Este estudo teve como objetivo identificar as tendências de pesquisa em argumentação no ensino de Ciências (AEC) no período de 1988 a 2008 (21 anos). A argumentação é uma prática discursiva central na Ciência e, por isso, defendemos ser também central no ensino de Ciências (EC). Apesar da AEC vir ganhando importância na pesquisa em EC, são raros estudos que avaliam o histórico e as tendências dessa produção científica. Nosso estudo trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva documental, em que se analisaram 51 artigos científicos, publicados em revistas especializadas. Estes artigos foram classificados segundo (a) o tipo (empírico, de revisão ou de posição), (b) sujeito foco de análise (aluno ou professor), (c) seus perfis e supraperfis (categorias criadas a partir de dados coletados do foco, da pergunta e do objetivo de pesquisa) e (d) o tipo de uso da obra de Toulmin (1958) como referencial teórico. Os resultados mostraram que, na pesquisa em AEC: (a) apesar do predomínio de estudos empíricos, os de revisão tiveram papel de destaque no desenvolvimento da área; (b) a maioria dos estudos enfatiza o estudante como sujeito foco de análise e recentemente tem aumentado o número de artigos com foco no professor; (c) a maior parte das publicações referem-se a estudos com foco na estrutura do argumento e/ou na construção da argumentação...
In 1998 Congress mandated expanded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) health effects research on ambient air particulate matter (PM) and a National Research Council (NRC) committee to provide research oversight. The U.S. EPA currently supports intramural and extramural PM research, including five academically based PM centers. The PM centers in their first 2.5 years have initiated research directed at critical issues identified by the NRC committee, including collaborative activities, and sponsored scientific workshops in key research areas. Through these activities, there is a better understanding of PM health effects and scientific uncertainties. Future PM centers research will focus on long-term effects associated with chronic PM exposures. This report provides a synopsis of accomplishments to date, short-term goals (during the next 2.5 years) and longer-term goals. It consists of six sections: biological mechanisms, acute effects, chronic effects, dosimetry, exposure assessment, and the specific attributes of a coordinated PM centers program.
There is, as yet, no strong culture of research in primary care and much of the existing research is conceived and undertaken by people outside primary care. The poor implementation of research findings may, in part, be owing to the fact that those delivering the service are not involved in asking or answering questions that are relevant to their practice. This paper reports how three practices constructed a research agenda based on the unanswered questions of their primary care teams. The research questions prioritised by the teams tended towards patient behaviour and service organisation rather than clinical issues. This contrasts with national research priorities. The process has contributed towards the development of a culture of enquiry among team members. Other primary care teams may benefit from a similar approach. National research priority setting in primary care should take more account of the unanswered questions of primary care teams.
OBJECTIVES: To report the outcome of applications to 43 research ethics committees. SETTING: Four regional health authorities in England. FINDINGS: The research ethics committees varied considerably in their practices. The time lapse until notification of the outcome of the approval ranged from just under one week to 23 weeks with a mean of 8.6 weeks. Four research ethics committees failed to notify the research team of an outcome of their request for approval. CONCLUSION: A national research ethics committee is needed to review national and multi-location research studies in the light of the fragmented and variable practice of local research ethics committees.
This paper explores the use of advance directives in clinical dementia research. The focus is on advance consent to participation of demented patients in non-therapeutic research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens. First, morally relevant differences between advance directives for treatment and care, and advance directives for dementia research are discussed. Then attention is paid to the philosophical issue of dementia and personal identity, and the implications for the moral authority of research advance directives. Thirdly, a number of practical shortcomings of advance directives for non-therapeutic dementia research are explored and attention is paid to the role of proxies. It is concluded that upon a closer look the initial attractiveness of advance directives for dementia research is lessened, and that it is doubtful whether these instruments can compensate for the lack of subject consent in case of non-therapeutic dementia research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens for the incompetent demented subject.
