STI policies: interview with the parliamentary advisor Mariana Mazza.

Meeting of ICTP.br in March 2020. Mariana Mazza is the first person from the right. (Credit: SBPC).
Meeting of ICTP.br in March 2020. Mariana Mazza is the first person from the right. (Credit: SBPC).

We can call her a lobbyist; she doesn’t mind. Quite the opposite. Mariana Mazza, 41 years old, a lobbyist for ST&I, believes that there should be more professionals like her monitoring the actions of the Executive and Legislative Branch with an impact on ST&I and negotiating priorities with parliamentarians for the collective benefit of certain areas of research and innovation. Under names like “congressional fellow” or “advocacy dashboard,” this work has more visibility in scientific societies in other countries, such as the United States, but also exists in Brazil.

A journalist who graduated from the University of Brasília, Mariana changed, at the end of 2016, her routine as a reporter with that of parliamentary advisor to the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC), a society to which B-MRS is affiliated. In turn, SBPC is one of the eight entities that coordinate ICTP.br, an initiative that brings together the efforts of Brazilian institutions relevant to CT&I in joint actions in the National Congress.

In an interview with the B-MRS Newsletter, Mariana talks about her daily activities as a parliamentary advisor in ST&I, the main achievements and the challenges for the immediate future, in a time of resources scarcity and a pandemic.

B-MRS newsletter: What is your job? What activities do you carry out in your day-to-day parliamentary assistance?

Mariana Mazza: The activities I carry out for the SBPC have a broader scope than simply talking to congressmen and senators, as anyone unfamiliar with the National Congress may think. It’s quite dynamic, actually. There are basic activities such as evaluating the agendas of the House and Senate commissions and screening everything that may have an impact on ST&I. As SBPC has hundreds of associates in multiple areas, this is a very broad job. But the most critical part is to identify and evaluate political actions that can be passed in the National Congress. For example, we have done a very thorough job of recovering the budget for ST&I and R&D. This requires that I follow the budget proposal from the beginning, calculate the variations in relation to previous budgets and suggest strategies to the SBPC board. Once the strategies are outlined, the negotiating part begins with amendments that put more money into projects, which means writing these proposals and explaining them to the advisors of each office. To give you an idea, just for the 2020 Budget, I personally went to more than 300 offices of the Congress and the Senate. And this is just a part of what we do. Basically, any action by the Executive that can be reversed in Congress requires an action by the advisors in some aspect. And there are also bills from the Legislative itself that affect the scientific community and often need repair. I mediate the representatives of the SBPC with the representatives of these projects and members of the committees that can improve the proposal. We also organized scientific dissemination exhibitions, such as the Centennial of Eclipse in Sobral last year, which was very well received by visitors to the Congress. And there is also the work to expand awareness of the SBPC itself by parliamentarians. As the SBPC is a very active entity in the political discussions important for the country, there is no lack of work for parliamentary assistance.

B-MRS newsletter: Who do you interact with? How do you choose who to interact with?

Mariana Mazza: It depends on the subject we are dealing with. Parliamentarians have their niche. So, if the subject is the environment, there is a group of parliamentarians open to dialogue in line with SBPC’s activities. If it’s innovation, it’s another group. For budget, it’s other parliamentarians. And so on. But as Brazilian science increased its presence in the National Congress, we expanded our network of parliamentarians allied to CT&I, which we look for in the most strategic matters regardless of the specific area, so to speak. This web of science-friendly parliamentarians was woven in various ways. There are historical allies, who have supported science for years, and those who have identified themselves with the agendas we have taken on, better understanding how science works and its implications in the lives of Brazilians. It would be difficult to list them because it would leave out many of them. After the 2018 elections, we lost many congressmen and senators aligned with the scientific agenda. But luckily we have been able to open a new space in Congress, getting support from many leaders using the strategy of defending specific agendas. In the withdrawal of the FNDCT from the PEC Funds, for example, we were able to articulate with the leaders and other entities in the sector a supraparty support for the preservation of science resources. It is very gratifying when we can demonstrate that science is not an ideological agenda, of the left or right. It is an agenda for the benefit of all. Politicians are starting to see this.

