This roundtable intends to have an open and honest conversation about the limits and possibilities of anthropological methods/analyses as forms of interventions and social transformation. We are frequently called to work within already-existing harmful infrastructures to create better biometrics, better trials, better institutions, better science. What are the feminist practices around using our methods and analysis for redeeming metrics/tools in toxic systems, and/or placing nuanced force towards the abolition of such systems? Long ago Emily Martin (1998) noted that an understanding of science as reductionist is sustained by treating it at distance, not carefully attending to the rich cultural worlds in which it is practiced. Following the feminist method of tracing how scientific charts, images, and terminologies are used, it becomes obvious that science(s) are capacious: lively, performative, partial, and indeterminate (Blell et al. 2021; Glabau 2017; Davis 2019; Benjamin 2019; Noble 2018; Mulla 2014;Taussig et al., 2013). While problems of racism, settler colonialism, and white supremacy are structural, political transformation often happens through direct, targeted action (Imarisha 2013). How then can we undertake direct actions that are not predicated upon reductionism-- that respond to everyday complexities? Where does reductionism (biological, statistical, molecular) afford strategic political possibilities? Where might it pose a dangerous trap? How do we add truths of ambiguity and indeterminacy, while also cultivating effective possibilities for social transformation? In this roundtable, we will discuss how to build a feminist anthropology of science that is politically powerful while based on the capaciousness of science.