Free cookie consent management tool by TermsFeed Policy Generator Update cookies preferences

Winter School 2013 Program - ECLT - Università di Pavia

Go to content

Winter School 2013 Program

Winter School 2013

A project  co-financed by the European Commission within LLP Programme, Erasmus IP

Promoted by:
Research Center ECLT, University of Pavia, (Italy); Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet Bonn (Germany); University of the West of England, Bristol (UK); l’Université de Liège (Belgium); Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain); Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (The Netherlands)
European Association for Neuroscience and Law (EANL)

In cooperation with

Department of Law (University of Pavia)

Collegio Ghislieri, Pavia

January 7 th, 2013 - Aula Volta
9 am-10.00 am

Welcome and introductory greetings: Angiolino Stella (Rector of the University of Pavia), Ettore Dezza (Director of the Department of Law, University of Pavia), Giovanni Canzio (President of the Court of Appeal of Milan), Silvia Garagna (ECLT Director), Andrea Belvedere (Rector of Collegio Ghislieri).

Teachers self-presentation
Students self-presentation

10.00 a.m. - 11.15 a.m.

Amedeo Santosuosso, Paul Catley, Barbara Bottalico

Neuroscience is currently used referring to a bundle of disciplines, which study the human brain and its relation to mental activity and behaviour. Behavioural genetics has a similar aim, with reference to the genetic makeup. Neurogenetics combines, in different ways, the two previous approaches. Since 2002 scholars has debated how neuroscientific findings, neurocognitive methods and new diagnostic techniques (especially the brain imaging techniques) may impact on the existing legal categories. Whatever the extent of the use of such techniques, the need for information and training of graduate students and PhD Students is evident, also in view of a probable increase of the case law related to forensic neuroscience. The Winter School on Neuroscience and Law is presented in its inspiration and practical organization.

Will Neuroscience Radically Transform the Legal System?
By Henry T. Greely

11.45 am -1.00 p.m.
KEY NOTE LECTURE: Structural and Foundational Features of the Relationship of Neuroscience to Law

Dennis Patterson (EUI, Florence)

In this talk, I will make the case for a particular framework within which to pursue questions of the relationship of neuroscience to law.  Among the topics I shall consider: the relationship between empirical and conceptual questions; the role of philosophy in neuroscience; the relationship of mind to brain; the connection between the science of neuroscience and the normative vocabulary of law; the defense of insanity in law; and free will and neuroscience.

3.00 pm- 5.00 pm

Law for non-lawyers & Neuroscience for non-neuroscientists

Law group (Barbara Bottalico & Franco Caroleo) - Basic legal concepts: distinction between civil and criminal law and main legal categories within these two area. Main differences between civil-law systems and common-law systems as to legal reasoning, civil and criminal proceedings, evidence rules and case-law.
Neuro group
( Anna Sedda) – Basic concepts of neuroscience: structure of the brain and definitions of the related disciplines.

5.00 – 5.30 pm
Toward a shared glossary?

Barbara Bottalico, Franco Caroleo, Anna Sedda, Amedeo Santosuosso, Gabriella Bottini

Jan 8 th - Aula G3
9.00 – 10.45 am

Gabriella Bottini & Anna Sedda

Cognitive neuroscience: definitions, scope and possible interaction with criminal law.

11.15 – 1.00 pm

Alfredo Calcedo Barba

Cognitive neuroscience and new chances offered by brain imaging. Possible interaction with criminal law.

2.30 – 3.45 pm

Eraldo Paulesu

4.15-5.30 pm

Lisa Claydon & Maria Laura Fiorina

Criminal law in common-law and civil-law systems. The importance of the brain for the criminal law.

Jan 9 th - Aula G3
9.00 am – 10.45 pm
LEGAL LAB 1: introductory session

Lisa Claydon, Paul Catley

A legal lab is a session where some very controversial cases are presented from both scientific and legal point of view and discussed at a deeper level.