B-MRS newsletter: You have a degree in Social Communication – Journalism and experience as a TV journalist. What skills do you use in this parliamentary advisory work?

Mariana Mazza: Yes, I am a journalist by training. Before joining SBPC, I worked at Grupo Bandeirantes as an editor and columnist. In my career as a reporter, I specialized in the area of infrastructure, which actually led me to Band media group, as a columnist for Telecommunications. It is public knowledge that the infrastructure sector is very active in the political lobby, although much of the social perception is on the negative side. Major service providers – such as telcos, energy distributors, fuel producers, airlines, contractors and media groups, which make up an infra reporter’s agenda, are extremely active in lobbyism. Following the operation of these sectors in the National Congress for more than a decade has taught me very much about how sectoral negotiations work in parliament. For instance, what kind of arguments work with politicians, how to approach them and how to present a cross-sectoral agenda.

B-MRS newsletter: Your work is not common in Brazil in the scientific environment, right? Do you get inspired or learn from professionals in other fields or from other countries?

Mariana Mazza: It’s not that uncommon, actually. Entities such as Fiocruz and Embrapa, which belong to the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation (SNCTI), are very professional in their work in the National Congress, with teams dedicated only to negotiating with parliamentarians and analyzing actions in the legislature. And there are important civil entities that do very diligent work in congress, defending and guiding the benches in specific sectors. The Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), for example, has a very important role in the environmental agenda. I think what happens is that this is an “in the shadows” job, most of the time. When it works, it looks like it hasn’t even been done. The lobbyism is still very frowned upon in Brazil, because we are usually only aware of it when it is used for the benefit of some sector rather than for the collective benefit. This results in lobbyists in Brazil disguising their activities with other names, “parliamentary advisers,” “directors of institutional relations,” and so on. This helps to hide the bad lobby service, so to speak, but it also ends up taking away the visibility of the republican work of negotiating priorities with parliament. I believe that all sectors have the right to negotiate with representatives elected by society. It is like the work of a lawyer. Guilty and innocent people have a right to defend themselves. I am privileged to advocate in defense of a sector that I sincerely believe is beneficial for the development of any nation. But when working with politics, one must keep in mind that there is always a perspective that is opposite to ours. We have to face the negotiations without sentimentality. We need to find a common ground. Ironically, I end up being more inspired by business lobbyists, considered “bad” by society, simply because they are efficient in their performance. As a reporter I met many lobbyists, and became close over the years, and I learned quite a bit from them.

B-MRS newsletter: What is the Science and Technology Initiative in Congress (ICTP.br)? Does your work fall under this initiative?

Mariana Mazza: ICTP.br is an initiative to join the efforts of national entities relevant to ST&I in joint actions in the National Congress. It derived from an idea by SBPC’s chair Professor Ildeu de Castro Moreira to create an observatory for the Legislature. The idea was developed in partnership with former-minister Celso Pansera, who held a mandate as a federal congressman, when we started to prepare the project in 2018. Today, Pansera takes care of the executive secretary of ICTP.br, articulating the major guidelines that impact ST&I with the party leaders in an agenda of priorities that we jointly defined among the eight institutions that make up the coordination of ICTP.br: SBPC, ABC, Andifes, Consecti, Confap, Forum of Secretaries of ST&I, Conif and Confies. As a parliamentary advisor to SBPC, I have worked together with the ICTP.br agendas, but not all actions overlap. There are several guidelines that I have to address and because they are specific they are not on the Initiative’s agenda. On the other hand, the establishment of this coordinated operation eased performance in the heaviest national guidelines, which before ICTP.br they would fall on the advisors in an unarticulated way. Today, such actions on these high-impact agendas are much more organized, with former-minister Pansera at the head of the broader political articulations, with advisers like me taking on the ground work of building arguments and assisting the offices to implement the agreements signed. It is still work in the makings, but we have already had great results in improving the interaction between entities and winning gains in Congress.

