Deeply probing conversation with UCLA professor Terrence Keel, a leading scholar examining the intersection of race, science and public institutions. The discussion centers on his new book, The Coroner’s Silence, which investigates how death investigations—particularly in cases involving police custody—can obscure rather than illuminate the truth.
Terence Keel participated in the “Uncounted: Virginia” launch through a moderated discussion of his book The Coroner’s Silence, highlighting systemic flaws in death reporting. He emphasized how inconsistencies in coroners’ records obscure deaths in custody, raising broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and the accurate documentation of police-related fatalities.
Pork isn’t just eaten – fats, bones and other leftovers are turned into detergents and finishes for our homes. Behind the smooth, shiny surfaces lie the entrails of an extractivist industry with serious effects on animals people and the environment. This article is part of a series curated by Gerard Ortín Castellví on the future of food.
A talk and discussion by UCLA professors Nicholas Shapiro and Valerie Tornini.
Media narratives shape public trust and participation in genetics research through framing, misinformation, and portrayals of ethical risk, often affecting trust in scientific institutions and willingness to share genetic data. Nevertheless, public engagement is essential for building diverse and scientifically reliable genetic datasets. Drawing on historical controversies such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Havasupai Tribe case, the paper highlights how ethical failures and sensationalized reporting can deepen public skepticism and reduce participation among marginalized communities. Responsible media reporting, transparent data protections, and adaptive consent models are critical to rebuilding trust and ensuring the future success of ethical genetics research. Project by Cassidy Lo.
This paper examines how behavioral genetic evidence has been used in criminal cases to shape ideas of violence, intent, and legal responsibility. Focusing on the case studies State v. Waldroup (2011) and State v. Yepez (2015), it analyzes how courts reached different conclusions regarding the admissibility and influence of MAOA-L gene evidence. The paper argues that the legal significance of behavioral genetics depends largely on how judges and juries interpret scientific legitimacy rather than on the gene itself. It also explores how genetic explanations of violence risk reinforcing biological determinist thinking while drawing attention away from structural factors such as abuse, trauma, and poverty. Ultimately, the project demonstrates the challenges of applying population-level behavioral genetics research to individual criminal defendants within the justice system. Project by Violet Webber.