11.15 – 13.00 am

Chair: Cinzia Caporale (ISGI, CNR)

Vanessa Charland (Coma Science Group, University Hospital of Liège Belgium)

The past 15 years have provided an unprecedented collection of discoveries that bear upon our scientific understanding of recovery of consciousness in the human brain following severe brain damage. Highlighted among these discoveries are unique demonstrations that patients with little or no behavioral evidence of conscious awareness may retain critical cognitive capacities and the first scientific demonstrations that some patients, with severely injured brains and very longstanding conditions of limited behavioral responsiveness, may nonetheless harbor latent capacities for recovery. Included among such capacities are particularly human functions of language and higher-level cognition that either spontaneously or through direct interventions may reemerge even at long time intervals or remain unrecognized.
When patients in "persistent vegetative state" (recently coined unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) show minimal signs of consciousness but are unable to reliably communicate the term minimally responsive or minimally conscious state (MCS) is used. MCS was recently subcategorized based on the complexity of patients' behaviors: MCS+ describes high-level behavioral responses (i.e., command following, intelligible verbalizations or non-functional communication) and MCS- describes low-level behavioral responses (i.e., visual pursuit, localization of noxious stimulation or contingent behavior such as appropriate smiling or crying to emotional stimuli). Patients who show non-behavioral evidence of consciousness or communication only measurable via ancillary testing (i.e., functional MRI, positron emission tomography, EEG or evoked potentials) can be considered to be in a functional locked-in syndrome.

Taken together, recent studies show that awareness is an emergent property of the collective behavior of frontoparietal top-down connectivity. Within this network, external (sensory) awareness depends on lateral prefrontal/parietal cortices while internal (self) awareness correlates with precuneal/mesiofrontal midline activity. Of clinical importance, this knowledge now permits to improve the care of patients with disorders of consciousness.

2.15 – 4.30 pm

2.15-3.30: Gilberto Corbellini & Elisabetta Sirgiovanni: "Neuroethics: Back to the Future"
What is neuroethics and why so many people are interested in it? We will argue that neuroethics can be considered an answer to various sociocultural issues raised by the intersection of two simultaneous circumstances that took place around the turn of the new Millennium: the scientific and technological advances in neuroscience and the philosophical failure of bioethics. Neuroethics offers a new and more fertile ground to debate issues and problems concerning the moral and ethical dimensions of biomedical research and the individual and social attitudes towards the use of bioscience and biotechnology to improve human health and wellbeing. So neuroethics seems a more functional bridge between science and society and/or natural sciences and humanities. Our main argument is that neuroethics rehabilitates ideas expressed at the early stages of bioethics, as a result of a reductionist turn in cognitive science involving new experimental and theoretical approaches in moral (neuro)psychology which converge with the idea of a "neuroscience of ethics". On the one hand, these approaches renew the problem of naturalization of human sociomoral and cognitive traits, which common sense and dualistic approaches tend to consider irreducible to biology. On the other hand, the discoveries emerging from the naturalistic approach suggest how to use neuroscientific and evolutionary knowledge in the ethical discourse and encourage a naturalistic approach for the "ethics of neuroscience" that in our view is a form of (neuro)cognitive naturalism rather than an ethical naturalism. As a matter of fact, a neuroethical and evolutionary approach let us understand that conscious illusions and self-deceptions are the main products of the functional activity of our brains. And it can show how a cognitive and moral improvement has been possible in human history and what we should do to maintain such achievements in the future.

3.30 - 4.30: Daniela Ovadia: "Neuroethics lab"

There are two different approaches to neuroethics: the first one, more academic, involves neuroscientist and philosophers and is basically devoted to the elaboration of the theoretical basis of each controversial question. The second one, developed by bioethicists to involve citizens and stakeholders, is more practical and useful to find some solution for the common problems raised by the neuroscientific development. In this lab we will try to simulate a discussion on some real cases. The aim of the exercise is to identify the key questions in each case and to produce a final statement that will take in account the opinion of the largest part of the group (ideally, of each member of the group).

4.45 – 5.30 pm

Giuseppe Testa (IFOM-IEO Campus)

Contemporary neurosciences are investigating the problems of the mind through the distinguishing feature of our times: the molecular gaze and its unprecedented opportunity to make visibile the mechanisms of our inner workings. From brain scans to gene expression profiles, the newly afforded visibility of the self places neuroscience at the fore of the public sphere, with powerful but controversial resources to parse human behavior and certify the normal and the pathological in human mores. Recent developments in cell reprogramming are adding a new, decisive tool to the visualization of human behavior and cognition, promising to make the genetic basis of humanness experimentally tractable in molecular detail.
This lecture will trace the technological, epistemic and social forces that are shaping the current visibility of the mind, and their mutual engagement with the constitutional divide between the natural and the political.