B-MRS newsletter: What were the achievements achieved so far with the help of your work?

Mariana Mazza: There are many. Especially because most, as I said before, don’t even get visibility because they end up as a task to put out small fires. However, in terms of general repercussions, we have been very successful in the budget agenda, although today this action is more about containing losses than increasing resources for ST&I. I can safely say that the financial situation of the sector would be much more precarious if it were not for the work of the advisors and directors of the entities in containing the bleeding. Also regarding the big agendas, the action in Congress was what guaranteed the missing funds for the payment of CNPq scholarships in 2019. That maintained the existence of Finep, by blocking the initiative to transfer the executive secretary of the FNDCT to the MCTIC. That saved the FNDCT from possible extinction by removing it from the PEC of the Funds. That prevented the contingency of science resources at MCTIC in 2020. That also protected the entire budget of Embrapa, Fiocruz, IBGE and Ipea this year. Not to mention the countless denunciations that SBPC makes in its public notes and open letters that have enormous repercussions in Congress, containing the advance of harmful measures for Brazilian science. The testimonial of this type of work, as you can see from the examples I cited, is that we are currently being compelled to act more in containment than in proposition. It is important to remember, for example, that it was the performance of science in Congress that embodied the Legal Framework of CT&I, an operation that lasted many years of dedicated negotiation by advisers at that time.

B-MRS newsletter: What have been the main challenges or difficulties?

Mariana Mazza: The main difficulty is that we have many entities in the scientific area, but few with political activities in Brasília. As a result, many opportunities for specific actions are lost, which an advisor like me, from a national entity, cannot follow with the necessary dedication. It would be especially positive if associations and civil entities that do not operate in Congress started to insert this on their agendas. But it should be understood that parliament works with concrete guidelines. Acting in Congress in the pursuit of “defense of ST&I” quite simply – this is in fact true for any sector – becomes very frustrating very quickly. Because parliamentarians deal with dozens of topics at the same time and are therefore pragmatic. You need to know what you want before stepping into the National Congress. The challenge is that we are in a political and economic moment of deep retraction in public investments. And the ST&I sector is an expensive sector in the view of many parliamentarians, who are unaware of the vast Brazilian research network and its fruits throughout history. Although we have made significant progress in recent years, science is still seen by many in Congress as having low political repercussions in the electorate of these parliamentarians. And then we lose support for guidelines considered by them to be of greater social appeal. Therefore, the greater the presence of scientific entities in parliament, the greater the space for parliamentarians to discover the benefits of Brazilian science for their political agendas. We have seen this path opening up. Our collective goal is to naturalize the stimulus to science in the National Congress. The latest victories achieved this year show that we are on the right path, but there is still much to do, such as moving from a just reactive agenda to the continuation of propositional guidelines. But, as Bismarck’s famous phrase: “Politics is the art of the possible.” At this time, what is possible is to prevent further setbacks.

B-MRS newsletter: In this new and difficult scenario, marked by the advance of the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil, unpaid funds, budget cuts and various uncertainties and instabilities, what are your action plans for the coming times?

Mariana Mazza: We are very concerned with the little attention given to science by the government in plans to fight the coronavirus outbreak. To repair the low budget for research in this area, we are already negotiating increases in resources with parliamentarians using the budget instruments sent by the Executive Branch. We are also already preparing to work on raising ST&I and R&D funds in the emergency plan announced by the federal government to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic. We understand that investing in science, as other countries have done, is also vital for the national economy and we are in daily dialogue with the closest offices, drawing up action strategies. One of our great battles, inside and outside the National Congress, has been the end of the capture of FNDCT resources by the Contingency Reserve. This is a tax mechanism that is essentially illegally withdrawing money from science to meet government tax targets. We also want this reserve to be released now, in its entirety, to fight the coronavirus and foster science in general, recognizing its role in the economic recovery of the recession that will certainly hit Brazil after overcoming the pandemic. At the present time, all energy is focused on ensuring the presence of science in emergency plans and blocking any action that would harm science in this period of crisis.

