sexta-feira, 25 de outubro de 2019

Equity in Health


The Network: Towards Unity for Health (TUFH) an official non-state actor of WHO, is an international organization that works with national, state, and community partners to foster equitable community-oriented health services, education and research with the goal of improving health locally and globally. The participants of TUFH 2019 in Darwin, collectively, as a result of the Global Solutions Challenge Inclusive Process, curated and endorse the following declaration.  


1.The world desires and the future deserves Universal Health Coverage and Equitable Health Care for ALL; 

2.Universal Health Coverage and Equitable Health Care for the disadvantaged, neglected, and minorities rarely exists;  

3.The voices of marginalized populations including but not limited to First Nations, Indigenous, Elderly, Women, Migrants and Refugees, and people living in remote and rural areas are not adequately represented or invited to the table where health, system and funding decisions are made; 

4.Non-health sectors are not adequately represented or invited to the table where health, system and funding decisions are made; 

5.There is often a disconnect between the wisdom and ideas of the elders and the youth where both voices are often lost in healthcare discussion;  

6.Institutions who adopt and implement social accountability and interprofessional education and practice standards aren’t recognized;  

7.Climate change is increasingly effecting the environment, health and healthcare;  

8.Health Education and Training is rarely tailored to, addresses community needs, or informed by community implementation;  

9.Global siloed policy recommendations, consuming the majority of financial resources, are majorly ineffective as they are not developed with and by the communities they are targeted to impact and do not often engage and support the work of local clinicians and teams. 

We collectively declare we will work toward inclusiveness, education, and advocacy.

We will work toward INCLUSIVENESS defined by:  

 1.A global effort of caring for each other returning the human spirit to health care including community voices, culture, lived experiences, empathy, and compassion.  

2.Frequent and consistent communication in the creation of priorities for local action between and within the health sector both regionally and globally and with and for the people and communities of the world.  

3.Frequent and consistent communication in the creation of joint priorities of action beyond the health sector with non-health sectors.  

We will work toward EDUCATION defined by:  

4.Alternative health practitioners (e.g. community health workers) and emerging healthcare professionals are engaged, competently trained, certified, and represented in health workforce policies and practices. 

5.The next generation of health workforce leadership is prepared by creating greater opportunities for students with mentorship being one of the opportunities.  
6.Capitalize on the advancement of technology to enhance the sharing and education for academics, health workers and students regionally and around the world. 

7.Healthcare Education is tailored to and addresses community needs and incorporates community best practices (e.g. field case studies) reflecting what people are doing and not publishing. This includes the formation of additional health education and training platforms from communities, in communities, by communities, and for communities.  

We will work toward ADVOCACY defined by:  

8.Advocacy to ensure the voice of marginalized populations including but not limited to First Nations, Indigenous, Elderly, Women, Migrants and Refugees, and people living in remote and rural areas are adequately represented at the table where health, system and funding decisions are made.  

9.Provide international structures and systems for the structural implementation of Social Accountability (e.g. curriculum accreditation that responds to and does not increase disadvantages).  

10.A global effort recognizing the climate change and its impact on the environment, health, and healthcare.  

11.Demonstrate through evidence that Social Accountability, Interprofessional Education, and the Integrated Health Team create positive impact toward students, health professionals, and community.

12.Support the certification and recognition of institutions as the global leaders in implementing Social Accountability, Interprofessional, and Population Health that includes, at a minimum, the standards as listed below: 
 Policies, curricula, and regulatory standards that promote social accountability, community involvement, and interprofessional education and practice; 
 Environmental Impact of Healthcare including the monitoring waste production, efficiency, challenging the need of single use devices; 
 Inclusion of the student and patient/community voice in the development of policies, curricula and regulatory standards; 
 Holistic approach in delivering quality health that includes the healthcare team driven by patient goals verses silos. 
 Ensure training from communities, in communities, by communities, and for communities. 

