Is there a Sociology of Scientific Language?

In summary: The conversation is about whether to use the word "race" or not. My neighbor, a linguistics specialist, says that the word comes from the Italian word "razza" and is related to the word "generation". Webster's Dictionary says that the word can mean "root, coming from Latin radix by way of Old French rais," and has several other meanings. There's also the meaning of "origin unknown." If someone were to ask my neighbor what the word means to her, she would probably say that it is related to the word "generation."
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
I'd guess the answer is obvious :smile:

My nextdoor neighbor's field is Linguistics. She specializes in
Sociolinguistics---what can you tell about society from the words
people use, and avoid using. She can listen to the news coverage of an event and often get an essay out of the linguistic behavior she picks up.

yeah, there is quite a Sociology of Science and working scientists
love to talk about it---mainly at the level of anecdote. The
changing fashions in terminology are only part of the story.

But they are an important part. Different groups of scientists will sometimes push different concepts and there can be academic battles over whether or not to use some word.

So it would seem there is a Sociolinguistics of Science, or a
Sociology of Scientific Language. And I guess a smart Social Science grad student could get a thesis in it.

I wish I was more up-to-date on what's going on in Sociology but I
think that (well first of all my neighbor the Sociolinguist is wonderful
and extremely funny and if she hasnt done something on the Sociology
of Science then I'll bet she knows someone who has)

A great thesis topic IMO would be the linguistic controversy that seems to be going on about whether to say the word Race or not!
------
I think it is an interesting thing to watch. It mainly has to do with human social behavior and especially contemporary language behavior.

If they decide to use the word then they become responsible. they have to take charge of it and use it in a sufficiently sophisticated way that they know what they mean by it in any given context. They have to invent rules of usage, as you can have and may need to have with technical terms.
If they decide not to use the word then they have to invent synonyms and also do the same thing: make explicit definitions and rules of usage.
------

By the way, I think in any Sociology of Langauge discussion the etymology of words should be mentioned. Some people maybe don't care about word origins and don't think they matter. but I disagree. Since there is so much excitement around the word race, i would like to know what language the word comes from and what it originally meant. Anybody know?

Just to be fair, same question about posible alternative terms like "cluster" "subspecies" "population group" "scion" "clanoid" "isolate" "gene class".
Some of these are not actual words, just possible words, and some mean different things and would have to be re-defined, but that is possible too.

My websters says the word Race can either mean root, coming from Latin radix by way of Old French rais
like there is this word "deracinate" meaning to up-root
and then there are several other meanings like footrace etc.
and then there is the meaning we are concerned with, where
Websters just says it is related to the Italian word RAZZA and
is of "origin unknown".

So the word Race that people are making a fuss about is "origin unknown"
But I heard someone say it might possibly come from Latin
"generatio"---begetting---which would be a connections to genes.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suggestion for a fun afternoon (or not)

Google on the names of some countries which include English as an official language (or use a language you are comfortable with) and 'census'. Find the official census organisation (often called a Census Bureau), and search for the demographic profiles from the latest census. Other than by sex and age and geography, how else does the official census slice & dice the population? If there's something that you consider to be a synonym for 'race', take the time to check out a) the actual census questionnaire(s), b) the background material on how the relevant questions came to be chosen, and c) what guidance census ennumerators (or takers, or whatever they're called) are given on how to assist people to answer the relevant questions.

In terms of your own uses of the word 'race', to what extent are the apparent synonyms not really synonyms at all? Do you feel that the authorities in countries which don't include 'race' in their censuses are simply being PC? From your trips to those countries, do you feel that the local people would dearly wish their governments to include questions on 'race' in the censuses?
 
  • #3
in the other thread we came up with "ancestry"---this is actually thanks to Nereid's reasearch into the Census forms of various countries. I gather they use "ancestry" classifications in Australia.

so fortunately you took care of that Nereid, hearty thanks!