Featured paper: A molecular machine to fight cancer.

[A reversible, switchable pH-driven quaternary ammonium pillar[5]arene nanogate for mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Santos, ECS ; dos Santos, TC; Fernandes, TS; Jorge, FL; Nascimento, V; Madriaga, VGC ; Cordeiro, PS; Checca, NR; Da Costa, NM; Pinto, LFR; Celia Ronconi. J. Mater. Chem. B, 2020,8, 703-714. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TB00946A]

A molecular machine to fight cancer

In 2016, the smallest man-made machines ever created, called molecular or nanomachines, gained visibility with the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. These nanometer-sized machines, whose components are molecules that perform controlled movements, could help humanity accomplish complex tasks at the molecular scale.

In the health area, one such task is to effectively fight cancer cells without damaging healthy tissues. It is known that nowadays one of the main problems of the most used therapies concerns the side effects on healthy tissues – a problem that has led many scientists to develop drug delivery systems that can take drugs directly to cancer cells without leaking.

At the Brazilian Federal Fluminense University (UFF), over the last ten years Professor Célia Machado Ronconi and her scientific team have been working on nanomachines for cancer treatment. In her postdoctoral research, carried out between 2003 and 2005, the scientist learned about molecular machines at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), at one of the most qualified laboratories in the world working on this subject – the research group of Sir James Fraser Stoddart, who years later would be awarded the Nobel Prize mentioned at the beginning of this article, alongside with Jean-Pierre Sauvage and Bernard L. Feringa.

In a recently published paper in Journal of Materials Chemistry B, Professor Célia Ronconi, her team and collaborators, all from Brazilian institutions, presented a new nanomachine composed of a drug reservoir and a cap. The machine has an opening/closing lid mechanism that responds to changes in the acidity of the medium in which it is located. When the pH of the medium is similar to that of the blood of a healthy human being (physiological medium), the cap remains closed, preventing the drug from being released. When the pH is more acidic, a characteristic seen around cancer cells, the lid opens and the drug is released. In laboratory in vitro tests, the nanomachine loaded with a well-known chemotherapeutic drug proved to be more effective than the pure drug in eliminating breast cancer cells, destroying 92% of them in 48 hours.

The highlight of this figure shows a zoom of the nanomachine loaded with the drug (green balls). The zoom focuses one of the nanochannels of the closed reservoir and its nanocap, preventing the drug from being released.
The highlight of this figure shows a zoom of the nanomachine loaded with the drug (green balls). The zoom focuses one of the nanochannels of the closed reservoir and its nanocap, preventing the drug from being released.

With these characteristics, the nanomachine developed at UFF shows application potential in the delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs to cancer cells. “The results of this work were extremely promising,” says Professor Ronconi. “However, there is still much to be studied. The next steps of the work will be to test the nanomachine loaded with the drug in other breast cancer cell lines, as only one line (MCF-7) was tested. We will also test the toxicity of the device without the drug in healthy cells and, if the results are positive, in vivo studies will be carried out, using mices genetically altered to have a deficient immune system, ” adds Professor Ronconi.

Assembly and operation of the nanomachine

To achieve the reservoir function, the UFF group synthesized spherical mesoporous silica nanoparticles of about 85 nm in diameter. In addition to being biocompatible, this material has a unique internal honeycomb-like structure, with a set of nanochannels of up to 4 nm in diameter, in which the drug molecules can be stored. The nanoparticles were covered with carboxyl groups (- COOH) that improved the interaction of the reservoir with its cap. For the cap, the researchers chose pilararene, an artificial molecule made up of five aromatic rings, whose first synthesis dates back to 2008 in the scientific literature.