TUFH commits to be a vibrant and effective network of networks that realizes, implements, and assesses the effectiveness of the above actions.


sábado, 28 de setembro de 2019

Community-based Medicine

From Classrooms to Neighborhoods -- A Reality Students Must Be Prepared For

Alejandro Avelino Bonilla

Resultado de imagem para Alejandro Avelino Bonilla

In recent decades, medical education has been changing around the world in an effort to improve quality, equity, and relevance among other characteristics. A good example for this is the accreditation process of many medical institutions around the world. Besides this, institutions are also aiming to reach what has been defined as social accountability, and it is the main topic of the must-read, “Global Consensus for Social Accountability of Medical Schools.” 1 Both topics have been widely explored by The Network: TUFH and its members during the last years and are reflected on The Fortaleza Declaration (2014)2 and the Tunis Declaration (2017)3 seeking global learning objectives for health professionals and to enhance health and social justice in the social accountability context respectively.  

Accreditation and social accountability are topics that deserve their own review and discussion, but both are related to an issue I want to highlight, the disparity between what is taught and learned during the undergraduate period and what is really useful and needed to work with, and in, communities. From the accreditation perspective, standards are given in order to develop programs and activities in the communities (depending on the national standard that is widely used), meaning that students will, for sure, be in touch with the communities and their surroundings in non-clinical or outreach activities. On the other hand, social accountability has a much bigger picture of the community and includes relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and equity to the activities developed in the community.4,5 

We, as health educators, talk about the relevance of community-based practices and that students must be in touch with the community (even though some students and even teachers may be slightly against it), but community-based practices are not the same as socially accountable actions, neither being a social accountability program. Therefore, students are being taken to communities to perform activities, within accreditation standards, but they might not be socially accountable and it endangers the development of health care students and the reason is quite simple, during and around four to seven years, health care education institutions train students to face and treat health issues in a clinical context (of course this does not apply to all medical institutions but for most it does), and then, they are taken to a more social context where they do not have the tools and environment they are used to, so they must face a completely new reality. This situation can be so deeply entrenched that even the country's health system is not designed to respond to the needs of the community outside the hospital, so what do we expect from students when it comes to commitment and delivery within the community? Why do we proudly say that our students perform activities in the community when we are not really having the desired effect on them nor on the community? Or at least in most communities because even faced with these difficulties, some students actually “fall in love” with the community’s health and that’s what brings us to this discussion. 

Recently in Latin America there was a debate about the voluntary interruption of pregnancy as a right, Argentina6 and Colombia7 just to cite some examples, and many institutions refused to train their students about this type of care. In the specific case of Colombia when the students where asked, many reported that they received little or almost no training about the topic. If this happens with a subject that is specific, what might be happening when we try to teach and inform students around health in the communities, and even more complex, social accountability issues?

Now, from the community context, are they involved in the planning, execution, and follow up of these community-based practices or social accountable activities? Do we even ask them what they need and what is a priority for them? Or do we just assume that we know what is best because we are the health professionals? A highly involved and active community is not a common thing but is not impossible to find or to nurture. Yet it does require time and work and once it is archived, it can basically guarantee the sustainability part of the impact of the intervention. This brings us to the “the elephant in the room,” are we involving the community? Are we working for the community, in the community, or with the community? Most of the community-based activities tend to be focused on building capacities for the students, but not all of them aim for building capacities for the community as well. These activities ended up being used as a means to reach the objectives with the students, instead of being the end itself and forming students along the way.

So, if we combine these factors, students are being formed on a clinical level and then taken to perform community-based practices that do not meet the needs of the community, ultimately we will have newly graduated doctors that do not possess the theoretical and practical knowledge to answer a community’s health needs, and additionally, communities that do not feel like they can identify with these newly graduated doctors. Isn’t this a problem we are facing worldwide? Of course, it has other contributing causes, but this is one we can face now.

The solution can be found in the problem itself once we face it. Building programs and curriculums around the needs of the community -- with the community -- will allow students to face these needs in a much more real scenario, while during classes students will receive education in primary health care. This is a solution that does not require additional funding, it requires a restructuring and prioritization, something that is extensively addressed during the actions of primary health care and community-based primary health care.

There are many programs and institutions that are changing the health related education paradigm and that we all can meet in the next The Network: TUFH Social Accountability: From Evidence to Action Conference in Darwin, Australia, which demands that institutions, teachers, students, and policymakers among others participate in this must attend event.

This is just a short reflection on a subject that requires a wide and rich debate with different perspectives to support primary health care as a reality that will last over time and that will deliver the impact we are looking for -- education and health promotion, disease prevention, early detection and treatment, and the improvement of the quality of life of the entire population. It may sound idealistic, but Ayn Rand stated it best, “Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.”