Jan 10 th - Aula G3
9.00 – 10.45 am


Amedeo Santosuosso, Paul Catley

The concept of an international archive of cases and materials on neuroscience and the law is presented. The crucial point is the contrast between the need to deal with the durable differences of legal languages on the other side, the necessity not to loose the advantages that international and transnational interaction offers within EU and worldwide. ICT can offer working tools within a dynamic adaptive and ever-evolving context. Technical alternatives and methodological pitfalls of constructing the database will be outlined.

11.15 - 1.00 pm

Paul Catley, Lisa Claydon, Katy De Kogel

The session will look at one method for analyzing large numbers of cases. Based on research initially conducted by Nita Farahany in the United States the session will consider how that research was mirrored in England in the Netherlands. Knowledge about biological influences on antisocial behavior has grown in the last decades. Research concentrates roughly on two areas: Firstly, in offenders with callous, premeditated antisocial behavior, deficits found in sensitivity to the suffering of others, and to moral emotions such as guilt and remorse, and their physiological stress system shows less reactivity to social stressors such as punishment. Secondly, offenders with impulsive aggressive behavior deficits in so-called ‘executive functions’ such as impulse control, planning ahead, or the ability to adapt their reactions to novel information. The deficits mentioned are ascribed to dysfunctions of a brain circuit for emotion regulation social decision- making. Structures and connections between them presumed to be involved are ‘emotional parts’ of the brain (e.g. amygdale), and areas of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) known as ‘rational parts’ of the brain. To what extent does this neurobiological work about antisocial behavior already find its way into criminal cases? An inventory of UK and Dutch case law will be presented, in which neurobiological or behavioral genetic information was introduced. Methodological pitfalls of constructing the database will be outlined. The presentation will further address the following questions. Which types of offences are charged, and which penalties or measures are imposed in these cases? In which of the criminal case is the neurobiological information introduced and for which legal queries? It will be investigated for instance if neurobiological information is considered in assessment and treatment of antisocial behaviour, in judgment of responsibility, or in assessment of criminal recidivism risk. A question that also will be addressed is which checks and balances the Dutch legal system provides for evaluation of information provided by (neuro) experts.

2.30 - 3.45 pm

Roberto Zanetti, Franco Caroleo, Alessandra Malerba, Barbara Bottalico, Maria Laura Fiorina, Federica Coppola

In order to facilitate the understanding of technical aspects, a short introduction to data management and information retrieval will be firstly provided: basic concepts underlining the building up of digital systems, such as data formats, documents tagging, searching strategies and conceptual retrieval will be introduced and explained. The focus of this section will be on the challenges linked to the access to multilingual information and on the presentation of different approaches to the building up of linguistic tools (multilingual thesauri) able to drive the cross lingual retrieval of legal cases, the conceptual differences among legal systems. Practical examples of the building process will be provided and the differences in methodological approaches between EANL and ALST will be out-lighted.

4.15 – 5.30 pm

Roberto Zanetti and Franco Caroleo, Alessandra Malerba, Maria Laura Fiorina, Federica Coppola.
In this legal lab case law in the field of neuroscience is analyzed and processed according to the methodology explained in the previous session.

Jan 11 th - Aula G3
9.00 - 10.45 am

Lisa Claydon, Paul Catley,

(A legal lab is a session where some very controversial cases are presented from both scientific and legal point of view and discussed at a deeper level.)

11.15 am – 1.00 pm


Oliver Goodenough, Amedeo Santosuosso and Alessandra Malerba

The worldwide transnational flow of legal standards is an undeniable fact at the centre of a vivid discussion within the international community of jurists, scholars and Courts. We have now a vast bibliography describing the different aspects of legal globalization. What has been relatively overlooked is the question how to conceptualize all that and what could be the disciplinary field, which could be able to explain what is happening and to include it in a consistent body of principles and law. Authors mostly stress the chaos effect that globalization produces. Two main areas are explored in this session: a) the descriptions of the current reality of law in a digitalized, globalized and multilingual world; b) the existing attempts to use scientific and technological approaches in legal studies (Artificial Intelligence, computer science and neural networks). How science may work as an explicative model is discussed as well.

