Nayanika Ghosh (she/her) is a PhD candidate in the History of Science at Harvard University. Her dissertation re-examines the 1970s-1980s US sociobiology debate as a site from which emerged a political critique of science that retheorized scientific objectivity and value neutrality. The sociobiology debate was prompted by the publication of EO Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975. Amid political disruption in the Cold-War United States, Sociobiology popularized gendered evolutionary theories of the family, male dominance, xenophobia, hierarchy, and violence. When critics in an organization called Science for the People mobilized their resources to oppose what they argued was a return to Nazi genetic determinism, a larger conflict, that lasted well into the 1980s, ensued between two camps of scientists who clashed over whether or not science could be racist, sexist, and/or elitist. In documenting the opposition to sociobiology, Nayanika posits that a new tradition of science critique emerged from the efforts of scholars and non-university actors embedded in feminist, antiwar, labor, and antiracist activism in the 1970s. She ends this history in the late 1980s, when, from this critique, emerged reformulations of scientific objectivity and value neutrality. Ultimately, she argues that the sociobiology debate is not only a story of postwar genetic determinism from which emerged a powerful tradition of science critique but also that it offers a window into understanding the place of American science in a Cold-War, postcolonial world order. Her work has received fellowships from the American Philosophical Society, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's Center for Humanities and History of Modern Biology, the Consortium for History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History.