Works Cited

  • Abdalla, Mohamed Elhassan, y Charles Boelen. “Social Accountability of Medical Schools: The New Frontier For Development”, 2012, 7–31.
  • Awases, Magdalena, Rebecca Bailey, Charles Boelen, y Mario Dal Poz. “Global consensus on social accountability of medical schools”. Sante publique (Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France) 23, núm. 3 (2010): 247–50.
  • Boelen, Charles, Jeffery E Heck, y World Health Organization. Division of Development of Human Resources for Health. “Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools”, 1995.
  • Cañón, Laura Natalia Cruz. “Facultades de medicina, reprobadas en Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo”. El Espectador. 2019.
  • Garcia, Glenn. “Abortion in Argentina”. The Lancet 393, núm. 10173 (2019): 744.
  • Goñi, Uki. “‘Thousands’ of young girls denied abortion after rape in Argentina”. THe Guardian, 2019.
  • Members of The Network; TUFH. “The Fortaleza Declaration”. Fortaleza, Brasil, 2014.
  • ———. “Tunis Declaration”. Hammamet, Tunisia, 2017.
  • 1 Magdalena Awases et al., “Global consensus on social accountability of medical schools”, Sante publique (Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France) 23, núm. 3 (2010): 247–50,
  • 2 Members of The Network; TUFH, “The Fortaleza Declaration” (Fortaleza, Brasil, 2014),
  • 3 Members of The Network; TUFH, “Tunis Declaration” (Hammamet, Tunisia, 2017),
  • 4 Charles Boelen, Jeffery E Heck, y World Health Organization. Division of Development of Human Resources for Health, “Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools”, 1995,
  • 5 Mohamed Elhassan Abdalla y Charles Boelen, “Social Accountability of Medical Schools: The New Frontier For Development”, 2012, 7–31.
  • 6 Glenn Garcia, “Abortion in Argentina”, The Lancet 393, núm. 10173 (2019): 744,; Uki Goñi, “‘Thousands’ of young girls denied abortion after rape in Argentina”, THe Guardian, 2019,
  • 7 Laura Natalia Cruz Cañón, “Facultades de medicina, reprobadas en Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo”, El Espectador, 2019,

* Alejandro Avelino Bonilla is a physician and epidemiology postgraduate student from Juan N. Corpas University in Bogotá, Colombia. He is a National Research Leader in the Colombian Medical Student Association ACOME and member of the advisory board of The Network: TUFH. For more than three years he was a student representative for his University, as well as founder and co-president of the Colombian Association of Students Representatives of Higher Education ACREES. Alejandro also previously served as a Latin Americas´ representative and president of SNO.

segunda-feira, 23 de setembro de 2019

Programa Médicos pelo Brasil

O Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM) foi surpreendido com a nota divulgada pela imprensa informando que o relatório da Comissão Mista do Congresso Nacional que discute a Medida Provisória nº 890/2019, que cria o Programa Médicos pelo Brasil, deve prever a inclusão de 1.800 médicos cubanos, além da permissão de que médicos brasileiros formados no exterior que não foram aprovados no Exame Nacional de Revalidação de Diplomas Médicos Expedidos por Instituições de Educação Superior Estrangeiras (Revalida) tenham o direito de prestar a prova para ingressar no Programa, mesmo sem registro em Conselho Regional de Medicina (CRM).
Essa notícia surpreende e decepciona, pois não corresponde à proposta apresentada pelo Ministério da Saúde ao CFM por ocasião do planejamento do Programa Médicos pelo Brasil.
O CFM tem posicionamento público em relação a essa questão e é inflexível quanto à obrigatoriedade de que qualquer médico, para exercer sua profissão no Brasil, tenha de ter diploma revalidado, estar registrado nos Conselhos de Medicina e ser portador de inscrição no CRM. Não há exceções a essas normas. O CFM não admite nenhum tipo de flexibilização dessas obrigações legais, que garantem qualidade e segurança no atendimento à população, realizado por profissionais qualificados.
O CFM solicita que o relator da proposta na Comissão Mista do Congresso Nacional, o senador e médico Confúcio Moura (MDB-RO), como profissional da medicina e conhecedor da catástrofe que é o atendimento da população por médicos desqualificados, resista à pressão de setores interessados em que o Revalida não seja aplicado aos intercambistas cubanos e aos brasileiros formados no exterior, o que contraria promessa de campanha do presidente Jair Bolsonaro, e mantenha em seu relatório a obrigatoriedade de que todos os médicos que pleiteiam entrar no Programa Médicos pelo Brasil sejam portadores de inscrição no CRM, em obediência à lei e pela segurança da assistência médica a todos os brasileiros.
O CFM, em passado recente, sob outros governos, sempre atuou contra medidas que ameaçavam a qualidade e a segurança da boa assistência à população brasileira, e novamente o fará caso essas propostas equivocadas sejam aprovadas, desvirtuando e contaminando o Programa Médicos pelo Brasil.
Brasília, 17 de setembro de 2019.