My approach to language tends to be etymological and my guess is
that the root meaning of "race" is much the same as "ancestry"

One's ancestors are one's progenitors---from the Latin "genero"
meaning to beget.
A generatio is a begetting or a generation

In medieval Latin it was probably pronounced more like
ge ne RASS io

and those semi-literate European numbskulls just heard the RASS
(everybody knows what sloppy Latin-speakers the French are, they
leave off 2/3 of the syllables! French is heavily eroded Latin.)
and the Italians and Spanish said "razza" but it was really
a generation or a begetting by the ancestors.

God, these are tough issues!

I really really hope that applying DNA classifications can rigorize
the whole business. and that Human Geneticists and other scientists can get so they can come to grips with human diffs
 
  • #4
by the way, the Italians say razza di cane
for breed of dog
that is, they use the same word (razza) for
a race of people and a breed of dog

"I like your dog. What race is it?"

On the other hand, Shakespeare applied breed to people.
In Henry V he refers to the English population cluster or subspecies as
"This happy breed of men!"

how complacent can you get? listen to this:
---quote from the Shake---


This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This Earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

----endquote---
 
Last edited:
  • #5
For he might 'a been a Rooshian
A French or Turk or Prooshian
Or perhaps I-tal-i-an.
But in spite of all tempta-ashuns
To belong to other na-ashuns
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an E-e-e-e-nglishman.

W.S. Gilbert
 
  • #6
Root seems like a pretty likely origin for race, as we talk about someone's ancestral origins as their roots, so a derivation of that concept does fit with what is commonly used as the term race.

The sociology of scientific language, hmmm...yes, there is certainly something to that. Scientists are very aware of it in many senses. For example, the long-held tradition of publications being written in third person, passive voice to make the studies sound more impartial, and less egotistical. There is now a shift in some journals toward using first person, active voice, so people take actual ownership of their work (and presumably the blame too). However, that "royal we" is very often used. Nobody ever says "I did this," instead it is, "We did this," even if it's a single-author publication.

And we use other words very differently than the lay person. When we talk about something being significant or a trend, we are talking purely in terms of a statistical cut-off, not importance or popularity. I've actually been critiqued for use of superlatives in my writing, so now just steer clear of them. And, you don't speak a single sentence without tacking on a citation that provides the evidence of what you say being true, or pointing to a figure that shows your own data justifying the statement. If you are just speculating about an answer, you better say straight up, "this is just speculation." There are very clear rules to follow.
 
  • #7
selfAdjoint, I have been looking at some of the posts to try to understand viewpoints better and I was struck by the following.

nuenke said:
nuenke said:
In SCIENCE magazine about a month ago, they released data on breeds of dogs by decoding the genome, as we have done for humans. The patterns set up by genome profiles are similar to humans. Take a blood sample and you can determine the race or racial mix if it is not too mongrelized.

The other interesting thing is that genetic differences between breeds of dogs looks very similar to differences between human races. It takes very few alterations in a few genes to change the look, behavior, temperament, and intelligence of breeds of dogs -- just like human races.

now I would consider changing the "look, behavior, temperament, and intelligence" of dogs to BIG changes and I hear nuenke expressing interest and surprise at the power of just a few genes to make such really big changes in the actual dog. So I think it is a statement about the surprising bigness of the difference (which just a few genes can cause).

But Monique responded in a way that gave it a different spin. She dismissed the differences (not because in real life they are minimal but) because they are caused by only a few genes!

Monique said:
So if it only takes a few genes to change the look, behaviour, temperament and intelligence of breeds of dogs -- just like human races (as you say) that would mean that the difference between the different races is only very small.

What is happening here? What happened to the amazement at the disparity between cause and effect? What happened to nuenke's focus on dogs (with only a sidelong glance at the human analogy). We seem to be misunderstanding each other's messages combatively. Instead of getting the message we are blocking it. Nuenke wanted to say the difference between dogbreeds was BIG, definitely something to consider if one is going to have a dog in residence (and isn't it amazing how this can involve only a few genes?), but Monique was having nothing of it. Applying what she said to dogs (instead of humans) it would say:

that would mean that the difference between the different breeds is only very small.

In effect, because interbreed difference involves only a few genes the resulting change must therefore be considered small, or even negligible.

