The plan was developed by twelve multilateral agencies, with the collaboration of the president of Fiocruz. Read more
Fiocruz launches lab in Antartica
Fiocruz will have a permanent laboraroty in Antartica in Brazilian Station. Fiolab will be a biosafety laboratory prepared to respond to the country's epidemiological and sanitary needs, and support health and environmental research in Antarctica, from the One Health perspective.Learn more
Zika Social Science Network
Created and coordinated by Fiocruz, the Network focuses on the social repercussions of the relations between the virus and the disease effects in families and in the health system. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.orgLearn more
PrInt: international programme
The PrInt programme creates inclusive networking environments that attracts students and researchers to study major global issues within a multidisciplinary view.Learn more
Partnerships in over 50 countriesLearn more
Fiocruz is a leading institution of science and a public health in Latin America. The hub features virtual courses, information and news. Read more
The research was published in The Lancet Global Health. Results show that afro-descendants suffer more. Read more
The action will be coordinated by the Fiocruz Brazilian Human Milk Bank Network. Read more
The results of the meeting will be taken to the Nairobi Summit, 25 years after the Internacional Conference on Population and Development. Read more
Good Clinical Laboratory Practice guidelines describe the application of those Good Laboratory Practice principles that are relevant to the analyses of samples from clinical trials while ensuring the purpose and objectives of the Good Clinical Practice principles are maintained. Good Clinical Laboratory Practice is a multi-module course for all those wanting to gain an in-depth understanding of GCLP and how each principle of GCLP can be applied in clinical trial laboratory.
Open and collaborative review of scientific articles: are we ready for the next step?
Whether performed by one person alone or by many people, the readers of the resulting scientific article would never know about what had actually happened during the critical review of the manuscript, which sometimes ends in closed negotiations among editors, reviewers and authors. This closed feature of scientific peer reviewing has endured for at least 300 years. Is now the time to change this practice? We think so!