quinta-feira, 12 de setembro de 2019


A UEM (Universidade Estadual de Maringá) está entre as três instituições brasileiras de ensino superior selecionadas pela Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) para participar do American Council on Education (ACE), Laboratório de Internacionalização, que será realizado em Washington. As Universidades Federais do Pará e de Goiás completam o trio.

O objetivo do projeto, que abrange um ano e meio de formação e tutoria, é ajudar as instituições participantes a desenvolverem planos abrangentes e estratégicos de internacionalização, definindo áreas prioritárias, objetivos, metas e ações. Além dos encontros em Washington, estão previstas reuniões em Brasília e visitas da comitiva americana à UEM.

A assessora de cooperação internacional, Sandra Schiavi (foto acima), e o diretor de pesquisa da UEM, Luiz Fernando Cótica (foto abaixo), representam a Universidade nesta iniciativa, que teve início no começo deste mês.

Sandra Schiavi comenta que a UEM já tem um processo de internacionalização estruturado e que a busca atual é agregar ações isoladas em um projeto mais abrangente e institucionalizado, capaz de elevar o patamar da Universidade nesta área, possibilitando, inclusive, que ela se torne referência em modelo de internacionalização no Paraná. “Neste sentido o curso a participação no ACE será um importante impulsionador”, opina a assessora.

Para Schiavi é necessário ir além dos acordos de cooperação e programas de mobilidade com instituições estrangeiras. O processo de internalização deve permear, ainda segundo a assessora, o ensino, a pesquisa, a extensão e os currículos de docentes, discentes e agentes universitários, a comunicação e tantas outras áreas.  São qualificações que precisam ser feitas até como contrapartida na participação no programa americano.

A seleção da UEM ao American Council on Education tem uma relação direta com o resultado alcançado no último edital do Programa Institucional de Internacionalização (PrInt). É o que pensa Sandra Schiavi.

Criado pela Capes, o PrInt visa a fomentar o desenvolvimento de planos estratégicos de internacionalização como meio de melhorar a qualidade dos cursos de pós-graduação nacionais e de conferir maior visibilidade internacional à pesquisa científica realizada no Brasil. A assessora de cooperação internacional lembra que apesar de não ter seu projeto contemplado no programa, a UEM chegou “quase lá” o que contribuiu para carimbar seu passaporte rumo a formação oferecida pelo ACE

Instituições participantes
Além das três universidades brasileiras também participam do programa as seguintes instituições: Bethany College (WV), California State University, San Bernardino, Loyola Marymount University (CA), Mercer University (GA), Purdue University Northwest, Rhodes College (TN), Sinclair College (OH), Southern Illinois University, SUNY - The College of Brockport, University of California San Diego, University of Delaware, University of Missouri, Kansas City, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of North Georgia e York College of Pennsylvania.

segunda-feira, 9 de setembro de 2019


Startup “gamifica” o aprendizado de alunos de medicina

O biólogo Vinicius Gusmão e o engenheiro de automação Sandro Nhaia decidiram, em 2016, que era o momento de unir suas áreas de competência em um empreendimento: a MedRoom. A startup surgiu com o objetivo de utilizar a modelagem 3D para auxiliar professores de medicina a ensinarem por meio da realidade virtual (RV). Com a premissa de potencializar o aprendizado dos alunos, desenvolvendo um ambiente imersivo dentro dos óculos de RV, a startup dialoga com as duas pontas do setor da saúde para fazer o seu negócio crescer: as universidades, onde apresenta sua solução para o corpo docente e procura gerar novas funcionalidades para sua tecnologia; e os hospitais, com o objetivo de validar cientificamente cada aspecto médico das aulas que cria dentro da sua ferramenta. Para saber mais, não perca o novo episódio do Terra Inovação! 

terça-feira, 27 de agosto de 2019

Mudanças curriculares na Medicina

Medicina da UEM  desenvolve ações de desenvolvimento docente do Curso e da Universidade

O Conselho Acadêmico e o Núcleo Docente Estruturante do Curso de Medicina da UEM participará nos próximos dias de ações de desenvolvimento docente.

