

AD HOC

AD HOC (Association for the Discussion of the History of Chemistry) is a group dedicated to the history of chemistry. While our main focus is historical, we also consider the philosophical, sociological, public and educational dimensions of chemistry. The group meets on Mondays at 5pm in Seminar Room 1. Coordinated by Hasok Chang, and funded by the Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry (SHAC).

29 April Robin Hendry (Durham University)
Trusting atoms
13 May Joe Martin (HPS, Cambridge)
Who made the makers? How materials science happened
10 June Special joint session with the Science and Literature Reading Group, co-hosted by Melanie Keene and Hasok Chang
The Periodic Table by Primo Levi

CamPoS

CamPoS (Cambridge Philosophy of Science) is a network of academics and students working in the philosophy of science in various parts of the University of Cambridge, including the Department of History and Philosophy of Science and the Faculty of Philosophy. The Wednesday afternoon seminar series features current research by CamPoS members as well as visitors to Cambridge and scholars based in nearby institutions. If you are interested in presenting in the series, please contact Matt Farr (mwef2). If you have any queries or suggestions for other activities that CamPoS could undertake, please contact Huw Price, Jeremy Butterfield or Anna Alexandrova.

Seminars are held on Wednesdays, 1.00–2.30pm in Seminar Room 2.

8 May Riana Betzler (HPS, Cambridge)
Follow the measures: conceptualization, measurement and interdisciplinarity in the science of empathy
Questions about how empathy should be conceptualized have long been a preoccupation of the field of empathy research. There are several definitions of empathy currently in circulation, as well as significant overlap between empathy and related concepts, such as sympathy, compassion, perspective-taking and mind-reading. This conceptual diversity is widely acknowledged and generally taken to be a problem that needs to be solved. In this paper, I argue that although there is vast and seemingly intractable disagreement about the meaning of 'empathy' in the psychological and cognitive neuroscience literature on it – as evidenced by stated definitions and conceptualizations – researchers working in the field seldom rely on those stated definitions and instead work within certain experimental 'paradigms' characterized by the use of established measures. Continuity and stability comes from the use of those established measures while progress comes from expansion upon those measures. Stated concepts respond flexibly and not always in step with the evolution of research methodologies. By following the measures rather than the stated definitions, we can get clearer on the target(s) of empirical empathy research. Towards the end of the talk, I consider how this 'follow the measures' approach fares when considering interdisciplinary research and the special problems interdisciplinarity might pose.
15 May Aaron Hanlon (Colby College)
Early modern history of data and epistemology of form
This talk examines several contexts in which the word 'data' entered the English language in the 17th century, and how the usage contexts of the term evolved over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries. A parallel discussion will consider the various forms of evidence privileged within and sometimes across different knowledge domains during the same historical period: Robert Hooke's illustrations, William Petty's interpolated figures, Joseph Priestley's charts, Margaret Cavendish's narrative structures, Abraham Cowley's verse, and others. The talk will address the question of why 'data' was used to describe some forms of evidence and not others as the concept took on life in early modern Britain, as well as why some forms of evidence carried more epistemological weight than others. This history of 'data' and forms of evidence will then (I hope!) provide a useful context for examining various ongoing assumptions about the credibility of some forms of evidence over others.
22 May Darrell Rowbottom (Lingnan University)
Does science progress?

HPS Workshop

Wednesdays, 5–6pm
Organised by Jules Skotnes-Brown, Eoin Carter, Peter Rees and Emilie Skulberg (History workshops); Katy Duncan, Céline Henne and Bobby Vos (Philosophy workshops)

HPS Workshop seeks to break the isolation of graduate research and encourage collaborative thinking by allowing students to present work in progress in a supportive seminar environment. The workshops will have alternate sessions focusing on Philosophy and History, but interdisciplinary presentations are always welcome. After each seminar, we will head to a local pub.

Students are invited to present on any aspect of their research that they are grappling with or desire feedback on, including:

  • Unpacking complicated sources, concepts, or archives
  • Presenting drafts of chapters, conference papers, or publications
  • Proposing new ideas or strategies towards HPS research


The session is comprised of two parts: 20 minutes where the speaker outlines their work in progress (indicating areas that they would like feedback to be based upon) and 40 minutes of discussion. Students interested in presenting in a Philosophy workshop should contact Bobby Vos (bfmv2). Those interested in presenting in a History workshop can contact Peter Rees (pr381).