OBJECTIVES: To show that a Local Research Ethics Committee (LREC) can carry out an audit of ethical standards in research. To find out if a researcher met certain ethical standards in recruiting subjects for clinical trials and in obtaining their consent. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SETTING: Clinical research by one doctor during one year. SUBJECTS: Eleven patients entered in clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success in ethics committee obtaining data. Achievement of ethical standards in recruitment of subjects and in obtaining consent. RESULTS: The audit was successfully carried out and standards were partly met. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committees can carry out audits of the conduct of research projects which they have approved. Provision for possible audits can be made at the time of application to the committee. Our committee thought the ethical standards in the research which we audited were acceptable.
Regional advisers, faculty secretaries of the Royal College of General Practitioners, heads of academic departments of general practice and primary care, and heads of RCGP research units were invited to complete a semistructured questionnaire to determine the nature and availability of current sources of advice for general practitioners participating in research activities and the demands placed on the available sources in the United Kingdom. The principal source for research advice was university departments of general practice, yet these have insufficient resources to cope with requests and few have spare capacity to stimulate research. Regional advisers and faculty secretaries do not seem to be kindling a spirit of inquiry and they seem somewhat complacent about both the lack of requests for research advice from general practitioners and the difficulties of academic departments. Proper development of research capability in general practice and primary care is unlikely to occur without more resources to create training posts in academic departments and a greater spirit of inquiry in vocational training programmes, which should lead to both review (audit) and research.
Public funding for medical and health-related research in Canada is declining. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is directing increasing amounts of money to publicly funded agencies such as universities and the Medical Research Council of Canada. However, the kinds of research most valuable to commercial firms may not be those most valuable to the Canadian public. There is a danger that research priorities and activities in public institutions may become skewed as a result of increased drug-industry funding. Mechanisms need to be found to ensure an appropriate balance between the research that is most valuable to the public interest and to the long-term advancement of knowledge, and the research that is likely to lead to marketable products. One such mechanism is the direction of a proportion of the money from drug companies to a "no-strings-attached" fund specifically to support types of research that are in the public interest but not likely to lead to marketable products.
The Collaborative HIV Prevention Research in Minority Communities Program was developed to address the simultaneous overrepresentation of communities of color among those with HIV and under-representation of researchers of color at the National Institutes of Health. The program is designed to help scientists develop their programs of research and obtain significant research funding. The 27-month program has the following elements: small grant funding, a structured summer program, individualized long-term research collaboration, access to behavioral science expertise, and internal peer review of all products. To date, the 19 program participants, eight of whom have not completed the program, have received almost $11,000,000 in research funding and have conducted culturally specific research with communities of color. In addition, a network of HIV prevention investigators of color has been created. Institutes throughout the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other entities could use this model to develop investigators of color, improve the quality of research with communities of color, and begin to address health disparities.
OBJECTIVES: No single organization has the resources necessary to conduct occupational safety and health research to adequately serve the needs of workers in the United States. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) undertook the task of setting research priorities in response to a broadly perceived need to systematically address those topics most pressing and most likely to yield gains to workers and to the nation. METHODS: NIOSH and its public and private partners used a consensus-building process to set priorities for the next decade for occupational safety and health research--the National Occupational Research Agenda. RESULTS: The process resulted in the identification of 21 research priorities grouped into 3 categories: disease and injury, work environment and workforce, and research tools and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of occupational safety and health is often contentious and adversarial, these research priorities reflect a remarkable degree of concurrence among a broad range of stakeholders who provided input into a clearly defined and open process.
There is substantial scientific and public concern about the potential effects of occupational and environmental toxicants on reproductive health. These effects include impaired functioning of the reproductive systems of men and women as well as a broad spectrum of developmental problems expressed in offspring. Research on reproduction and development is among the most complex undertakings in biomedical research. This complexity is due in part to the intricate biology of reproduction, the multiple targets involved (male, female, and offspring), the uncertainties in extrapolating from animal models to humans, and the problems involved in accurately characterizing exposures and outcomes in epidemiologic investigations. However, given the relatively brief history of research into toxicant-induced reproductive health effects, we have made enormous strides in our knowledge over the past decade. In particular, recent advances in reproductive biology and biotechnology and in the development of biological markers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility are greatly enhancing our ability to study cause-effect relationships. In this paper, the Research Needs Working Group proposes ways to apply existing knowledge to better protect reproductive health and suggests directions for future research. Fulfilling this challenging agenda will require responsible cooperation by labor...