I think the greatest challenge here is in the language of discussion. How do we maintain two different distance scales (DNA distance and phenotype differences) without getting jerked around and having head-on collisions like this.

It should be simple. Both scales are valid. There is DNA distance, how many active sites differ? how many genes differ?--count them. And there are measurements you can make of the phenotype: the actual dog. We should be able to have a conversation involving two distinct metrics without crashing into each other.

Also it could be desirable to only talk about dogs. If nuenke had not drawn analogies with humans then Monique might have responded in a totally different way.

Hypothetical Monique: Yes Nuenke! It is a fantastic thing how changing just a tiny percent of a percent of the genes can make what looks like a completely different dog!

Do we need a rule that only dogs are allowed to be discussed? All humans must be kept on leash---and stay out of the flowerbeds..
 
  • #8
Marcus, why address this to me? I am agnostic on the word race. I do emphasize that some populations in the US are nearly reproductively isolated. Specifically "blacks" and "whites". I also claim that the whole intra group variance versus inter group variance issue is a side show, if not a propaganda blast from the marxist critics of genetic biodiversity.

BTW the word recce in Gothic meant "the people, the tribe". My name Richard, if it is cognate to the Gothic name Reccared, means "Counsel of the tribe". The unobserved Anglo-Saxon equivalent would be Ricered. I think Italian got its word razza from the Visigoth invaders/rulers of Italy in the fifth century.
 
  • #9
selfAdjoint said:
Marcus, why address this to me? I am agnostic on the word race. I do emphasize that some populations in the US are nearly reproductively isolated. Specifically "blacks" and "whites". I also claim that the whole intra group variance versus inter group variance issue is a side show, if not a propaganda blast from the marxist critics of genetic biodiversity.

BTW the word recce in Gothic meant "the people, the tribe". My name Richard, if it is cognate to the Gothic name Reccared, means "Counsel of the tribe". The unobserved Anglo-Saxon equivalent would be Ricered. I think Italian got its word razza from the Visigoth invaders/rulers of Italy in the fifth century.

The etymology is delightful but I can't help seeing a smile at the mouth's corner. You can't be serious about a Visigoth origin! Or can you!
I am a kneejerk Italophile and Mediterranocentrist so I can't believe in recce, it must be generatio. :smile:

Yeah, I really really like your agnosticism about this!
I also sense a lot of common sense and flexibility in Monique.
she has said some things I admire a lot, for a kind of clearsighted
nonpartisan steadiness.

This time i was disappointed because I thought she was short with hitssquad.

All the paper says is if you give them all the same food then some types
absorb more folate than others----it could have relevance to diet counseling I guess.

Well, there is more to say but I better post this and think a little first.
 
  • #10
selfAdjoint said:
Marcus, why address this to me? I am agnostic on the word race...

I suppose I want to talk with you because I feel a certain agnosticism too.

I have a kind of "leave your language alone" attitude.
when I read someone's paper I just want to be sure (s)he defines the terms and uses them consistently------or relies on citable conventional definitions.

So this kind of dogood business where you try to make people use or not use words (apparently for their own good!) is alien and even a little disturbing.

but the adorable ladies of PF seem banded together on this, which makes for an uncomfortable situation for an old lecher like myself. How can Evo who is so charming other times be doing this? yesterday she posted a link in the PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY to some soothing words for public consumption from Shirley genome administrator performing her role. Dont be frightened, just keep our grant money flowing. No footnotes, are you crazy?, just revealed truth for the house organ.
So then, having established by this authority that there are zero human races, Evo proceeds in her next couple of posts to admonish people for using the word. You shouldn't be using that word, you know, because there arent any races.

