Políticas para Fronteira, História e Identidade: a luta simbólica nos processos de demarcação de terras indígenas Terena

Este artigo analisa a problemática da fronteira a partir do estudo da situação dos índios Terena no Mato Grosso do Sul, localizados em aldeias de uma região de fronteira internacional. Pretendemos apresentar algumas reflexões teóricas sobre essas lutas simbólicas e também o processo de desenvolvimento da fronteira e seus efeitos sobre as sociedades indígenas. Pretendemos realizar dois movimentos analíticos: 1. a análise da luta simbólica que perpassa os processos judiciais desencadeados por conflitos territoriais entre os índios Terena e os produtores rurais, mostrando como a ideia de fronteira é ativada na construção de mecanismos políticos de exclusão e (des)legitimação de grupos étnicos; 2. a análise das políticas de Estado para a fronteira, as dinâmicas territoriais e sua confrontação com as políticas simbólicas indígenas nas diferentes situações locais na fronteira, que igualmente integram a luta simbólica por identidades reconhecidas como legítimas e territórios.<br>This article analyzes the issue of the border based on a study of the experiences of the Terena indigenous people in Mato Grosso do Sul, living in villages situated in an international border region. I present a number of theoretical reflections on these symbolic conflicts, the border development process and its effects on indigenous societies. The article contains two analytic movements: 1. an analysis of the symbolic conflict permeating the legal processes linked to the territorial conflicts between the Terena and rural producers, showing how the idea of the border is activated in the construction of political mechanisms for excluding and (de)legitimizing ethnic groups; 2. an analysis of the State's border policies, the territorial dynamics and its confrontation with the indigenous symbolic policies in the different local situations on the border, which also form part of the symbolic fight for recognition of the legitimacy of indigenous identities and territories

Duration of post-vaccination immunity against yellow fever in adults

Submitted by Nuzia Santos ([email protected]) on 2015-06-22T17:37:43Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2014_152.pdf: 756403 bytes, checksum: c18d98237e29e19e785cf895a2a68ddc (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Nuzia Santos ([email protected]) on 2015-06-22T17:37:52Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2014_152.pdf: 756403 bytes, checksum: c18d98237e29e19e785cf895a2a68ddc (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Nuzia Santos ([email protected]) on 2015-06-22T17:58:36Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2014_152.pdf: 756403 bytes, checksum: c18d98237e29e19e785cf895a2a68ddc (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2015-06-22T17:58:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2014_152.pdf: 756403 bytes, checksum: c18d98237e29e19e785cf895a2a68ddc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Brasilia, DF, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Biomarcadores Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicosde Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos de Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Biomarcadores. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Biomarcadores. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Imunopatologia .Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Esquistossomose. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Biomarcadores. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Pesquisa Rene Rachou. Laboratório de Biomarcadores. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilFood and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Bethesda, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Fla-vivirus. Rio de JaneiroFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Fla-vivirus. Rio de JaneiroFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Fla-vivirus. Rio de JaneiroInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilInstituto de Biologia do Exército. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrasilMinas Gerais. Secretaria Estadual de Saude. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilMinas Gerais. Secretaria Estadual de Saude. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilMinas Gerais. Secretaria Estadual de Saude. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilMinas Gerais. Secretaria Estadual de Saude. Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilUniversidade Federal de Alfenas. Alfenas, MG, BrasilUniversidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Medicina. Brasilia, DF, BrasilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, BrasilINTRODUCTION: Available scientific evidence to recommend or to advise against booster doses of yellow fever vaccine (YFV) is inconclusive. A study to estimate the seropositivity rate and geometric mean titres (GMT) of adults with varied times of vaccination was aimed to provide elements to revise the need and the timing of revaccination. METHODS: Adults from the cities of Rio de Janeiro and Alfenas located in non-endemic areas in the Southeast of Brazil, who had one dose of YFV, were tested for YF neutralising antibodies and dengue IgG. Time (in years) since vaccination was based on immunisation cards and other reliable records. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2012 we recruited 691 subjects (73% males), aged 18-83 years. Time since vaccination ranged from 30 days to 18 years. Seropositivity rates (95%C.I.) and GMT (International Units/mL; 95%C.I.) decreased with time since vaccination: 93% (88-96%), 8.8 (7.0-10.9) IU/mL for newly vaccinated; 94% (88-97), 3.0 (2.5-3.6) IU/mL after 1-4 years; 83% (74-90), 2.2 (1.7-2.8) IU/mL after 5-9 years; 76% (68-83), 1.7 (1.4-2.0) IU/mL after 10-11 years; and 85% (80-90), 2.1 (1.7-2.5) IU/mL after 12 years or more. YF seropositivity rates were not affected by previous dengue infection. CONCLUSIONS:Eventhough serological correlates of protection for yellow fever are unknown, seronegativity in vaccinated subjects may indicate primary immunisation failure, or waning of immunity to levels below the protection threshold. Immunogenicity of YFV under routine conditions of immunisation services is likely to be lower than in controlled studies. Moreover, infants and toddlers, who comprise the main target group in YF endemic regions, and populations with high HIV infection rates, respond to YFV with lower antibody levels. In those settings one booster dose, preferably sooner than currently recommended, seems to be necessary to ensure longer protection for all vaccinee

