medigraphic.com

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2021; 16 (1)

The Ethics and Social Control in Scientific Research in Brazil

Ferrari LD, Anguera LL, Christofoletti JF, Malacarne V

Language: Portugués
References: 18
Page:
PDF size: 174.22 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective / Background. Scientific research contributes to the well-being of society, but conducts of doubtful ethical character persist. When interests conflict, they promote uncertainties of researcher autonomy and care for the researched. This article aims to analyze aspects related to the evaluation of ethical aspects of research involving human beings in Brazil and the participation of Social Control in this process.
Methodology / Approach. The article is developed from an inter and multidisciplinary qualitative analysis that analyzes asymmetries, limitations and progresses present within the normative system and executor of the ethical parameters for research with humans in Brazil and the participation of Social Control. Especially, it addresses conflicts of evaluative orientation of ethical aspects in human research.
Results / Findings. Divergent evaluative conducts of ethical aspects in human research are not limited to the different ethics committees, they are present within the committees themselves and need to be pacified. The representative of the research participants becomes mandatory presence as a member of the committees and reflects the need for continued training to exercise the function.
Discussion / Conclusions. In Brazil, the National Commission on Ethics in Research (CONEP) was created in 1996. With consultative, deliberative, normative, and educational functions, it seeks to implement norms and guidelines regulating research with humans in Brazil mediated by a systemic and decentralized network of ethics committees. CONEP has faced challenges to equalize the decision- making symmetry of the different units of the system and among the units themselves, especially in the transposition of the ethical view of biomedical research to humanities research.


REFERENCES

  1. Lins, Maria Judith Sucupira da Costa e Bruna Rodrigues Cardoso Miranda. 2020.“Ética e liberdade: lidando com os conflitos existentes no ambiente escolar.”Rev. NUFEN 12, no. 1: 143-157. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175-25912020000100010

  2. Lopes, José Agostinho. 2014. “Bioética – uma breve história: de Nuremberg (1947)a Belmont (1979).” Revista Médica de Minas Gerais 24, no. 2: 262-273. https://doi.org/10.5935/2238-3182.20140060

  3. Ministério da Saúde. 1996. Resolução n° 196, de 10 de outubro de 1996. Aprovanormas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Brasília:Diário Oficial da União. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/cns/1996/res0196_10_10_1996.html

  4. Ministério da Saúde. 2013a. Resolução n° 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012. Aprova normasregulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Brasília: DiárioOficial da União. https://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf

  5. Ministério da Saúde. 2013b. Norma Operacional n. 001/2013. http://www.hgb.rj.saude.gov.br/ceap/Norma_Operacional_001-2013.pdf

  6. Ministério da Saúde. 2016. Resolução nº 510, de 07 de abril de 2016. Dispõe sobre asnormas aplicáveis a pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais. Brasília: DiárioOficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil. http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf

  7. Moretti, Vanessa Dias, Flávia da Silva Ferreira Asbahr e Algacir José Rigon. 2011. “Ohumano no homem: os pressupostos teórico-metodológicos da teoria histórico-cultural.” Psicologia & Sociedade 23, no. 3: 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-71822011000300005

  8. Nodari, Paulo César. 1997. “A Ética Aristotélica.” Síntese 24, no. 78: 383-410.

  9. Oliveira, Marcos Barbosa. 2015. “A epidemia de más condutas na ciência: o fracassodo tratamento moralizador.” Sscientiæ zudia 13, no. 4: 867-97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662015000400007

  10. Oliveira, Rejane Pivetta e Ricardo Araújo Barberena. 2017. “A Literatura e ética:notas para um diálogo que não se acaba.” Estud. Lit. Bras. Contemp 51: 11-21.https://doi.org/10.1590/2316-4018511

  11. Presidência da Republica. 2002. Código Civil, Lei 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002. https://presrepublica.jusbrasil.com.br/legislacao/91577/codigo-civil-lei-10406-02

  12. Rodrigues Filho, Eurípedes, Mauro Machado do Prado e Cejane Oliveira MartinsPrudente. 2014. “Compreensão e legibilidade do termo de consentimento livree esclarecido em pesquisas clínicas.” Revista Bioética 22, no. 2: 325-336. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422014222014

  13. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2006. O Contrato Social: princípios do direito político. SãoPaulo: Martins Fontes.

  14. Severino, Antonio Joaquim. 2015. “Ética e pesquisa: autonomia e heteronomiana prática científica.” Cadernos de Pesquisa 45, no. 158: 776-792. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053143355

  15. Silveira, Ronie Alexsandro Teles e Simone Maria Hüning. 2010. “A tutela moraldos comitês de ética.” Psicologia & Sociedade 22, no. 2: 388-395. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-71822010000200020

  16. Teyssier, Éric e Éric Dars. 2015. A Grécia Antiga passo a passo. São Paulo: Claro Enigma.

  17. The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. 1996. “The Nuremberg Code(1947).” BMJ 313: 1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448

  18. World Medical Association. 1997. “World Medical Association Declaration ofHelsinki: Recommendation guiding physicians in biomedical research involvinghuman subjects.” JAMA 277, no. 11: 925-926. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540350075038




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com