Murilo Mariano Vilaça

Diálogo sobre cientometria, mal-estar na academia e a polêmica do produtivismo

El ensayo es un dialogo sobre la cienciometria y sus efectos. El punto de partida es el articulo de Eunice Trein y Jose Rodrigues (2011). Contestamos el argumento de la escasez presente en el post scriptum, pero apoyamos la idea de que el conocimiento ha sido tratado como una mercancia. Sugerimos tambien una distincion entre el productivismo y la productividad. Ademas, recogimos algunos indicios y evidencias, bien como revisamos la literatura nacional e internacional, corroborando el centro de la critica de sus autores y profundizando algunos puntos. El foco de nuestra critica a la norma productividad es que el modelo de evaluacion y valoracion por error se basa en el prestigio de los periodicos y criterios cuantitativos o convencionales, y carece de parametros cualitativo-epistemicos, pudiendo generar el productivismo.

Más condutas científicas uma abordagem crítico-comparativa para in-formar uma reflexão sobre o tema

Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.

Comentários sobre avaliação, pressão por publicação, produtivismo acadêmico e ética científica

Aceitando o convite feito pelo autor, nosso comentario ao artigo de Moyses Kuhlmann Jr. (2014) tem o objetivo de qualificar um debate. Seguindo a divisao do artigo, expomos nossos pontos de desacordo e acordo em duas partes. Na primeira, contra a desqualificacao do debate, analisamos os argumentos e as afirmacoes presentes no artigo, fundamentando-nos em referencias dos estudos filosoficos acerca dos usos argumentativo, retorico e ilocucionario/perlocucionario da linguagem. Por meio do termo falacia, utilizado pelo autor, problematizamos uma tendencia presente no debate e postulamos a distincao entre analise critica e tatica de desqualificacao. Na segunda parte, pela qualificacao do debate, reiteramos pontos destacados pelo autor, apresentando contribuicoes para um debate em aberto.

Conflitos de interesse na “guerra” contra a obesidade: é possível servir a dois senhores?

Diferentes e numerosas pesquisas tem tentado demonstrar que a obesidade e o sedentarismo apresentam elevadas taxas de prevalencia no mundo e no Brasil. A “guerra”, no entanto, tem sido travada, muitas vezes, contra os obesos e sedentarios, ao contrario de combater as referidas condicoes. Alem disso, nao e raro encontrar os fabricantes de alimentos ultraprocessados associando-se a entidades cientificas. Nesse sentido, o objetivo deste estudo e examinar a presenca de potenciais conflitos de interesse nas relacoes entre as empresas patrocinadoras e as organizacoes cientificas que desenvolvem acoes de estimulo a reducao da gordura corporal e ao aumento da pratica de atividades fisicas. Foram investigados, por meio da analise do discurso, os sitios eletronicos de sete instituicoes cientificas. Inicialmente, procurou-se por empresas patrocinadoras dos eventos ou premios promovidos por tais instituicoes. Foram examinados todos os eventos e premios disponiveis entre os anos 2012 e 2013. Das sete instituicoes investigadas, tres apresentaram alguma associacao com empresas fabricantes de alimentos ultraprocessados. Dos discursos analisados chamou a atencao: a) a insistencia em afirmar que se busca incentivar comportamentos associados a pratica regular de atividades fisicas, a alimentacao saudavel e ao proposito de reduzir a obesidade e melhorar a saude; b) o envolvimento de diferentes empresas do setor de alimentos considerados nao saudaveis; e c) a capacidade de envolver diferentes profissionais e organizacoes cientificas. Conclui-se, entao, haver certa incoerencia entre os discursos e as acoes das instituicoes e claro conflito de interesses.

Melhoramentos humanos, no plural: pela qualificação de um importante debate filosófico

In this paper, I discuss the idea of human enhancement (HE). My goal is to refute three frustrating trends in the HE criticism, namely the ideas that: (1) human nature will become artificial, suggesting that we will be facing something new and uniquely dangerous, and that it is still possible to preserve a radical separation between nature and technique; (2) it is possible to address and criticize HE from a semantic uniqueness, which is directly related to the previous item; and (3) there is an univocity among the HE’s defenders on how individuals should handle the available bio-technoscientific tools made available, namely, as a naive and uncritical obligation to become enhanced.

Limites biológicos, biotecnociência e transumanismo: uma revolução em Saúde Pública?

O desenvolvimento da biotecnociencia tem propiciado avancos biotecnologicos tidos como capazes de instituir uma revolucao. Hipoteticamente, havera mudancas radicais quanto a compreensao, manipulacao e promocao da vida humana. A perspectiva e de que os chamados limites biologicos possam ser superados, libertando-nos, por exemplo, do processo do adoecimento. A semelhanca dos transumanistas, alguns apostam nos beneficios disso; outros, contudo, ressaltam seus hipoteticos e graves maleficios, como e o caso dos bioconservadores. No presente artigo, definem-se os conceitos de biotecnociencia e biotecnologia, analisando-se criticamente seus potenciais; descrevem-se os aspectos gerais do transumanismo, contribuindo para o desenvolvimento do ainda incipiente debate, no Brasil, sobre esse polemico movimento; e especula-se sobre algumas implicacoes da interface biotecnociencia-transumanismo, analisando-se se ela revolucionara completamente o campo da Saude Publica ou se havera continuidades e descontinuidades.

MALA CONDUCTA CIENTÍFICA: UN ENFOQUE COMPARATI VO Y CRÍTICO PARA IN-FORMAR UNA REFLEXIÓN SOBRE EL TEMA

Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: A CRITICAL-COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO INFORM-FORM A REFLECTION ON THE SUBJECT

Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008) and Krokoscz (2011) are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.

Tratar, sim; melhorar, não? Análise crítica da fronteira terapia/melhoramento

One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.

Treat, yes; improve, no? Critical analysis of the boundary between therapy and improvement

One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.