Autoimmune diseases are influenced by multiple factors including genetics, age, gender, reproductive status, hormones, and potential environmental contaminants. A workshop, "Linking Environmental Agents and Autoimmune Diseases," was convened at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1-3 September 1998, to review current knowledge about links between environmental exposures and autoimmune disease, to identify and prioritize research needs, and to develop an integrated, multidisciplinary research agenda. Participants spent the last half-day of the workshop in small group discussions for the purpose of developing consensus on research needs. Research needs identified were a) develop research tools needed to explore links between environmental agents and autoimmune disease; b) establish a disease registry or surveillance system; c) develop and validate strategies for screening chemicals for the potential to induce or exacerbate autoimmune disease; d) develop an emergency response strategy to gain information from accidental exposures; and e) conduct hypothesis-driven research in occupationally exposed groups and/or in experimental animals. There was consensus that meetings like this workshop and projects that facilitate interactions between specialties should be encouraged. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to address this problem.
One of the most formidable questions facing the environmental health research community today is how to translate basic fundamental research into a product (e.g., disease outcome) that meets the needs of its stakeholders--the medical community, regulatory agencies, and ultimately, the citizens of our nation. Historically, a successful research program could be defined as one that received continuous funding, produced high-quality publications, and was respected by scientists in related fields. However, it is now apparent that this is not sufficient for attaining improved public health--the ultimate goal of these research efforts. Research results must be transferred in a more active way to the communities and professionals who have need of this information. The link must be recognized, and the roles of the stakeholders in the entire research process must be acknowledged to ensure full impact of the research endeavors.
The UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank /WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has over the 2000–2008 period supported the development of individual and institutional grants. Although the TDR research capacity development programmes has had a substantial impact on the development of tropical disease research and research capacity in disease endemic countries, a review of the lessons learnt and benefits of this approach has never been completed. A study was conducted to analyse TDR's inputs in research capacity in endemic countries and to assist TDR in the improvement of its future activities. An analysis (by variables of gender, age, language, country of origin, country of studies, type of grant, scientific interest etc) of the grantees that have benefited from TDR support in terms of their career development and research capacity, including any important financial implications was conducted. The study identify opportunities that are a broader relevance to objectives to international development agencies such as addressing inequities such as the gender imbalance language bias towards English and building a supportive research environment in DECs in which researchers can develop their scientific career and pursue their research.
Postdoctoral training is a typical step in the course of an academic career, but very little is known about postdoctoral researchers (PDRs) working in the UK. This study used an online survey to explore, for the first time, relevant environmental factors which may be linked to the research output of PDRs in terms of the number of peer-reviewed articles per year of PDR employment. The findings showed reliable links between the research output and research institutions, time spent as PDR, and parental education, whereas no clear links were observed between PDRs' output and research area, nationality, gender, number of siblings, or work environment. PDRs based in universities tended to publish, on average, more than the ones based in research centres. PDRs with children tended to stay longer in postdoctoral employment than PDRs without children. Moreover, research output tended to be higher in PDRs with fathers educated at secondary or higher level. The work environment did not affect output directly, but about 1/5 of PDRs were not satisfied with their job or institutional support and about 2/3 of them perceived their job prospects as “difficult”. The results from this exploratory study raise important questions, which need to be addressed in large-scale studies in order to understand (and monitor) how PDRs' family and work environment interact with their research output—an essential step given the crucial role of PDRs in research and development in the country.