So I feel under fire because I think people should be able to use words---and not be harrassed or spammed with huge quotes of Authority or admonished and called ignorant. they should be able to use words---and if they are clear enough about it then OK.

for me race is an amusing, and often rather attractive thing. I have a japanese friend who is beautiful in a different way---she comes from an aristocratic family with history back to 1350-1400 and it shows
also I am very pessimistic about the human predicament. we are dreadful creatures so much of the time. Oh and I happen to be a blood descendent of Johannes Kepler :uhh:
but this is all flak as we walk across the minefield of reality.
basically I care little about race, what I care about is that I see people
getting shouted down by some kind of PF policeforce
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Moonbear said:
Root seems like a pretty likely origin for race, as we talk about someone's ancestral origins as their roots, so a derivation of that concept does fit with what is commonly used as the term race.
...
...
And, you don't speak a single sentence without tacking on a citation that provides the evidence of what you say being true, or pointing to a figure that shows your own data justifying the statement. If you are just speculating about an answer, you better say straight up, "this is just speculation." There are very clear rules to follow.

Moonbear! I read your poetical essay about Prometheus Stemcell-bringer.
there was an elegant tangled (buzzword: nonlinear) web of mental associations.
the associations between fire and stemcell, the vulture punishment and ideological restrictions on research, the stemcell and the ability of his liver to regenerate were in fact a tangle that one could not easily diagram in a rational outline. I thought that was nice. So you can think both orderly and disorderly.
I have lost track of the link to that article. If you don't mind would you post it. Or if I find it again I will post the link here. I can't remember your name.

what were we talking about. the sociology of scientific language.
verbal niceties. the agenda of a group of scholars can be expressed
in choices of terminology. battles. taboos.

yes and safe-scholarship practices like putting a citation at the end of every sentence---almost a form of punctuation! pleasure meeting you Moonbear
 
  • #12
'race' as used in medical (etc) research - essentially US only?

A thread in the Biology section has the title "Ethnicity and race influence the folate status response to controlled folate intakes in young women". I think it would be an interesting topic for a sociolinguist.

Consider: "NIH requires that any human clinical studies include multiple racial groups unless there is strong justification not to do so." (Source

The US Census Bureau defines the terms 'African American', 'Mexican American' in its 2000 census, and states that Hispanic is not a race, but African American is. Further, the Bureau's racial and 'ethnic' (?) categories are explicitly sociological - i.e. the individual determines for herself what race (or races) to use (or not use). Finally, for the first time (?), the 2000 census allowed residents of the US to choose more than one race.

The authors of the paper (Perry et al) followed the Census Bureau's approach to determining the 'ethnicity/race' of the subjects "Women of self-reported Mexican American (n = 14), African American (n = 14), and Caucasian (n = 14) descent, defined as having 2 parents possessing the same ethnicity/race,"

Given that the NIH is (I'm told) a very important funding source of funds for medical research in the US, and that another part of the Federal government has defined the key categories in a certain way, to what extent do you think Perry et al were influenced in their choice of category names? If instead of being a global superpower, the largest economy on the planet, etc the US were the 50th biggest economy, and the leading journals of the field had editors with a distaste for the use of the term 'race' (unless there was a strong justification to use it), would Perry et al have worded their paper somewhat differently? In other words, to what extent is the use the term 'race' in medical research journals a product of NIH and US Census Bureau policies?

Please note that I'm following marcus' lead here - the actual content of the study is irrelevant for the topic of this thread.
 
  • #13
marcus said:
Yeah, I really really like your agnosticism about this!
I also sense a lot of common sense and flexibility in Monique.
she has said some things I admire a lot, for a kind of clearsighted
nonpartisan steadiness.
Thank you marcus.
This time i was disappointed because I thought she was short with hitssquad.
You know it was just a note and I retracted the observation, so I hope that is cleared up.
 
  • #14
marcus said:
Moonbear! I read your poetical essay about Prometheus Stemcell-bringer.
there was an elegant tangled (buzzword: nonlinear) web of mental associations.
the associations between fire and stemcell, the vulture punishment and ideological restrictions on research, the stemcell and the ability of his liver to regenerate were in fact a tangle that one could not easily diagram in a rational outline. I thought that was nice. So you can think both orderly and disorderly.
I have lost track of the link to that article. If you don't mind would you post it. Or if I find it again I will post the link here. I can't remember your name.
You mean this article? http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/349/3/267.pdf
That wasn't written by Moonbear :smile:
 
  • #15
marcus said:
selfAdjoint, I have been looking at some of the posts to try to understand viewpoints better and I was struck by the following.

nuenke said:


now I would consider changing the "look, behavior, temperament, and intelligence" of dogs to BIG changes and I hear nuenke expressing interest and surprise at the power of just a few genes to make such really big changes in the actual dog. So I think it is a statement about the surprising bigness of the difference (which just a few genes can cause).

