𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐡𝐃 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐲.
Celina Lazzari was awarded a PhD in Social Work by the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) only after obtaining a court injunction allowing her to defend her dissertation.
Her research examined how social workers respond, in their professional practice, to children and adolescents identified as "trans." The interviews were conducted exclusively with social workers—not with minors.
The project had already received ethics approval. Yet, just months before completion, UFSC's Human Research Ethics Committee suspended the study after receiving complaints related not to the research itself, but to Lazzari's public advocacy as a director of MATRIA, a Brazilian women's rights organization.
The committee demanded not only research materials, but also opinion articles, social media posts, and records of her participation in public events.
In its ruling, the Federal Court found that the university had gone beyond evaluating the scientific protocol and had instead begun scrutinizing the researcher's public opinions and lawful civic activities. The court warned that the measures created a risk of "intellectual censorship" and threatened academic freedom. Brazil's Federal Public Prosecutor's Office described the proceedings as "inquisitorial."
During the litigation, UFSC also alleged that Lazzari "denies the existence of trans identities" and engages in hate speech. She responded that her dissertation never sought to determine whether identities "exist," but rather to critically examine how social workers approach this social phenomenon in practice.
Less than one month after the court ruling, Lazzari successfully defended her dissertation and obtained her doctorate.
The case raises broader questions about academic freedom in Brazil. If an ethics committee can reopen an already approved project because of a researcher's lawful public views or association with a civil society organization, researchers working on controversial subjects may face years of work being interrupted for ideological reasons.
As MATRIA stated: "Academic ethics cannot become an instrument of ideological surveillance. Researchers should be evaluated by their methods, their conduct, and their respect for research participants—not by whether their opinions are politically approved."
https://t.co/EapQo9gFD7