In the assembly and operation of the nanomachine, the electrostatic interactions of attraction controlled by the medium pH were the great allies of the scientific team at UFF. In fact, as confirmed by the researchers in their experiments, in a solution with a pH of 7.4, which represents the acidity of healthy blood, the carboxyl groups (-COOH) that cover the reservoir lose a proton forming carboxylate groups (-COO- ), negatively charged, which interact electrostatically with the positively charged cap. Thus, the electrostatic attraction brings the two parts of the nanomachine together until it prevents the drug from being released. By lowering the pH, that is, by making the solution more acidic, the carboxylate groups (-COO-) gain protons, neutralizing their charge. As a result, the electrostatic attraction between the cap and the reservoir breaks apart, the cap opens and the drug is released.

Functioning of the nanomachine loaded with the drug (pink balls). On the left, at physiological pH, the lids close the reservoir's nanochannels. On the right, the more acidic medium generates the removal of the caps and the drug is released.
Functioning of the nanomachine loaded with the drug (pink balls). On the left, at physiological pH, the lids close the reservoir’s nanochannels. On the right, the more acidic medium generates the removal of the caps and the drug is released.

In the experiments carried out, the UFF group was able to partially release the chemotherapeutic drug (34%) at a pH of 5.5 (probably similar to that surrounding the cancer cells) and almost totally (91%) in a 2.0 acidity medium. All experiments were carried out at a temperature of 37 °C, similar to that of the human body.

History of work

Since 2009, when she became a professor at UFF and set up the Laboratory of Supramolecular Chemistry and Nanotechnology, Professor Célia Ronconi has been working in the different development phases of diverse nanomachines and drug transport and release systems, using chemical, magnetic and luminous stimulants. During Evelyn da Silva Santos’ doctorate, under the guidance of Ronconi, a nanomachine prototype was developed using material available on the market. However, new studies carried out after the defense of her doctorate work, in 2018, showed that the nanoparticles used as reservoirs formed clusters in the physiological environment (the solution that emulates blood in experiments). Thus, Professor Ronconi involved postdoctoral fellow Thiago Custódio dos Santos and doctoral student Tamires Soares Fernandes in the development of new material. “They continued the project and synthesized a material with excellent dispersion in the physiological environment, and the device was redone, as well as the drug release studies,” says professor Ronconi. The biological tests of the nanomachine were performed at INCA’s molecular carcinogenesis group, by researchers Luis Felipe Ribeiro Pinto and Nathália Meireles da Costa, and the technician Fernanda Jorge. The study also included the participation of the Brazilian Center for Research in Physics (CBPF) in the characterization of materials by microscopy techniques, carried out at the Multi-User Laboratory for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (LABNANO). The research received funding from the Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES and FAPERJ.

Main authors. From the left: Evelyn Santos, Thiago Custódio, Tamires Soares and Célia M. Ronconi.
Main authors. From the left: Evelyn Santos, Thiago Custódio, Tamires Soares and Célia M. Ronconi.

B-MRS & ICEM: update on the Corona virus.

logo2021b_400pxOwing to the uncertainties related to the COVID-19, and in order to reduce the risk of hampering the health of our community, the Organizing Committee, the Executive Board of the B-MRS and the IUMRS decided to postpone the 2020 B-MRS and the IUMRS/ICEM meetings.

The conferences are now scheduled to happen from August 29th until September 2nd, 2021, in the city of Iguassu Falls, at the Rafain Convention Center.

All participants will be asked to resubmit their abstracts following a new schedule to be released.