O primeiro evento, um curso de extensão voltado aos professores dos 11 departamentos que oferecem componentes curriculares para o Curso, terá o seu primeiro encontro no dia 29 de agosto de 2019 à noite. O objetivo principal será a avaliação do projeto pedagógico do Curso à luz das atuais Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais (DCN, 2014) e um estudo comparativo com outros modelos curriculares.

Nos dias 02 e 03 de setembro de 2019, participaremos de uma mesa-redonda sobre o ensino de graduação na UEM onde coordenadores apresentarão experiências exitosas e desafios de seus Cursos.

Estas discussões visam embasar mudanças que valorizem o ensino de graduação e estimulem a sua integração com a extensão, pesquisa e pós-graduação.

segunda-feira, 26 de agosto de 2019


Questionable Rejection

Sociologist says journal dismissed her paper because she'd shared it elsewhere as a preprint -- even though the publication had a pro-preprint policy. How often does this happen?


Most academics have lots of rejection stories. Far fewer have rejection stories like Alison Gerber’s.

The U.S.-trained postdoctoral researcher in sociology at Lund University in Sweden recently got a terse email from the editor of an unnamed journal saying she couldn’t publish her paper because Gerber had already shared it in the preprint repository SocArXiv.

“One of the reviewers who agreed to evaluate your paper for the journal had the presence of mind to plug the title into a search engine,” the email reads. “He asked if he should review the paper for us given that it is already published (without the benefit of peer review). Of course not.”

The email’s haughty tone in itself is stunning, if not unusual. But Gerber was struck by the idea that sharing her preprint with other social scientists made her ineligible to formally publish it elsewhere. After all, many sociologists and academics in dozens of other fields are pushing for increased sharing of manuscripts and data in preprint archives in the name of transparency and better science. The idea behind unrefereed preprints is to get research in the public domain faster than the traditional peer-review process allows, to get feedback from colleagues that might make eventually published papers better, and to find potential collaborators.

Luckily, Gerber didn’t take the editor’s word for it and asked a librarian to help her investigate. The trusty librarian (also unnamed) soon reported back to Gerber what she’d expected all along: that the journal had no policy against publishing papers that had been submitted elsewhere as preprints. In fact, the journal had a policy encouraging preprint sharing.

Gerber declined requests for an interview and that she name the journal. She did say that the journal's editorial team worked mostly in the U.S., United Kingdom and Canada. Beyond that, she referred questions to her Twitter thread about her misadventure. According to her account, Gerber sent a polite follow-up to the journal editor, who soon admitted the error and said the paper would be considered for publication after all.

Interest in Gerber’s mini-saga was high -- probably for a number of reasons. A supposedly “blind” reviewer had searched for her paper title, which could have easily given away her name, gender and academic credentials even if she’d just shared it at a conference and not on SocArXiv. Both the reviewer and the editor did not know their journal's own policy on preprints. And the exchange revealed either a misunderstanding of or antipathy for preprint repositories on the part of at least one journal.

What is the purpose of a preprint repository such as a SocArXiv and how does it differ from that of a traditional publication? Can, and should, the two systems really coexist? Philip Cohen, professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park and a member of SocArXiv’s steering committee, said that he and his collaborators designed the platform “not to replace journals but to supplement them.”

The point of preprint repositories “is to get work out faster and for free, and then still use the peer-review system for validating what's good and/or important,” Cohen added via email. “Almost everyone in the journal disciplines, as opposed to humanities, is still publishing in journals, even if they are also posting papers on systems like SocArXiv. Journals are how we get formal recognition and get tenure.”

Preprint archives typically have some standards for publication, but they are nowhere near as stringent as most peer-reviewed journals, which publish on regular schedules and are space-limited. SocArXiv papers, for instance, are moderated before they appear online -- a process that takes up to two days, not months. SocArXiv's policy says that papers must be scholarly, relevant to the social sciences, "plausibly categorized" and correctly attributed, and in moderated languages.

