Search

O presente trabalho busca analisar como foi o comportamento da produtividade total dos fatores (PTF) de algumas empresas do setor agropecuário brasileiro que receberam crédito do BNDES, entre 2012 e 2015. Pretende-se, então, apurar se as empresas que receberam mais crédito são aquelas com o melhor desempenho produtivo para o setor agropecuário. Para isso utilizou-se a técnica Análise Envoltória de Dados (DEA), com o cálculo do Índice de Malmquist, a partir de uma amostra de 14 empresas do setor. Constatou-se que, na média, apenas quatro empresas apresentaram variações positivas de produtividade. O valor financiado pelo BNDES, pode ter tido impacto positivo sobre o desempenho das empresas do ponto de vista tecnológico, mas não foi suficiente para melhorar sua eficiência técnica. Além disso, foi possível verificar que as empresas que receberam mais crédito não foram, necessariamente, as que tiveram o melhor desempenho produtivo.

Purpose Lab on-a-chip (LOC) may lead to low-cost point-of-care devices for the diagnosis of human diseases, possibly making laboratories dispensable. However, as it is still an emerging technology, very little is known about its future impact on the diagnosis of human diseases, and on the laboratory industry. Hence, the purpose of this study is to foresee possible developments of this technology through a consultation with researchers in the field in two distinct time periods. Design/methodology/approach Based on Technology Foresight, this study addresses this gap by assessing the opinions of over five hundred LOC researchers and tracking changes in their views on the future of LOC diagnostic devices. These researchers participated in a two-wave global survey with an interval of two and a half years Findings Although second-wave (2020) respondents are less optimistic than those of the first wave (2017), the results of both surveys show that LOC diagnostic devices are expected to: move from proof-of-concept demonstrations to industrial development, becoming commercially feasible worldwide; integrate all laboratory processes, delivering cheaper, faster and more reliable diagnoses than laboratories; and provide low-cost point-of-care solutions, improving access to healthcare. Research limitations/implications Although it would be desirable to collect and explore the views of different sets of stakeholders, the method of generating lists of survey respondents shows a bias toward academic/scientific circles because the respondents are authors of scientific publications. These publications may as well be authored by stakeholders from other fields but it is reasonable to assume that most of them are researchers affiliated with universities and research and development organizations. Therefore, this study lacks in providing an image of the future based on a more diverse set of respondents. Social implications The results show that these devices are expected to radically change the diagnostic testing market and the way laboratories are organized, perhaps moving to a non-laboratory-based model. In conclusion, in the coming decades, these devices may promote substantial changes in the way human diseases are diagnosed. Originality/value Only a few studies have attempted to foresee the future of LOC devices, and most are based on literature reviews. Thus, this study goes beyond the existing research by providing a broad understanding of what the future will look like from the views of researchers who are contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field. The researchers invited to take part in this study are authors of LOC-related scientific publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection.

This article aims to map the scientific production concerning the inclusion of people with disabilities in Science Education to promote a reflection on the production of this area. Bibliometric analysis is used to help understand what stage of research a particular subject is at. Publications on the topic indexed at the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) were evaluated. A total of 119 articles published between 2009 and July 2019 were selected as dealing specifically with the subject. An increase in the number of articles associating Science teaching (ST) and Inclusive Education (IE) was noted. The journals that published the most, the most productive authors in the area and their collaboration networks were identified. A content analysis of the research was also carried out and the main investigated topics were pointed out. Educational levels, types of disabilities, central themes and specific science areas prevailing in the mapped research were also indicated. We conclude that, despite the growing number of articles, scientific production associating SE and IE is still small, concentrated, and not shared with the scientific community through scientific education journals, and that most research is focused on the use of methodologies and resources, and not on their development.

In the future, early diagnosis of cancers may be performed using labon-a-chip devices. Yet, very little is known about the research obtained so far, who are the leading institutions, and how they c...

PurposeDuring the last few years there has been an increase of interest in work-based learning (WBL), which can be understood as a process of both developing workplace skills and promoting labor force productivity. This paper aims to map the scientific landscape related to WBL research worldwide.Design/methodology/approachcombined bibliometrics and network analysis techniques to analyze data of scientific publications related to WBL indexed at the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection.Findingsresults show an increase of publications over time: Education & Educational Research as the most frequent research area to which the articles were assigned, the UK and Australia as the main countries and Monash University (Australia) and Middlesex University (England) as the main organizations producing knowledge on WBL.Originality/valueBy offering a global scientific landscape of WBL research published so far, the authors aimed to contribute to future academic debates and studies in this field of knowledge.

In the next decades, gene editing technologies are expected to be used in the treatment and prevention of human diseases. Yet, the future uses of gene editing in medicine are still unknown, including its applicability and effectiveness to the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, cancer, and monogenic and polygenic hereditary diseases. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the views of over 1,000 gene editing-related researchers from all over the world. Some of our survey results show that, in the next 10 years, DNA double-strand breaks are expected to be the main method for gene editing, and CRISPR-Cas systems to be the mainstream programmable nuclease. In the same period, gene editing is expected to have more applicability and effectiveness to treat and prevent infectious diseases and cancer. Off-targeting mutations, reaching therapeutic levels of editing efficiency, difficulties in targeting specific tissues in vivo, and regulatory and ethical challenges are among the most relevant factors that might hamper the use of gene editing in humans. In conclusion, our results suggest that gene editing might become a reality to the treatment and prevention of a variety of human diseases in the coming 10 years. If the future confirms these researchers' expectations, gene editing could change the way medicine, health systems, and public health deal with the treatment and prevention of human diseases.