3.00 – 4.00 pm
(Carlo Alberto Redi)

4.15 pm- 5.30 pm

Barbara Bottalico

The assessment of chronic pain is a highly unmet medical need, and a significant number of patients are not effectively treated with currently available therapies, particularly in chronic debilitating pain conditions such as neuropathic pain. Chronic pain is also the subject of a large and costly category of legal claims. Yet, the invisibility, unspeakability, and subjectivity of pain have caused it to be a subject of as much philosophical and legal controversy on its significance. The most recent developments of neuroimaging are supposed to improve such situation. Possible implications for the law and at the same time the limitations of these techniques are analyzed.

Jan 14 th     - Monday - Aula G3
9.00 am – 10.45 pm

Telmo Pievani, Oliver Goodenough, Amedeo Santosuosso, Carlo Alberto Redi

The evolutionary theory is perhaps the most successful theory in the last Centuries. However the theory of evolution is not only a matter of biological evolution. Evolutionary theory can be usefully applied to other systems of transmitted information; evolutionary culture theory, for instance, is now well established. There are several intersections of law, biology, linguistic and evolutionary theory. Many disciplines are involved: evolutionary and behavioral biology, cognitive science, neuroscience, complex adaptive systems, economics, evolutionary psychology, psychiatry, behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, chaos theory evolutionary anthropology and more. Such intersections are explored during the session with the contribution of teachers from different disciplines, firstly from a strict theoretical point of view and, in the second part, presenting practical explanations.

11.15 am – 1 pm

Lecture by: Tade Mathias Spranger
Neuroscientific developments raise manifold questions with regards to normative, i.e. both ethical and legal standards. The fields of tension are circumscribed by keywords like “use of brain imaging techniques by the courts”, “possible impacts of neurosciences on the concept of free will”, “individualism and determinism”, or “freedom of thoughts and human dignity”. Therefore neuroscience is considered not only to change the objects of the law but also the way our legal systems work. Most of these aspects relate to prospective applications and future problems or hazards, but there are also current legal implications of neuroscientific research, which illustrate the urgent need for a more sophisticated legal debate, which is still characterized by a lack of in-depth analysis. Therefore, the main target of this presentation is to scrutinize constitutional implications of some core decisions to be made in the near future.

3.00 – 4.00 pm

Franco Caroleo, Anne-Lise Sibony, Chiara Boscarato
It is a relatively short session where small groups of students, drawn from the large group, discuss specific subjects or aspects of the broad theme of the course, by analyzing a scientific or academic article.

4.15 – 5.30 pm

Roberto Zanetti and Franco Caroleo, Alessandra Malerba, Maria Laura Fiorina, Federica Coppola.
In this legal lab case law in the field of neuroscience is analyzed and processed according to the methodology explained in the previous session.

Jan 15 th - Aula G3
9.00 – 10.30 am

Federica Coppola, Amedeo Santosuosso, Oliver Goodenough, Gabriella Bottini

Neuroscience and behavioral genetics are assuming an increasingly important role in criminal defenses. Judges are indeed beginning to take them into greater consideration. This session will look at three Italian criminal cases – the Bayout Case, decided by Court of Appeal of Trieste, the Albertani case, by Court of Como and the case of Cremona - in which neuroscience and behavioral genetics were decisive in assessing defendants’ diminished capacity and/or criminal responsibility. These cases will be analyzed from the legal and scientific point of view. Legal scholars will focus on the impact of this kind of evidence on criminal law and procedure, while scientific talk will concern doubts and certainties surrounding the involved neurotechniques.

11.00 – 12.30 am

Daniela Ovadia
In the early 21st century, neuroscience plays an expanding role in human life beyond the research lab and clinic. In classrooms, courtrooms, offices and homes around the world, neuroscience is giving us powerful new tools for achieving our goals and prompting a new understanding of ourselves as social, moral and spiritual beings. As we find out more and more about what makes us tick, we must stop and consider the ethical implications of this new knowledge. Will having a new biology of the brain through imaging make us less responsible for our behavior and lose our free will? Should certain brain scan studies be disallowed on the basis of moral grounds? Why is the media so interested in reporting results of brain studies? Bioethics experts are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. We will describe how the bioethical questions took importance in the last century and what are the peculiarities of bioethical reflection in the domain of neurosciences which lead to separate neuroethics from bioethics.

