Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

5 people think this is good

Discuss

  1. {{attachment.file.name}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.

{{c.errors.other}}

Posting comment...

  • Alessandra Rizzotti

    Interesting thoughts on race: "Race has a hold on history, but it no longer has a place in science. The sheer instability and potential for misinterpretation render race useless as a scientific concept. Inventing new vocabularies of human diversity and inequity won't be easy, but is necessary." I think race is still very relevant to science, especially when it comes to genomics- not to mention the fact that we need more diversity in science.

    What scientific idea do you think should be retired?

    • Brian Hoffstein

      Robert Sapolsky's response was a nice a corollary to the genomics / diversity in science points you bring up Alessandra. He spoke on "The problem with "a gene-environment interaction" emphasizing the lack of appreciation/understanding environmental conditions play in gene regulation ... "To say that a gene has a consistent effect in every environment is really only to say that it has a consistent effect in all the environments in which it has been studied to date. This has become ever more clear in studies of the genetics of behavior, as there has been increasing appreciation of environmental regulation of epigenetics, transcription factors, splicing factors, and so on. And this is most dramatically pertinent to humans, given the extraordinary range of environments—both natural and culturally constructed—in which we live."