No dia 28 de maio de 2024, foi sancionada a Lei Nº 14.874/2024 que cria o Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa. Com o objetivo de debater o impacto desta Lei para a as pesquisas na grande área de Humanidades, convidamos para a live “Sistema Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa e a Pesquisa em Humanidades – O que muda com a Lei Nº 14.874/2024?”.
Data: 20/06/24
Horário: 19h.
Link do canal do YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EIPHCanal
Canal Ética e Integridade na Pesquisa em Humanidades
Realização:
Projeto de Pesquisa Ética em Pesquisa e Integridade em Humanidades (Edital Universal, Chamada CNPq/MCTI Nº 10/2023 – Processo 405815/2023-9);
GT de Ética em Pesquisa do FCHSSALLA.

Uma perspectiva sobre aspectos éticos e regulatórios sobre a pesquisa em seres humanos na pandemia de COVID-19

https://www.observatoriofiesc.com.br/ferasc

A crise estabelecida pela disseminação do vírus COVID-19 está impactando de maneira inimaginável as pessoas, as famílias, empresas, governo e sociedade em geral. Passada a primeira semana de mobilização e realizados os primeiros balanços, existe uma consciência geral de que se trata de uma verdadeira guerra contra um inimigo poderoso e ágil. Temos a certeza de que vamos vencer a guerra, mas o grande desafio é chegar ao seu final com o mínimo de perdas e a pronta retomada da normalidade. Para tanto, é fundamental inicialmente a proteção das vidas humanas por meio da prevenção, diagnóstico e combate aos sintomas daqueles que foram infectados. Na sequência, e não menos importante, é o estabelecimento de estratégias para manutenção das atividades econômicas, seja para garantir o abastecimento das pessoas, seja para preservação dos empregos e da estrutura empresarial vigente, visando a posterior recuperação do crescimento sustentável. Visando superar estes desafios, empresas, pessoas, especialistas, e instituições têm mobilizado esforços, inteligência, ideias e energia para contribuir de alguma forma: propondo soluções ou aportando recursos financeiros ou operacionais

​Nesse sentido, com o intuito de promover uma ação mais articulada entre as diversas forças da sociedade, a FIESC está estruturando um Fundo Empresarial para Reação Articulada de Santa Catarina Contra o Coronavírus – FERA-SC. O Fundo tem como foco a mobilização de empresários, especialistas e governo, visando a geração e apoio a ideias, soluções e tecnologias que possam ser aceleradas e implementadas por meio de recursos financeiros e/ou operacionais aportados por pessoas, empresas e organizações interessadas em contribuir para superação deste desafio.

http://cnpq.br/web/guest/noticiasviews/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_a6MO/10157/6483836

Estão abertas, até 5 de outubro, as inscrições para o curso de capacitação no uso e manejo de animais de laboratório, oferecido na modalidade de ensino a distância. O treinamento é gratuito e voltado a profissionais e pesquisadores que atuam com bioterismo e modelos experimentais.

A iniciativa é resultante da proposta aprovada pela Rede Nacional de Biotérios (REBIOTERIO) do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) e integra uma das frentes de atuação do órgão para o fortalecimento da pesquisa brasileira. O curso foi lançado em julho deste ano e o primeiro período de inscrições atraiu cerca de 500 alunos.

As vagas são ilimitadas. O conteúdo do curso mescla vídeo-aulas, materiais de apoio para leitura e testes de múltipla escolha. A plataforma digital também permite a interação entre os participantes e monitoria por plantões de dúvidas.

“Outro ponto positivo é que cada aluno pode determinar o ritmo do aprendizado, uma vez que aulas vão sendo abertas à medida em que a pessoa avança nos módulos”, complementa a corresponsável pelo curso e coordenadora da Rede USP Biotérios, Patrícia Gama. Gama divide a coordenação do curso com a docente da Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia (FMVZ) da USP, Claudia Mori.

Parceria

O iniciativa busca a ¿capacitação e a qualificação de profissionais para atuarem na produção de animais de laboratório e que possam contribuir efetivamente que o bem-estar dos animais seja garantido¿, explica o Diretor de Ciências Agrárias, Biológicas e da Saúde do CNPq, Marcelo Morales, no vídeo de apresentação do curso.