Kinds of Intelligence Reading Group

The Kinds of Intelligence Reading Group meets biweekly on Thursdays during term time from 11am to 12noon in the Board Room (but note different time and room on 16 May). Readings are focused on topics in cognitive science, biology and philosophy of mind, with topics including learning, memory, consciousness and artificial intelligence, understood from an interdisciplinary perspective. Participants from all disciplines are welcome. Organised by Matthew Crosby, Henry Shevlin, Karina Vold, Lucy Cheke and Marta Halina.

2 May

'On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of consciousness' by Tim Bayne
Led by Henry Shevlin (CFI, Cambridge) and Matthew Crosby (CFI, Imperial College London)

16 May (1.00–2.30pm in Seminar Room 2)

'Thinking/researching/teaching race, genetics and intelligence in HPS and STS'
Led by Jenny Bangham (HPS, Cambridge), Marta Halina (HPS, Cambridge) and Ernesto Schwartz Marin (University of Exeter)
Joint meeting with the Twentieth Century Think Tank

30 May

'Structural representations and models in cognitive science'
Led by Patrick Butlin (King's College London)

13 June

'Comparative psychology of AI'
Led by Cameron Buckner (University of Houston)

Twentieth Century Reading Group

The group discusses books and papers relating to the history and historiography of 20th-century science, technology and medicine, broadly construed. We normally meet on Thursdays, 1pm to 2pm in the Board Room, but please note the different arrangements in Easter Term. Organised by Andrew Buskell and Richard Staley.

Everyone is welcome – feel free to bring along your lunch.

This term the Twentieth Century Reading Group continues its investigation of the ontological turn.

Readings are available electronically through the University Library; please contact Andrew Buskell (ab2086) or Richard Staley (raws1) if you are unable to access them.

Thursday 25 April
The Ontological Turn IV: Annamarie Mol and Ontological Politics

1–2pm in the Board Room

Key readings:

  • Annemarie Mol. 1999. 'Ontological politics. A word and some questions.' The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 74–89.
  • Annemarie Mol. 2002. The Body Multiple. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ch. 3 'Coordination', pp. 53–85.

Friday 3 May
The Ontological Turn V: Critiques of the Turn

12–1pm in Seminar Room 1 (note unusual time and place)

Key readings:

  • David Greaber. 2015. 'Radical alterity is just another way of saying "reality": A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro.' HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(2): 1–41.
  • Lucas Bessire and David Bond. 2014. 'Ontological anthropology and the deference of critique.' American Ethnologist, 41(3): 440–456.

Philosophy of Psychology and Psychiatry Reading Group

We meet on Fridays, 11am–12noon in the Board Room. Organised by Riana Betzler and Joe Gough.

The theme for Easter Term is Psychiatry in society: social psychiatry and 'anti-psychiatry'.

26 April

  • Frank, LK (1936). Society as the Patient. American Journal of Sociology, 42 (3), 335–344.
  • Bettelheim, B (1952). Mental Health and Current Mores. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 22 (1), 76–88.
  • optional: Staub, M (2011). Introduction. Madness is Civilization: When the Diagnosis was Social, 1948–1960. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

3 May

  • Szasz, T (1960). The myth of mental illness. American Psychologist, 15 (2), 113–118.

10 May

  • Laing, RD (1964). What is Schizophrenia? New Left Review, 28: 65.

17 May

  • Foucault, M (2006). Chapter 8. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Random House.
  • optional: Downing, L (2012). Chapter 2: Works: Madness and Medicine. The Cambridge Introduction to Michel Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24 May

  • Pickard, H. (2009). Mental Illness is Indeed a Myth. In Broome, M and Bortolotti, L (eds), Psychiatry as Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31 May

  • Grinker R (1969). Emerging Concepts of Mental Illness and Models of Treatment: The Medical Point of View. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125 (7), 865–869.
  • Albee, GW (1969). Emerging Concepts of Mental Illness and Models of Treatment: The Psychological Point of View. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125 (7), 870–876.

7 June

  • Rosenhan, DL (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. Science, 179 (4070), 250–258.