Design and implementation of the AMIGA embedded system for data acquisition

International audienceThe Auger Muon Infill Ground Array (AMIGA) is part of the AugerPrime upgrade of the Pierre Auger Observatory. It consists of particle counters buried 2.3 m underground next to the water-Cherenkov stations that form the 23.5 km2 large infilled array. The reduced distance between detectors in this denser area allows the lowering of the energy threshold for primary cosmic ray reconstruction down to about 1017 eV. At the depth of 2.3 m the electromagnetic component of cosmic ray showers is almost entirely absorbed so that the buried scintillators provide an independent and direct measurement of the air showers muon content. This work describes the design and implementation of the AMIGA embedded system, which provides centralized control, data acquisition and environment monitoring to its detectors. The presented system was firstly tested in the engineering array phase ended in 2017, and lately selected as the final design to be installed in all new detectors of the production phase. The system was proven to be robust and reliable and has worked in a stable manner since its first deployment

Brazilian Flora 2020: Leveraging the power of a collaborative scientific network

International audienceThe shortage of reliable primary taxonomic data limits the description of biological taxa and the understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes, complicating biogeographical, ecological, and evolutionary studies. This deficit creates a significant taxonomic impediment to biodiversity research and conservation planning. The taxonomic impediment and the biodiversity crisis are widely recognized, highlighting the urgent need for reliable taxonomic data. Over the past decade, numerous countries worldwide have devoted considerable effort to Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which called for the preparation of a working list of all known plant species by 2010 and an online world Flora by 2020. Brazil is a megadiverse country, home to more of the world's known plant species than any other country. Despite that, Flora Brasiliensis, concluded in 1906, was the last comprehensive treatment of the Brazilian flora. The lack of accurate estimates of the number of species of algae, fungi, and plants occurring in Brazil contributes to the prevailing taxonomic impediment and delays progress towards the GSPC targets. Over the past 12 years, a legion of taxonomists motivated to meet Target 1 of the GSPC, worked together to gather and integrate knowledge on the algal, plant, and fungal diversity of Brazil. Overall, a team of about 980 taxonomists joined efforts in a highly collaborative project that used cybertaxonomy to prepare an updated Flora of Brazil, showing the power of scientific collaboration to reach ambitious goals. This paper presents an overview of the Brazilian Flora 2020 and provides taxonomic and spatial updates on the algae, fungi, and plants found in one of the world's most biodiverse countries. We further identify collection gaps and summarize future goals that extend beyond 2020. Our results show that Brazil is home to 46,975 native species of algae, fungi, and plants, of which 19,669 are endemic to the country. The data compiled to date suggests that the Atlantic Rainforest might be the most diverse Brazilian domain for all plant groups except gymnosperms, which are most diverse in the Amazon. However, scientific knowledge of Brazilian diversity is still unequally distributed, with the Atlantic Rainforest and the Cerrado being the most intensively sampled and studied biomes in the country. In times of “scientific reductionism”, with botanical and mycological sciences suffering pervasive depreciation in recent decades, the first online Flora of Brazil 2020 significantly enhanced the quality and quantity of taxonomic data available for algae, fungi, and plants from Brazil. This project also made all the information freely available online, providing a firm foundation for future research and for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of the Brazilian funga and flora