A criação do curso teve o envolvimento multidisciplinar entre servidores da universidade, docentes e parceiros. Gama reforça que a chamada da REBIOTERIO do CNPq permitiu à USP gerar um curso atualizado com envolvimento de diferentes profissionais que planejaram o conteúdo de forma ampla e integrada, considerando as particularidades e expertises de cada tema.

Mais informações sobre o conteúdo do curso e inscrição estão no site do ICB-USP.

Serviço

Curso EAD – Capacitação no uso e manejo de animais de laboratório

Período de Inscrição: 24 de setembro a 5 de outubro de 2018

Curso gratuito

Realização: REBIOTERIO CNPq e USP

Informações: site do ICB-USP

Fonte: ICB/USP

Publicada no Diário Oficial portaria que autoriza curso de Medicina na UFSC Araranguá

comissao de criacao cep

Comissão Pró-CEP – Portaria 03/CTS/ARA/2018

Pesquisador espanhol ministra minicurso sobre ética aplicada e palestra sobre ética animal

 June 1, 2018 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
 Conferences
 2017-2018
 Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2036)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce plans for our 2018 annual conference, entitled: “Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law, and Bioethics.” This year’s conference is organized in collaboration with the Harvard Law School Project on Disability.

Conference Description

Historically and across societies people with disabilities have been stigmatized and excluded from social opportunities on a variety of culturally specific grounds. These justifications include assertions that people with disabilities are biologically defective, less than capable, costly, suffering, or fundamentally inappropriate for social inclusion. Rethinking the idea of disability so as to detach being disabled from inescapable disadvantage has been considered a key to twenty-first century reconstruction of how disablement is best understood.

Such ‘destigmatizing’ has prompted hot contestation about disability. Bioethicists in the ‘destigmatizing’ camp have lined up to present non-normative accounts, ranging from modest to audacious, that characterize disablement as “mere difference” or in other neutral terms. The arguments for their approach range from applications of standards for epistemic justice to insights provided by evolutionary biology. Conversely, other bioethicists vehemently reject such non-normative or “mere difference” accounts, arguing instead for a “bad difference” stance. “Bad difference” proponents contend that our strongest intuitions make us weigh disability negatively. Furthermore, they warn, destigmatizing disability could be dangerous because social support for medical programs that prevent or cure disability is predicated on disability’s being a condition that it is rational to avoid. Construing disability as normatively neutral thus could undermine the premises for resource support, access priorities, and cultural mores on which the practice of medicine depends.

The “mere difference” vs. “bad difference” debate can have serious implications for legal and policy treatment of disability, and shape strategies for allocating and accessing health care. For example, the framing of disability impacts the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and other legal tools designed to address discrimination. The characterization of disability also has health care allocation and accessibility ramifications, such as the treatment of preexisting condition preclusions in health insurance. The aim of the conference is to construct a twenty-first century conception of disablement that resolves the tension about whether being disabled is merely neutral or must be bad, examines and articulates the clinical, philosophical, and practical implications of that determination, and attempts to integrate these conclusions into medical and legal practices.

Call for Abstracts

Deadline for submission: October 15, 2017

We seek proposals that offer innovative conceptualizations and advance inventive approaches. Proposals should focus on the fresh contributions the presentation will make, including sketches of the supporting arguments. The abstract should include (but not be limited to) a paragraph summarizing the issue that will be addressed and any currently contending views about its resolution. Successful abstracts will explicitly address how the proposed presentation will address the challenges of integrating legal and medical understandings of disablement.