14 June

  • Double, DB (2006). Chapter 1: Critical Psychiatry: Challenging the Biomedical Dominance of Psychiatry. Critical Psychiatry: The Limits of Madness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • optional: Double, DB (2006). Chapter 2: Historical Perspectives on Anti-Psychiatry. Critical Psychiatry: The Limits of Madness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

The Intersection of Gender, Race and Disability with Philosophy of Science

This new reading group meets on Mondays, 2–3pm, in the Board Room. Organised by Azita Chellappoo (asc63).

6 May

Taylor, A. (2015). The discourse of pathology: Reproducing the able mind through bodies of color. Hypatia, 30(1), 181–198.

13 May

Patterson, A., & Satz, M. (2002). Genetic counseling and the disabled: Feminism examines the stance of those who stand at the gate. Hypatia, 17(3), 118–142.

Science and Literature Reading Group

This term the Science and Literature Reading Group returns, taking as its focus texts first published a century ago in 1919. We meet at Darwin College on Monday evenings from 7.30–9pm. All are welcome to join in our friendly and wide-ranging discussions! Organised by Melanie Keene.

For recaps, further readings, news, and other updates, please follow us on Twitter @scilitreadgrp or visit our blog.

We hope our planned term on AI Narratives will go ahead later in the year.

29 April: Gardens

13 May: Cities

20 May: Health

3 June: Heaven and earth

Special joint meeting with AD HOC, 5pm, HPS, 10 June: The Periodic Table

  • Primo Levi (1919–87), 'Potassium', 'Nitrogen', 'Carbon', from The Periodic Table (1975).
  • Optional additional reading: 'Primo Levi by Philip Roth', Penguin edition introduction.

Early Science and Medicine Work-in-Progress

This is a termly forum for early career scholars to discuss their work-in-progress. We usually discuss two pieces of work at each session.

If you would like to participate, please email the organisers, Justin Rivest (jr723) and Carolin Schmitz (cs2003).

Meetings are held in the Board Room at the start of each term. In Easter Term we will meet on Tuesday 23 April, 5–8pm.

Convened by Lauren Kassell, Silvia De Renzi (OU), Elaine Leong (MPI) and Dániel Margócsy.

Casebooks Therapy

Organiser: Lauren Kassell

'Casebooks Therapy' is an informal reading group for those interested in using the manuscripts of Simon Forman and Richard Napier in their research.

The aim of the reading group is to improve the palaeography skills of those who attend, as well as to provide guidance about how to make sense of Forman's and Napier's records. No familiarity with early modern handwriting is necessary, and the group is open to all. Attendees are invited to suggest a particular page or case from the casebooks that they have trouble reading to work through collaboratively. Participants should bring a laptop.

If you are interested in attending, please email Lauren Kassell (ltk21).

German Therapy

German Therapy will continue to meet weekly on Fridays, 10–11am in the Board Room during Easter Term. The focus will be on academic reading, combined with various other learning activities. Led by Carolin Schmitz and Katharina Bick, organised by Hasok Chang.

Latin Therapy

Latin Therapy is an informal reading group. All levels of Latin are very welcome. We meet on Fridays, 3.00 to 4.30pm in the Board Room, to translate and discuss a text from the history of science, technology or medicine. This is an opportunity to brush up your Latin by regular practice, and if a primary source is giving you grief, we'd love to help you make sense of it over tea and biscuits!

To be added to the mailing list, or to suggest a text, please contact Arthur Harris.

Manchu Therapy

The Manchu Therapy group meets fortnightly on Tuesdays, from 10.00 to 11.00am, in the Board Room. In Lent Term we meet on 22 January, 5 February, 19 February and 5 March.

Manchu Therapy is an informal group for those who have an interest in the Manchu language, or who are working with Manchu documents, to learn more and improve their reading skills. (See this brief description of the Manchus and the Manchu language.) Every other week, we will meet to read texts together. All are welcome.

For more information or to be added to the mailing list, please contact Mary Brazelton.

Greek Therapy

Greek Therapy meets every Wednesday during term time in the Board Room from 5.30 to 7pm.

We are an informal group for beginners and for experienced readers of Greek seeking to brush up their skills – all levels are welcome. Sessions usually involve a basic grammar session at the beginning followed by reading through a more advanced text. This term we will read selections from Plato's Timaeus.

For more information or to be added to the mailing list, please email Liz Smith.