Former B-MRS president Osvaldo Novais de Oliveira Junior is the author of a text about Brazilian science published in Folha de São Paulo

Prof. Osvaldo Novais de Oliveira Junior
Prof. Osvaldo Novais de Oliveira Junior

Professor Osvaldo Novais de Oliveira Junior (IFSC-USP), member and former president of SBPMat, is the author of a text published in Folha de São Paulo, one of the main Brazilian newspapers, on the blog ‘Darwin e Deus’ (column by science journalist Reinaldo José Lopes) about the success and impact of Brazilian science. In the text, the professor describes three types of knowledge resulting from science and highlights the importance of increasing the number of scientists and professionals trained in research environments in order to meet the demands of the Brazilian population.

Here follows the text:


The greatest proof of the success of Brazilian science is at the Planalto Palace. Were it not for the excellence of Brazilian medicine, the result of decades of scientific work, today there would be another President of the Republic.

Without the competence of the doctors of Juiz de Fora who promptly attended the then candidate after the stabbing episode, as well as the doctors in São Paulo who performed the other surgeries, President Bolsonaro, even if he survived, would not have recovered so quickly to the point of working normally shortly after the attack.

In my opinion, the connection between facts that change the direction of the country and Brazilian science does not seem to have been made as of yet. This is probably so because the effect of the different forms of knowledge that science creates has not been analyzed in detail.

Doing science generates three types of knowledge. The most visible and tangible is the knowledge that generates, in a relatively short time, technology and solutions for humanity. It is the knowledge transferred from scientists to technology innovators, which in the 21st Century has been accomplished mostly by the great technological powers, that is, the United States, China and other Asian countries, and some countries in Europe. Here, the majority term is essential, as it is not enough to have quality science and technology, as knowledge transfer only occurs effectively when there is a volume of research, products and solutions.

The two other types of knowledge are less visible to society in general. One is the knowledge derived from the curiosity and perseverance of humans in understanding how the universe works, without concern if there will be any practical application. Often, the application exists, but it will only become evident long after such knowledge has been generated. Perhaps the most emblematic example today is Einstein’s theory of relativity. It was created with an abstract conception, incomprehensible even for scientists of the time, to explain the phenomena of nature that had no correlation with people’s daily lives.

As far as I know, Einstein never suggested the possibility of a direct application to his theory. Well, the Theory of Relativity is now essential for positioning systems (GPS). Without taking into account the Theory of Relativity, determining the position of a person or object on Earth would be wrong for about 10 km with the errors accumulated in a week of GPS operation. In short, without the Theory of Relativity there would be no GPS or the navigation systems we use in our daily lives.

The third type of knowledge has so little visibility that it is confused with the result of university education. It is knowledge that does not lead directly to new technologies, but serves to absorb and adapt technologies, develop local solutions and allow high-level functioning of systems that depend on technology. This type of knowledge is incorporated by qualified professionals trained at research universities.

What is not always understood is that professionals with this level of skill and competence can only be trained in an environment where science is done. In medicine, to stay on the initial example, the incorporation and improvement of new technologies are usually done by doctors with sophisticated training, with postgraduate degrees and active participation in research programs conducted at universities of excellence.

For those who consider this third type of knowledge is of little relevance, I emphasize that countries with better quality of life and higher development rates are not on the list of those that generate more technology. I refer to Scandinavian countries and others like Switzerland and Luxembourg, which, due to the size of their population, are not large enough to generate a lot of technology – compared to the largest technology-producing countries. However, without any exception, all these countries with high quality of life have high density in generating knowledge of the third type, with excellent science.

And Brazil? Our country has outstanding examples of knowledge generation of the first type, with science providing competitive technology worldwide in sectors such as aeronautics, oil extraction in deep waters and agribusiness. Other sectors have created relevant technologies, albeit with less economic impact.

Unfortunately, despite the quality of science carried out in these sectors, density is low and we generate very little technology when the dimensions of the country and its population are taken into account. This is explained by the small size of our scientific system. Despite the great advance in recent decades, the number of scientists per inhabitant is still much smaller than that of developed countries. In this regard, Brazil does not appear on the list of the 20 best ranked countries.