But Monique responded in a way that gave it a different spin. She dismissed the differences (not because in real life they are minimal but) because they are caused by only a few genes!



What is happening here? What happened to the amazement at the disparity between cause and effect? What happened to nuenke's focus on dogs (with only a sidelong glance at the human analogy). We seem to be misunderstanding each other's messages combatively. Instead of getting the message we are blocking it. Nuenke wanted to say the difference between dogbreeds was BIG, definitely something to consider if one is going to have a dog in residence (and isn't it amazing how this can involve only a few genes?), but Monique was having nothing of it. Applying what she said to dogs (instead of humans) it would say:

that would mean that the difference between the different breeds is only very small.

In effect, because interbreed difference involves only a few genes the resulting change must therefore be considered small, or even negligible.

I think the greatest challenge here is in the language of discussion. How do we maintain two different distance scales (DNA distance and phenotype differences) without getting jerked around and having head-on collisions like this.

It should be simple. Both scales are valid. There is DNA distance, how many active sites differ? how many genes differ?--count them. And there are measurements you can make of the phenotype: the actual dog. We should be able to have a conversation involving two distinct metrics without crashing into each other.

Also it could be desirable to only talk about dogs. If nuenke had not drawn analogies with humans then Monique might have responded in a totally different way.

Hypothetical Monique: Yes Nuenke! It is a fantastic thing how changing just a tiny percent of a percent of the genes can make what looks like a completely different dog!

Do we need a rule that only dogs are allowed to be discussed? All humans must be kept on leash---and stay out of the flowerbeds..
Monique of course can comment on this (or not); however, some may be interested in another person's response on reading Monique's post (mine :smile:)

It may be that marcus didn't read (or if read, didn't remember) loseyourname's posts earlier in the thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282045&postcount=72, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282137&postcount=76 , https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282435&postcount=83 , https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=282438&postcount=84). I did, so when nuenke commented that the breeds differed by only a few genes, it was (to me) a nice confirmation of the things which loseyourname said. Perhaps I should have been more amazed? But then I know very little about dogs, and have little interest in them, so maybe the fact that nueke's post didn't cause me to fall off my chair in amazement reflects more my personal ignorance about dogs (and lack of desire to do anything about that ignorance).

Further, as loseyourname made quite clear, the breeding of dogs has no obvious relationship to the breeding of humans - dogs have been domesticated for a very long time, and their breeding has been under significant human control for almost that whole time; to be surprised at findings on (domesticated) dog DNA would be like being surprised at findings on strawberry DNA (unless, of course, we had lots of wild strawberry DNA to analyse too) - wow! only two genes make the difference between 5 mm strawberries and 10 cm ones!

The human analogy which marcus hints at is even more of a stretch; there have been lots of posts on this topic which reported that the genetic diversity within human population groups is much greater than that between them - other than for cultural reasons, why get worked up about small differences that can only be uncovered with really powerful statistical analyses when far bigger differences jump out of the page (well, statistical analysis package) at you? After all, historically racial differences were expressed as skin colour, hair colour and curliness, and a few other things; since we've known for a long time that eye colour (for example) and hair colour are a matter of only a few genes, why should one be surprised to find that the rest of 'racial differences' are also only skin deep? Doesn't that strengthen Monique's case that exaggeration of the tiny genetic difference between 'races' is entirely misplaced?

With the greatest of respect marcus, isn't your post merely saying 'gee, I'm awfully ignorant about this subject'?
 
  • #16
marcus said:
I suppose I want to talk with you because I feel a certain agnosticism too.

I have a kind of "leave your language alone" attitude.
when I read someone's paper I just want to be sure (s)he defines the terms and uses them consistently------or relies on citable conventional definitions.

