• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

蔓延至研究伦理领域的科学争端:对玛丽亚·塞西莉亚·德·索萨·米纳约的访谈

Scientific disputes that spill over into Research Ethics: interview with Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo.

作者信息

Minayo Maria Cecília de Souza

机构信息

Centro Latino-Americano de Estudos de Violência e Saúde Jorge Carelli, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BR,

出版信息

Cien Saude Colet. 2015 Sep;20(9):2693-6. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015209.11862015.

DOI:10.1590/1413-81232015209.11862015
PMID:26331502
Abstract

This is an interview with Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo, by university lecturers Iara Coelho Zito Guerriero and Maria Lúcia Magalhães Bosi. It reflects the heat of the current debates surrounding implementation of a specific protocol for evaluation of research in the Human and Social Sciences (HSS), vis-à-vis the current rules set by the National Health Council, which have a clearly biomedical bias. The interview covers the difficulties of introducing appropriate and fair rules for judgment of HSS projects, in the face of a hegemonic understanding of the very concept of science by biologists and medical doctors, who tend not to recognize other approaches unless those approaches adopt their frames of reference. In this case, the National Health Council becomes the arena of this polemic, leading researchers in the human and social sciences to ask themselves whether the health sector has the competency to create rules for other areas of knowledge.

摘要

这是大学讲师伊拉·科埃略·齐托·格雷里埃罗和玛丽亚·卢西亚·马加良斯·博西对玛丽亚·塞西莉亚·德·索萨·米纳约进行的一次访谈。它反映了当前围绕实施一项针对人文社会科学(HSS)研究评估的特定协议展开的激烈辩论,这与国家卫生委员会制定的现行规则形成对比,现行规则明显带有生物医学倾向。访谈涉及在面对生物学家和医生对科学概念的霸权性理解时,为人文社会科学项目引入适当且公平的评判规则所面临的困难,这些生物学家和医生往往不认可其他方法,除非这些方法采用他们的参照框架。在这种情况下,国家卫生委员会成为了这场论战的舞台,促使人文社会科学领域的研究人员思考卫生部门是否有能力为其他知识领域制定规则。

相似文献

1
Scientific disputes that spill over into Research Ethics: interview with Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo.蔓延至研究伦理领域的科学争端:对玛丽亚·塞西莉亚·德·索萨·米纳约的访谈
Cien Saude Colet. 2015 Sep;20(9):2693-6. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015209.11862015.
2
[Contextualized editorial practices: Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo and the journal Ciência & Saúde Coletiva].[情境化编辑实践:玛丽亚·塞西莉亚·德·索萨·米纳约与《科学与健康》杂志]
Salud Colect. 2016 Jul-Sep;12(3):453-462. doi: 10.18294/sc.2016.1081.
3
Research ethics in the dynamic of scientific field: challenges in the building of guidelines for social sciences and humanities.科学领域动态中的研究伦理:社会科学与人文科学指南制定面临的挑战
Cien Saude Colet. 2015 Sep;20(9):2615-24. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015209.06022015.
4
[Medical research-ethics applied to social sciences: relevance, limits, issues and necessary adjustments].[应用于社会科学的医学研究伦理:相关性、局限性、问题及必要调整]
Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2008 Apr;101(2):77-84.
5
Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?巴西非生物医学科学领域人类受试者研究的国家伦理要求遵守情况:一种变化的文化?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jun;25(3):693-705. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0028-2. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
6
Double-edged sword of interdisciplinary knowledge flow from hard sciences to humanities and social sciences: Evidence from China.跨学科知识从硬科学流向人文社会科学的双刃剑:来自中国的证据。
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0184977. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184977. eCollection 2017.
7
[An ethics of dialogue sciences-society].[对话科学与社会的伦理学]
Med Sci (Paris). 2015 Jun-Jul;31 Spec No 2:40-2. doi: 10.1051/medsci/201531s111. Epub 2015 Jul 16.
8
What Is the Relevance of Procedural Fairness to Making Determinations about Medical Evidence?程序公平性与医学证据判定有何关联?
AMA J Ethics. 2017 Feb 1;19(2):183-191. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor1-1702.
9
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
10
Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy.多基因社会科学评分:澄清、共识与争议。
Behav Brain Sci. 2023 Sep 11;46:e232. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X23000845.