We welcome submissions on both broad conceptual questions and more specific policy issues related to the “mere difference” vs. “bad difference” debate. Potential topics include:

• Can disability be considered definitively bad, without defining living with a disability as inescapably disadvantageous?
• Can we ameliorate mismatches between the capabilities of people living with disabilities and the socially constructed environment without seeming to privilege them?
• Do the kinds of human diversity that disablement represents threaten the species or harm society? Can they improve the human species or benefit society?
• (How) are bioethicists obligated to represent or at least respect the standpoints of people with disabilities?
• Does the U.S. Supreme Court characterize and categorize disability correctly in the seminal equal protection case, Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center? How can we reconcile making special or individualized arrangements to avoid excluding individuals based on disability with equal opportunity and equal protection?
• Do different agencies’ and programs’ diverse definitions of disability—for example, that for some programs medical diagnoses suffice for disability status while others demand demonstrations of severe dysfunction—undercut efforts to address disability discrimination?
• What is the standard for people with disabilities having meaningful access to health care? What is the minimum standard for people with disabilities’ access to health care below which denial of care equates to disability discrimination?
• How may protections against disability discrimination—especially claims to civil rights or human rights—most effectively be made operative in the medical clinic?
• Can the processes for accommodating disabilities be secured against fraud?
• How should the impact of differences due to disability affect the way the competence of people with disabilities for accepting or rejecting treatment is assessed? How might new technologies affect courts’ determinations in this regard?
• What progress has been made in increasing the proportion of medical professionals with disabilities and what steps are needed to speed this effort?
• (How) should people with disabilities’ inability to achieve normal functioning affect their priority for scarce or expensive health care?
• Given the current state of data about their risks of morbidity, should lifesaving interventions for extremely preterm infants be harder to obtain than for other babies?
• Can Disability Pride be as effective for “destigmatizing” as earlier expressions of pride made by social movements such as those advanced by the LGBTQi, Women’s, or other groups?

Please note that this list is not meant to be exhaustive; we hope to receive abstracts related to the conference’s central question even if the particular topic was not specifically listed here. Proposals should demonstrate a clear linkage to all three aspects of the conference—disability, bioethics, and law. Papers that focus on ethics should include substantial discussion of policy implications. Relatedly, law will be treated broadly to include governmental policy decisions more generally. Successful abstracts will propose or outline an argument/position, rather than merely stating a topic.

In an effort to encourage interdisciplinary and international dialogue, we welcome submissions from legal scholars and lawyers, bioethicists, philosophers, clinicians, medical researchers, disability rights advocates, public health practitioners, behavioral economists, government officials and staff, and others who have a meaningful contribution to make on this topic. We welcome philosophical and legal reflections from contributors across the world, but these submissions should be general or United States- focused rather than comparative in nature. We welcome submissions from advocacy organizations, think tanks, and others outside academia, but emphasize that this is a scholarly conference, and abstracts/papers will be held to academic standards of argumentation and support.

How to Participate

If you are interested in participating, please send a 1-page abstract of the paper you would plan to present to petrie-flom@law.harvard.edu as soon as possible, but not later than October 15, 2017. If your abstract is selected, your final paper will be due on April 1, 2018, and you will be assigned a presentation slot for the conference. Please note that all presenters must provide a full final draft in order to participate and that presenters are expected to attend the conference for its full duration. We will accept conference papers of all lengths and styles (e.g., law review, medical, philosophy, or policy journal, etc.), but presentations will be limited to 15 minutes. The conference will be held on Friday, June 1, 2018. We will pay travel expenses for presenters who must travel to Cambridge; co-authored papers must name a single presenter.

In the past, we have successfully turned several of our conferences into edited volumes (e.g., with Cambridge, MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia University presses). It is possible, although not guaranteed, that conference presenters will publish their papers with us in an edited volume whose chapters will be limited to 5,000 words, including references. Previous conference participants have been able to publish their submissions in different formats in multiple venues, for example both as a short book chapter and a longer law review article. However, the version that will be used for an edited volume should not have been published previously or be planned to publish separately.

How to Register

Registration information will be available here in early 2018. Attendance is free and open to the public, but space is limited. Stay tuned for the conference agenda, which will be posted here once abstracts have been selected.

Questions

Please contact the Petrie-Flom Center, with any questions: petrie-flom@law.harvard.edu, 617-496-4662.

https://energydata.info/

http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/

Congresso de Energia – http://wsec.kz/?cat=78

Expo ASTANA 2017 – https://expo2017astana.com/en/