A similar situation occurs in knowledge oriented to the development of local solutions, which I classified as a third type. Brazil trains excellent professionals at its research universities, which in turn incorporate new technologies and create solutions for society in many areas. This results in the country’s excellence in areas such as medicine and health, engineering, agriculture and livestock, and in many other areas.

Again, we have the density problem: the number of trained professionals, and their role in generating knowledge, is insufficient to benefit the entire Brazilian population. This insufficiency is at the root of our inequality, since the extremely low productivity at work depends essentially on the good functioning of technologies that demand knowledge of this third type, in which the supply of trained professionals is insufficient.

In short, the problem in Brazil is not low quality of science that is done here, but the low density of scientists and professionals trained to meet the demands of society. In addition to bringing the erroneous perception of lack of quality, the low density in fact makes it difficult (when not preventing) a country to achieve excellence in topics that require concentrated efforts of great importance. It is not for any other reason that Brazil is competitive in technologies, such as those already mentioned, in which there is a density of trained researchers, based on public policies initiated decades ago.

I expect our leaders, at all levels, will realize the direct and indirect benefits of a robust and quality scientific system. Even if it is for their survival in the event they need adequate health care. But mainly to fulfill the dream of transforming Brazil into a less unequal country.


 

Postdoctoral fellowship in Physics.

Area of interest: Condensed Matter

FAPESP process number: 2017/02317-2

Project title: Synthesis and physical properties characterization of Halide Perovskites

Principal investigator: Prof. Gustavo Dalpian and Dr. Jose Antonio Souza

Institution: Federal University of ABC – Campus Santo André

Deadline for applications: Abril 30th, 2020. Expected starting date: May or June/2020.

Location: Avenida dos Estados, 5001, Bairro Bangu – Santo André, SP

E-mail for applications: (joseantonio.souza@ufabc.edu.br)

Applications are invited for a post-doctoral position supported by the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP-Brazil) in experimental condensed matter field. This fellowship is part of broader Thematic project “Interfaces in materials: electronic, magnetic, structural and transport properties” under the coordination by Prof. Adalberto Fazzio (LNNano, CNPEM – Campinas). The postdoctoral supervisor will be Prof. Dr. Jose Antonio Souza at the Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Santo André – São Paulo.

We intend to develop research on the synthesis and physical properties characterization of Halide Perovskites. Applicants are required to have good experimental knowledge on synthesis and/or physical properties characterization of halide perovskites in the form of nanostructures and/or thin films and/or heterostructures and/or quantum dots and/or bulk. The research will be developed at the Federal University of ABC – Campus Santo André.

The opportunity is open to both Brazilian and foreign candidates with a PhD degree, in Brazil or abroad, in areas related to the proposed subject. It is mandatory that the candidate has international experience, as well as publications in the areas related to the project in journals of relevant worldwide impact.

The following documents are required for application:

  1. A letter for the application and showing the interest in the research area;
  2. Curriculum vitae, presenting the candidate’s academic experience and the list of published papers. The curriculum must be submitted in electronic format (pdf, Portable Document Format), where the articles must be identified by their DOI;
  3. Document proving that the candidate holds a PhD degree;

The implementation of the scholarship is conditioned to the approval of the candidate selected by FAPESP. If the decision is approved by FAPESP, the selected candidate will receive a scholarship in the amount of R$ 7,174.80/month and a technical reserve equivalent to 15% of the annual amount of the scholarship, destined to only carry-out expenses directly related to the research activity. More information on the scholarship can be found at: www.fapesp.br/bolsas/pd.

The candidate should send all the documentation to the electronic address cited above under the title “Fellowship PD – Application”. The deadline for submissions is 04/30/2020. Only applications in which all the documents are received by midnight 04/30/2020, Brasília time (UTC-3, Brazilian summer time) will be considered.