STREECK, Wolfgang. How will capitalism end?, Essays on a failing System. London: New York: Verso, 2016
In: Caderno CRH: revista quadrimestral de ciências sociais, Band 30, Heft 80, S. 393-395
ISSN: 1983-8239
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Caderno CRH: revista quadrimestral de ciências sociais, Band 30, Heft 80, S. 393-395
ISSN: 1983-8239
In: Caderno CRH: revista quadrimestral de ciências sociais, Band 30, Heft 80, S. 393-395
ISSN: 1983-8239
In: Revista de estudos sociais, Band 21, Heft 43, S. 89
ISSN: 2358-7024
A agricultura brasileira foi palco de inúmeras inovações nas últimas décadas. Dentre esses avanços, os organismos geneticamente modificados (OGMs) tem contribuído fortemente para os ganhos de produtividade no campo. No entanto, a relevância do Brasil no cultivo de OGMs contrasta com a sua dependência tecnológica. As principais biotecnologia de plantas foram patenteadas por empresas estrangeiras, o que implica na exigência de royalties pelo seu uso. Contudo, os agricultores brasileiros têm questionando na Justiça a validade das patentes da Monsanto, a principal fornecedora de OGMs. O principal objetivo deste artigo consiste em analisar as estratégias adotadas pela empresa para assegurar o seu direito à cobrança de royalties no Brasil. O estudo constatou que os OGMs são produtos complexos que mobilizam várias tecnologias protegidas por mais de uma patente. Consequentemente, por mais que os sojicultores consigam derrubar as patentes de genes questionadas na Justiça, ainda assim terão de pagar royalties sobre as demais ferramentas biotecnológicas que contribuíram para o desenvolvimento das sementes transgênicas. Assim, a Monsanto criou cercas de patentes praticamente invioláveis para proteger os seus principais produtos comercializados no Brasil.
This work was supported by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) [grant number WC1014] and the Natural Environment Research Council through National Capability funding to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. ; Biodiversity is changing at unprecedented rates, and it is increasingly important that these changes are quantified through monitoring programmes. Previous recommendations for developing or enhancing these programmes focus either on the end goals, that is the intended use of the data, or on how these goals are achieved, for example through volunteer involvement in citizen science, but not both. These recommendations are rarely prioritized. We used a collaborative approach, involving 52 experts in biodiversity monitoring in the UK, to develop a list of attributes of relevance to any biodiversity monitoring programme and to order these attributes by their priority. We also ranked the attributes according to their importance in monitoring biodiversity in the UK. Experts involved included data users, funders, programme organizers and participants in data collection. They covered expertise in a wide range of taxa. We developed a final list of 25 attributes of biodiversity monitoring schemes, ordered from the most elemental (those essential for monitoring schemes; e.g. articulate the objectives and gain sufficient participants) to the most aspirational (e.g. electronic data capture in the field, reporting change annually). This ordered list is a practical framework which can be used to support the development of monitoring programmes. People's ranking of attributes revealed a difference between those who considered attributes with benefits to end users to be most important (e.g. people from governmental organizations) and those who considered attributes with greatest benefit to participants to be most important (e.g. people involved with volunteer biological recording schemes). This reveals a distinction between focussing on aims and the pragmatism in achieving those aims. Synthesis and applications. The ordered list of attributes developed in this study will assist in prioritizing resources to develop biodiversity monitoring programmes (including citizen science). The potential conflict between end users of data and participants in data collection that we discovered should be addressed by involving the diversity of stakeholders at all stages of programme development. This will maximize the chance of successfully achieving the goals of biodiversity monitoring programmes. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
BASE
1.Biodiversity is changing at unprecedented rates, and it is increasingly important that these changes are quantified through monitoring programmes. Previous recommendations for developing or enhancing these programmes focus either on the end goals, that is the intended use of the data, or on how these goals are achieved, for example through volunteer involvement in citizen science, but not both. These recommendations are rarely prioritized. 2.We used a collaborative approach, involving 52 experts in biodiversity monitoring in the UK, to develop a list of attributes of relevance to any biodiversity monitoring programme and to order these attributes by their priority. We also ranked the attributes according to their importance in monitoring biodiversity in the UK. Experts involved included data users, funders, programme organizers and participants in data collection. They covered expertise in a wide range of taxa. 3.We developed a final list of 25 attributes of biodiversity monitoring schemes, ordered from the most elemental (those essential for monitoring schemes; e.g. articulate the objectives and gain sufficient participants) to the most aspirational (e.g. electronic data capture in the field, reporting change annually). This ordered list is a practical framework which can be used to support the development of monitoring programmes. 4.People's ranking of attributes revealed a difference between those who considered attributes with benefits to end users to be most important (e.g. people from governmental organizations) and those who considered attributes with greatest benefit to participants to be most important (e.g. people involved with volunteer biological recording schemes). This reveals a distinction between focussing on aims and the pragmatism in achieving those aims. 5.Synthesis and applications. The ordered list of attributes developed in this study will assist in prioritizing resources to develop biodiversity monitoring programmes (including citizen science). The potential conflict between end users of data and participants in data collection that we discovered should be addressed by involving the diversity of stakeholders at all stages of programme development. This will maximize the chance of successfully achieving the goals of biodiversity monitoring programmes.
BASE
1. Biodiversity is changing at unprecedented rates, and it is increasingly important that these changes are quantified through monitoring programmes. Previous recommendations for developing or enhancing these programmes focus either on the end goals, that is the intended use of the data, or on how these goals are achieved, for example through volunteer involvement in citizen science, but not both. These recommendations are rarely prioritized. 2. We used a collaborative approach, involving 52 experts in biodiversity monitoring in the UK, to develop a list of attributes of relevance to any biodiversity monitoring programme and to order these attributes by their priority. We also ranked the attributes according to their importance in monitoring biodiversity in the UK. Experts involved included data users, funders, programme organizers and participants in data collection. They covered expertise in a wide range of taxa. 3. We developed a final list of 25 attributes of biodiversity monitoring schemes, ordered from the most elemental (those essential for monitoring schemes; e.g. articulate the objectives and gain sufficient participants) to the most aspirational (e.g. electronic data capture in the field, reporting change annually). This ordered list is a practical framework which can be used to support the development of monitoring programmes. 4. People's ranking of attributes revealed a difference between those who considered attributes with benefits to end users to be most important (e.g. people from governmental organizations) and those who considered attributes with greatest benefit to participants to be most important (e.g. people involved with volunteer biological recording schemes). This reveals a distinction between focussing on aims and the pragmatism in achieving those aims. 5. Synthesis and applications. The ordered list of attributes developed in this study will assist in prioritizing resources to develop biodiversity monitoring programmes (including citizen science). The potential conflict between end users of data and participants in data collection that we discovered should be addressed by involving the diversity of stakeholders at all stages of programme development. This will maximize the chance of successfully achieving the goals of biodiversity monitoring programmes.
BASE