The use of human fetal tissue for scientific research has enormous potential but is subject to government legislation. In the United Kingdom the Polkinghorne Committee's guidelines were accepted by the Department of Health in 1990. These guidelines set out to protect women undergoing termination of pregnancy from exploitation but in so doing may significantly restrict potential research. Although the committee took evidence from a wide variety of experts they did not seek the views of the general public. We asked 108 women about to have a therapeutic abortion; 167 women who had had a pregnancy terminated in the past, and 419 women who had never had an abortion, their views on research using human fetal tissue. Regardless of their past experiences the women were overwhelmingly in favour of research using fetal tissue (94 per cent). They made little distinction between basic research and research with obvious clinical relevance and supported the concept of using transplanted fetal tissue for the treatment of adult disease such as Parkinsonism. Women about to undergo an abortion were significantly more likely (p < 0.001) to approve of all types of research including that aimed at improving methods of abortion and research using live fetuses in utero.
The failure of the results of many research studies to be integrated into everyday clinical practice is both well documented and much decried. In the writings on why medical research and clinical practice have remained separate cultures, two issues have not been sufficiently debated. First, are medical researchers addressing the problems that cause clinicians the most concern in their consultations with patients, and secondly, are the results of research studies being presented in a manner that clinicians can both understand and use? This discussion paper highlights primary care clinicians' urgent need for information on the predictive value of the symptoms and signs seen in everyday clinical practice. Medical research has still to provide this information, often leaving general practitioners with inadequate predictive information on which to make early diagnoses, for example, on whether a patient with chest pain has a pulmonary embolus, or a child with pyrexia and rash has meningococcal septicaemia. The format in which research information is commonly presented is discussed; it has been shown that epidemiological terms used in studies are impenetrable to most clinicians. Additional ways of framing research information need to be devised that present such research information in a narrative format and numerical format...
There is an urgent need for high quality primary care research to provide a firm scientific basis for a primary care-led National Health Service; however, relatively little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') stated practices and attitudes towards research. This cross-sectional questionnaire study documents the attitudes and stated practices of general practitioners towards undertaking and using research. Virtually all 249 (90%) GP responders felt that primary care research was important, while majorities expressed interest in research (61%), using research to directly influence practice (68%), and an interest in undertaking future research (53%). Perceived priorities for future primary care research are chronic illness, primary care organisation, and patient behaviour.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the practices of local research ethics committees and the time they take to obtain ethical approval for a multi-centre study. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of outcome of applications for a multi-centre study to local research ethics committees. SETTING: Thirty-six local research ethics committees covering 38 district health authorities in England. MAIN MEASURES: Response of chairmen and women, the time required to obtain approval, and questions asked in application forms. RESULTS: We received replies from all 36 chairmen contacted: four (11%) granted their approval, and 32 (89%) required our proposal to be considered by their local research ethics committee. Three committees asked us to attend their meetings. The application was approved by all 36 local research ethics committees but the time to obtain ethical approval varied between six to 208 days. One third of the committees did not approve the project within three months, and three took longer than six months. There was considerable variation in the issues raised by local research ethics committees and none conformed exactly to the Royal College of Physicians' guidelines. CONCLUSION: Obtaining ethical approval for a multi-centre study is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. Our data support the recommendation for a central or regional review body of multi-centre studies which will be acceptable to all local research ethics committees.
BACKGROUND: It can be argued that the ethical conduct of research involves achieving a balance between the rights and needs of three parties-potential research participants, society, and researchers. Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) have a number of roles and functions in the research enterprise, but there have been some indications that LREC members, researchers and the public can have different views about these responsibilities. Any such differences are potential sources of disagreement and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVES: To compare the views of LREC members, researchers and the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs. DESIGN: A questionnaire that contained items concerned with a variety of such roles was distributed to general practice patients (as proxies for potential research participants), researchers and LREC members. FINDINGS: While general practice patients believed that the main function of LRECs is to ensure that research participants come to no harm, LREC members were more concerned with the protection of participants' rights. There was also some disagreement between members and researchers with regard to the consideration of proposals on the grounds of scientific merit. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware of potential differences in views...