Even if the journal Gerber submitted to doesn’t have a problem with preprints, do other publications have policies against them? Jessie Daniels, a professor of sociology at Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York who has written several books on digital sociologies, said that the vast majority of academic journals have no issue with preprints.

Situations like Gerber’s aren’t common because blind reviewers aren’t typically googling paper titles, she added. But academics as a group remain “woefully ignorant about open access, scholarly communication and the way the landscape of knowledge production is changing in the digital era.”

domingo, 25 de agosto de 2019

Universidade e Sociedade

“A sociedade mudou e nós não percebemos”

No USP Talks, reitores das três universidades estaduais paulistas enfatizam necessidade de uma maior interação com a sociedade

Os reitores Marcelo Knobel (Unicamp), Vahan Agopyan (USP) e
Sandro Valentini (Unesp) e o jornalista Herton Escobar durante 
debate sobre educação
Foto: Cecília Bastos/USP Imagens

As universidades precisam interagir mais com a sociedade, e se comunicar melhor com ela, reconhecendo que as demandas e a percepção pública dessas instituições estão em constante evolução.

“Esse é o nosso grande desafio”, disse o reitor da USP, Vahan Agopyan. “Não porque a universidade ficou isolada numa torre de marfim”, como se costuma dizer, mas porque “a sociedade mudou, e nós não percebemos”, completou.

Os comentários foram feitos na última edição do USP Talks, que reuniu os reitores das três universidades estaduais paulistas para falar sobre os desafios da educação no Brasil, no último dia 20, em São Paulo.

Segundo Vahan, a sociedade hoje é “mais exigente, mais preparada e tem expectativas maiores” do que antigamente, que precisam ser levadas em conta na maneira como as universidades se relacionam com ela. “Não adianta falar em número de papers ou prestígio do paper, porque não é o que a sociedade deseja”, disse. “Quero que a sociedade entenda que a universidade é onde ela vai conseguir ter as suas discussões e o seu desenvolvimento. Essa é a nossa meta.”

Comunicação com a sociedade, melhor formação e internacionalização foram
alguns dos temas destacados pelos reitores no evento especial do 
USP Talks  – Foto: Cecília Bastos/USP Imagens
O reitor da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Marcelo Knobel , falou sobre a necessidade de dar mais flexibilidade ao sistema e ampliar a multidisciplinaridade da formação universitária, buscando melhorar a preparação dos alunos para os novos desafios do século 21 — incluindo a capacidade de se adaptar rapidamente a novas carreiras e novas tecnologias que deverão surgir, muitas vezes de forma inesperada.

“Estamos indo na contramão do mundo inteiro no que se refere à maneira de ensinar e ao que ensinamos”, disse Knobel. “Nosso sistema é engessado, extremamente conteudista, rígido e muito, muito complicado. Tudo no sentido contrário do que a tendência mundial indica.”

“Sem dúvida precisamos avançar e começar a educar para o século 21, e não continuar ensinando como no século 19”, destacou, também, o reitor da Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Sandro Valentini. Ele lembrou da sua origem simples no interior paulista, filho de um funileiro mecânico, e disse que entende a educação como uma forma de emancipação. “Todos os jovens deveriam ter essa oportunidade.”

Valentini destacou também o papel da internacionalização, “não apenas para atingir rankings, mas para transformar os jovens”; e a importância de demonstrar o impacto social das pesquisas feitas nas universidades, “muito importante para recuperar ou fortalecer a nossa legitimidade perante a sociedade”.

Cada reitor fez uma apresentação individual de 15 minutos, e na sequência participaram de um debate com a plateia, em que foram levantados diversos temas. Entre eles, o programa Future-se, do governo federal, e a CPI das universidades, na Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de São Paulo (Alesp).

Os vídeos do evento estão disponíveis abaixo e no canal do USP Talks no YouTube, onde é possível assistir também a todos os eventos anteriores do programa.



O USP Talks é uma iniciativa da USP, com o objetivo de aproximar as universidades da sociedade. Os eventos são realizados mensalmente, no auditório do Museu de Arte de São Paulo (Masp), com entrada gratuita e transmissão ao vivo pela internet. Para saber mais e acompanhar a programação, siga nossas páginas nas redes sociais: Facebook, YouTube e Twitter.