BACKGROUND The Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (MIOC) is one of the first scientific journals created in Brazil and currently one of the most important biomedical journals in South America. Knowledge of the main themes disseminated over time and its main contributors can contribute towards a better understanding of its trajectory and future. OBJECTIVES Map the journal’s scientific publication between 1909 and 2020. METHODS Data from three scientific databases was combined, alongside bibliometrics and network analysis to analyse publication records between 1909 and 2020. FINDINGS Publications increased substantially since the 1980s. The main publishing organisations are Brazilian. Excluding Brazil, the main publishing countries are the USA, Argentina, and Colombia. During the entire investigated period, the main themes refer to Chagas disease, schistosomiasis, and Leishmaniasis. During some periods, publications followed disease outbreaks in Brazil (e.g., dengue fever and yellow fever). MAIN CONCLUSIONS Since its foundation in 1909, the MIOC has focused on infectious and parasitic diseases. The editorial changes implemented from the 1980s onwards led MIOC to a relevant growth concerning annual publications and its transformation into an important communication vehicle for researchers from several Brazilian organisations besides Fiocruz, as well as organisations from other countries, especially within Latin America.

Bioprinted 3D and 4D tissues and organs are expected to revolutionize the biomedical field, eliminating the need for laboratory animals, but little is known about the future impacts of these technologies on drug development.

Introduction: Rare genetic diseases affect millions of people worldwide. Most of them are caused by defective genes that impair quality of life and can lead to premature death. As genetic therapies aim to fix or replace defective genes, they are considered the most promising treatment for rare genetic diseases. Yet, as these therapies are still under development, it is still unclear whether they will be successful in treating these diseases. This study aims to address this gap by assessing researchers’ opinions on the future of genetic therapies for the treatment of rare genetic diseases. Methods: We conducted a global cross-sectional web-based survey of researchers who recently authored peer-reviewed articles related to rare genetic diseases. Results: We assessed the opinions of 1430 researchers with high and good knowledge about genetic therapies for the treatment of rare genetic diseases. Overall, the respondents believed that genetic therapies would be the standard of care for rare genetic diseases before 2036, leading to cures after this period. CRISPR-Cas9 was considered the most likely approach to fixing or replacing defective genes in the next 15 years. The respondents with good knowledge believed that genetic therapies would only have long-lasting effects after 2036, while those with high knowledge were divided on this issue. The respondents with good knowledge on the subject believed that non-viral vectors are more likely to be successful in fixing or replacing defective genes in the next 15 years, while most of the respondents with high knowledge believed viral vectors would be more successful. Conclusion: Overall, the researchers who participated in this study expect that in the future genetic therapies will greatly benefit the treatment of patients with rare genetic diseases. Plain Language Summary A global survey of researchers on the future of genetic therapies for rare genetic diseases Rare genetic diseases are caused by defective genes that result from one or more mutations in the genome. Today, the therapeutic options for these diseases are limited, and there are approved treatments for about 5% of them. In the future, genetic therapies (a group of techniques developed to correct defective genes) are expected to revolutionize the treatment of rare genetic diseases. Although promising, most of these therapies are currently under development and have a long way to go before their efficacy and safety can be proved. The uncertainty surrounding this topic therefore means the success of genetic therapies in treating or curing rare genetic diseases is not yet assured. To address this knowledge gap, we surveyed 1430 researchers working in rare genetic diseases about the future of genetic therapies for the treatment of these diseases over the next 15 years. Most of them expected gene therapies to be the standard of care for rare genetic diseases before 2036 and to be able to cure them after this date. CRISPR-Cas9 was felt to be the gene editing approach that was most likely to succeed in fixing or replacing defective genes in the next 15 years. The respondents with high knowledge about gene therapies for the treatment of rare diseases believed gene therapies would have long-lasting effects before 2036, while those with good knowledge expected this to be the case only after 2036. The former believed in viral vectors and the latter in non-viral vectors to fix or replace defective genes in the next 15 years.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic presents a great public health challenge worldwide, especially given the urgent need to identify effective drugs and develop a vaccine in a short period of time. Globally, several drugs and vaccine candidates are in clinical trials. However, because these drugs and vaccines are still being tested, there is still no definition of which ones will succeed. Objective This study aimed to assess the opinions of over 1000 virus researchers with knowledge on the prevention and treatment of coronavirus-related human diseases to determine the most promising drug and vaccine candidates to address COVID-19. Methods We mapped the clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. These data were used to prepare a survey questionnaire about treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19. In May 2020, a global survey was conducted with authors of recent scientific publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection related to viruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, coronaviruses, and COVID-19. Results Remdesivir, immunoglobulin from cured patients, and plasma were considered to be the most promising treatments in May 2020, while ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 were considered to be the most promising vaccine candidates. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (766/1219, 62.8%) believed that vaccines for COVID-19 were likely to be available in the next 18 months. Slightly fewer than 25% (289/1219, 23.7%) believed that a vaccine was feasible, but probably not within 18 months. Conclusions The issues addressed in this study are constantly evolving; therefore, the current state of knowledge has changed since the survey was conducted. However, for several months after the survey, the respondents’ expectations were in line with recent results related to treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19.