So this kind of dogood business where you try to make people use or not use words (apparently for their own good!) is alien and even a little disturbing.

but the adorable ladies of PF seem banded together on this, which makes for an uncomfortable situation for an old lecher like myself. How can Evo who is so charming other times be doing this? yesterday she posted a link in the PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY to some soothing words for public consumption from Shirley genome administrator performing her role. Dont be frightened, just keep our grant money flowing. No footnotes, are you crazy?, just revealed truth for the house organ.
So then, having established by this authority that there are zero human races, Evo proceeds in her next couple of posts to admonish people for using the word. You shouldn't be using that word, you know, because there arent any races.

So I feel under fire because I think people should be able to use words---and not be harrassed or spammed with huge quotes of Authority or admonished and called ignorant. they should be able to use words---and if they are clear enough about it then OK.

for me race is an amusing, and often rather attractive thing. I have a japanese friend who is beautiful in a different way---she comes from an aristocratic family with history back to 1350-1400 and it shows
also I am very pessimistic about the human predicament. we are dreadful creatures so much of the time. Oh and I happen to be a blood descendent of Johannes Kepler :uhh:
but this is all flak as we walk across the minefield of reality.
basically I care little about race, what I care about is that I see people
getting shouted down by some kind of PF policeforce
Again marcus, with the greatest of respect, since you've started posting to this thread, may I comment that you haven't once addressed the *science*? What I mean is, Cavalli-Sforza et al wrote four very good paragraphs on why 'race' as a scientific concept has passed its 'use by' date. In another post I commented that some scientists do use the concept. At the risk of oversimplifying, you took that comment and ran with a 'democracy in science' comment, without any reference whatsoever to the content of the debate :grumpy: To turn up the contrast, to me this is like saying that some idea in cosmology which has been shot down multiple times in terms of observations, internal consistency, and external consistency deserves equal airtime to Lineweaver, Tegmark, Hawking, Smolin, Greene, and so on.

In fact, if I may vent (is that what you say in the US?) a little, my greatest frustration is that no one (almost) has addressed the content of Cavalli-Sforza et al's material! :cry: :mad: (iansmith came close; SelfAdjoint asked a question). Further, no one posted anything from any scientist who does use 'race' (except for BV's quote from a US forensic guy).

Since this thread is about the sociology of scientific language, can we consider PF threads on this topic as data for analyses? In this sociolinguistic analysis, do we have an obligation to examine the underlying scientific issue at all?
 

1. What is the definition of "Sociology of Scientific Language?"

The Sociology of Scientific Language is a subfield of sociology that focuses on exploring how language is used in the scientific community and how it affects scientific practices and knowledge production. It examines the social and cultural factors that influence the development, use, and interpretation of scientific language.

2. How does the Sociology of Scientific Language differ from other sociological approaches?

The Sociology of Scientific Language differs from other sociological approaches in that it specifically looks at the role of language in the scientific context. It goes beyond the study of scientific institutions and practices, and instead focuses on the linguistic aspects of science and how they shape scientific knowledge and understanding.

3. What are some key theories and concepts within the Sociology of Scientific Language?

Some key theories and concepts within the Sociology of Scientific Language include the social construction of scientific knowledge, the role of power and authority in scientific language, and the impact of language on scientific objectivity and bias. Other important concepts include linguistic relativism, discourse analysis, and the relationship between language and scientific communities.

4. How does the Sociology of Scientific Language contribute to our understanding of science and society?

The Sociology of Scientific Language helps us understand how language is used to create, maintain, and challenge scientific knowledge and power dynamics within society. By examining the language used in scientific discourse, we can gain insights into how scientific communities operate and how scientific knowledge is shaped by social and cultural factors. This can also help us identify and address potential biases and inequalities within the scientific community.

5. What are some potential future directions for research in the Sociology of Scientific Language?

Potential future directions for research in the Sociology of Scientific Language include further exploring the relationship between language and scientific objectivity, examining the impact of new technologies on scientific language and communication, and investigating the role of language in the dissemination and accessibility of scientific knowledge to the general public. Additionally, there is a growing interest in studying how language is used in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology.

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
3
Replies
83
Views
9K
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top