This profile is built from public research funding records (CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC) and PubMed. We have not imported them from a Queen's University directory, so their courses may be missing. Find their university profile.
Latest papers
Disease versus disease: Paolo Zacchia on syphilis and epilepsy.
Journal of medical biography · 2024 · senior author
Saved by the phenomena: Law and nature in Cicero and the (Pseudo?) Platonic Epinomis.
Studies in history and philosophy of science · 2020 · first author
Why does Aristotle think bees are divine? Proportion, triplicity and order in the natural world.
British journal for the history of science · 2019 · first author
Latest funding
- $88,790
Epistemic Corruption
SSHRC · 2022 · Co-investigator
- $54,494
Epistemic Corruption
SSHRC · 2022 · Co-investigator
- $53,428
Nature, knowledge, and culture in the ancient world
SSHRC · 2015 · Principal investigator
4 publications.
Disease versus disease: Paolo Zacchia on syphilis and epilepsy.
Duffin J, Lehoux D
Saved by the phenomena: Law and nature in Cicero and the (Pseudo?) Platonic Epinomis.
Lehoux D
Why does Aristotle think bees are divine? Proportion, triplicity and order in the natural world.
Lehoux D
Ancient science in a digital age.
Lehoux D
Epistemic Corruption
Principal investigators: Sismondo, Sergio
Keywords: science; medicine; corruption; knowledge; democracy; trust; post-truth
Epistemic Corruption
Principal investigators: Sismondo, Sergio
Keywords: science; medicine; corruption; knowledge; democracy; trust; post-truth
Nature, knowledge, and culture in the ancient world
Principal investigators: Lehoux, Daryn
Keywords: ancient science; classics; history and philosophy of science
What did the Romans know: an inquiry into worldmaking
Principal investigators: Lehoux, Daryn
Keywords: history of science; philosophy of science; epistemology; Roman history; legal history; history of religion
From CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC funding decisions: CIHR since 2008, NSERC since 1991 and SSHRC since 1998, including their latest published competition results.
A short, specific email works best. This draft uses one of their recent papers; replace the parts in brackets with your own details before sending.