Análise do modo de apropriação do marco regulatório do uso de animais na pesquisa científica no Brasil: estudo de caso da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz

• Autor(a) principal: Filipecki, Ana Tereza Pinto
• Data de Publicação: 2012
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/14270
• topic: Law 11794/2008; Animal experimentation; Public policy; Fiocruz; Implementation; Research animals; Lei n. 11.794/2008; Animais de laboratório; Experimentação; Fiocruz; Políticas públicas; Implementação; Animais de laboratório - Legislação; Animais - Pesquisa científica; CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::CIENCIA POLITICA::POLITICAS PUBLICAS

After 13 years of parliamentary debate, the Brazilian federal government instituted on October 8, 2008 a new legal and administrative order to regulate the use of animals in research and education. A federal law (Law n. 11794/2008), a federal decree (Decree n. 6899/2009) and three normative resolutions were enacted from 2008 to 2011. Among its clauses, the legislation creates the National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (CONCEA) and made mandatory the implementation of an Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals (CEUA) in institutions that breed or use animals for educational purposes and research. We describe and analyze the implementation of the new regulatory regime. Inspired by interpretative policy analysis, we asked how the regulated actors frame the legislation in relation to their work practices. That is, what is directing their attention? How do they interpret and understand the legislation? Do they form different interpretative communities to address the issues associated to the current legislation? Our findings are based on a year participant observation inside of a local CEUA, semi structured interviews (15 seniors researchers, 4 managers and 3 specialists) and document analysis. We concluded by stating that: 1) animal modelsare devices that divide the instrumental community of biomedical researchers in two sub communities: users and not users of research animals; 2) the new legal framework separates the instrumental community of animal users in two subcommunities that strive for diverse interests: research bench and field researchers, (3) the diversity of interpretations of the law associated with each instrumental community may be associated to the lack of regulation of sensitive topics such as surgical procedures and anesthetics, euthanasia and reuse of animals, 4) governance of biomedical research based on laboratory animals is not stabilized inside the institutional space: different instrumental communities of users of animals, livestock producers, managers and CEUA s members are in dispute; 5) the proximity between preclinical research and clinical practice is a strategy to outline the restrictions experienced by researchers in the process of working with research animals that develops in the setting of transnational and translational research.