Transfer to Milan

3.00 – 6.00 pm

International conference Milan Court of Appeal and CNR (National Council of Research)
" Robotics, Ambient Intelligence and the Law"
( full program )
Amedeo Santosuosso (University of Pavia), Giorgio Metta (IIT, Genova), Fausto Giunchiglia (Trento RISE), Oliver Goodenough (Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School),
Chiara Boscarato (Università degli studi di Pavia), Pim Haselager (Radboud University Nijmegen, NL), Alessandra Malerba (Università degli studi di Pavia), Tade Mathias Spranger (University  of Bonn), Franco Caroleo (Università degli studi di Pavia), Renato Galliano (Comune di Milano, Direttore del Settore Innovazione Economica e Università).

Jan 16 th - Aula G3
9.00 – 09:45 am
Introduction to law and behavioural research

Alberto Alemanno, Oliver Goodenough & Anne-Lise Sibony

Generally speaking, law seeks to law regulate behaviour. For their part, behavioural sciences – psychology, behavioural economics, game theory, neuroscience – shed light on how people behave. This is why the interplay between law and behavioural sciences is potentially very broad and concerns many areas of the law. In this introductory session, the following questions will be addressed: when does the law need scientific input from behavioural sciences? What can reasonably be expected from behavioural sciences? What type of scientific results can become tools for legislators and other actors? Illustrations will be taken from several different fields of policy making.

Mini case-studies on
Behavioural research and policy making (Alberto Alemano)
Psychology and consumer law (Anne-Lise Sibony)
Behavioral approach to copyright violations in the internet age in light of neuroscience (Oliver Goodenough)

9:45 – 10:30 am
BEHAVIORAL research and policy making

Alberto Alemanno

Developments in behavioural sciences have highlighted the complex cognitive framework in which people make decisions. For example, inertia and procrastination are factors to be taken into account when designing "default rules" as people tend not to make affirmative choices; behaviour patterns are also heavily influenced by the emergence of social norms as people are constrained by reputational forces and care about the perceptions of others; "framing" and presentation of information are also strategic interventions to influence choices.
As a result, behavioural sciences are set to inform the underpinnings of regulation and to alter the relationship between public powers and citizens. However, while behavioural research demonstrates the extent and limits of rational action, it does not provide regulators with a ready-made framework for incorporating its insights into policy making, neither it takes account of the legal consequences of their incorporation. It is worth asking: how could behavioural science be integrated into policy-making? Would it be appropriate to develop administrative requirements prompting policymakers to consider the findings of behavioural analysis while regulating? And, on the other hand, are administrative law principles of due process, proportionality, right to be heard able to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of informational power from public institutions and administrative agencies (privacy, transparency, etc) ?

10.45 – 11.30 am
The case of Consumer law and psychology

Anne-Lise Sibony

Consumer law seeks to protect consumers from a variety of harms, including harm stemming from some of their own decisions. In particular, EU consumer law prohibits, under the heading of ‘unfair commercial practices’, certain forms of consumer manipulation. While the law does define what practices are prohibited, applying the existing legal definition is not an easy task for courts. This is in part due to the fact that the legal rule refers to the potential of the commercial practice to ‘materially distorts the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product’ (art. 5 of directive 2005/29/EC). Courts, therefore, have to gauge the likely impact of a practice on the decisional pattern of ‘the average consumer’. Studying manipulation, on the other hand, is the very object of empirical social psychology. Could, then, available empirical studies and/or scientific conceptualization of influencing techniques be of assistance to courts? Should they inspire legal reform?

Considering possible uses of behavioural sciences in the field of consumer protection against unfair practices will be an opportunity to explore broader methodological issues such as mismatch between legal demand for science and scientific offer, standard of proof, as well as procedural and practical constrains bearing on use of science in legal proceedings.

11.30– 12:15 am
Institutional Design, Game Theory and Behavioral Economics

Oliver Goodenough

Making good rules that work with human behavior to foster economic and social development is a process that must be informed by behavioral approaches.  As we look at the impact of technological innovation, getting the governance structures right is as important as getting the technology to work – indeed, it should really be seen as part of getting the technology to work, and not as a separate enterprise.  Romer succinctly links the two: "To achieve efficient outcomes, our rules need to evolve as new technologies arrive." And to the economist’s goal of efficiency, we should properly add the lawyer’s additional criteria of fairness, justice and sustainability.

The exercise is important, but it isn’t easy.  Establishing proper governance for economic and social activity among humans at a large scale of interaction is one of the great challenges of our times – in some ways our greatest challenge, and one that has to be informed by clear behavioral understandings, and not just moral or economic theory. That said, there are analytic framings, such as game theory and behavioral economics, that can help guide and illuminate a behavior grounded approach.  Looking at the particular case study of cloud computing, designing proper governance depends on an interaction between analysis at a general or abstracted level and application at a behavioral level in the granular strata of rules and politics.  

12:15-1.00 pm
Wrap-up/ Q&A

Alberto Alemanno, Oliver Goodenough & Anne-Lise Sibony

3.00 – 4.00 pm

Barbara Bottalico, Caroline Roediger, Alberto Alemanno
It is a relatively short session where a small group of attendees, drawn from the large group, discusses specific subjects or aspects of the broad theme of the course.

4.15 – 5.30 pm

Roberto Zanetti and Franco Caroleo, Alessandra Malerba, Maria Laura Fiorina, Federica Coppola.
In this legal lab case law in the field of neuroscience is analyzed and processed according to the methodology explained in the previous session.

Jan 17 th - Aula G3

Session on ‘Neurotechnology, robotics and law’
Pim Haselager, Chiara Boscarato, Franco Caroleo,  Amedeo Santosuosso

9.00 - 9.45 am
Pim Haselager
Building interfaces between brains and computers is a multidisciplinary task, with potentially great promise, but currently with many formidable practical challenges. This lecture will present a general, non-technical review of the main components of a BCI system, review several of its current applications, and outline some of the obstacles yet to be overcome.

10.00 – 10.45 am
Franco Caroleo, Pim Haselager
Recent research in neuroscience and artificial intelligence leads to the development of neurotechnologies (e.g. Brain-Computer Interfacing and Deep Brain Stimulation) that may have substantial impact on the legal issues of a subject’s personal identity, agency and personal responsibility. We will consider the most challenging legal implications of neurotechnology.

11.00 – 12.00 am
Pim Haselager, Chiara Boscarato
Cognitive neuroscience provides knowledge about the human brain, cognition and behavior. This knowledge can be used to develop robots with ever more sophisticated intelligence, a human style of social interaction, and eventually a (semi-)autonomous mode of operation. A brief review of current developments in robotics, with an emphasis on Human-Robot Interaction, will be provided. Robots with (semi-) independent decisional capabilities are currently being built. The aim of this seminar is to examine the potentially legally challenging implications of robots and the various ways in which they can be applied.

12.00 – 12.45 am
ROBOTS AND LAW in the EU: presentation of a Green Paper
Chiara Boscarato, Pim Haselager, Amedeo Santosuosso
This session will focus on the European debate in the field of robotics&law and on the various research projects funded by the EU, in particular the draft of euRobotics entitled "Suggestion for a green paper on legal issues in robotics - Contribution to Deliverable D3.2.1 on ELS issues in robotics "in which the ECLT Centre has participated.

3.00 – 4.00 pm

Barbara Bottalico, Caroline Roediger, Anne-Lise Sibony

It is a relatively short session where a small group of attendees, drawn from the large group, discusses specific subjects or aspects of the broad theme of the course.

4.15 – 5.30 pm

Roberto Zanetti and Franco Caroleo, Alessandra Malerba, Maria Laura Fiorina, Federica Coppola.
In this legal lab case law in the field of neuroscience is analyzed and processed according to the methodology explained in the previous session.

Jan 18 th - Aula G3
9.00 -10.45 am
STUDENTS PRESENT THEIR WORKS prepared in the Legal Labs

11.15 am -1.00 pm

STUDENTS PRESENT THEIR WORKS prepared in the Legal Labs

2.30 - 3.45 pm
among students and professors at the presence of two externals to the EANL WS, and one internal (UNIPV):
Federico Pizzetti, University of Milan (I)
Simone Penasa, University of Trento (I)
Elisabetta Silvestri, University of Pavia (I)

4.15 – 5.30 pm

Departure of participants

(Those who want to take a look at the WS 2012 program may click on: )

Copyright © 2010 - 2021 ECLT
Back to content