Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen.

Our world has changed.  The aspects that we have accepted as daily occurrences, and those that we have taken for granted, are no longer possible.  Anxiety and uncertainty have filled our lives.  After the first infections in China at the end of 2019, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) has continued to spread across the world.  The number of people infected and those who die is increasing daily, and no continent has been able to escape this pandemic.  In addition to the threat to public health, the economic and social disruption threatens the long-term livelihoods and well-being of millions.  It has been said that the rate and global spread of infection by COVID-19, and the impact it could have on a globalised financial, political, and social architecture, sets this particular pandemic apart from any other in modern times.

Not only have governments declared national emergencies and implemented lockdown policies to curb the spread of the disease, they have also taken unprecedented measures to lessen the impact on business, jobs, and the vulnerable communities in our society.   The COVID-19 outbreak has catalysed a crisis, which is questioning the confines of inherited structures that have perhaps lost their intellectual edge and global mandate.

How are universities as global institutions of higher learning managing COVID-19?  

Universities are complex institutions.  I will not attempt to describe the role and purpose of the modern university here – safe to say that the views of John Henry Newman (The Idea of a University) and Wilhelm von Humboldt (his recommended views led to the creation of the University of Berlin) dominated Western thinking about the functions of a university.  Sir Colin Lucas, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, remarked “…(universities) are seen as vital sources of new knowledge and innovative thinking, as providers of skilled personnel and credible credentials, as contributors to innovation, as attractors of international talent and business investment into regions, as agents of social justice, and as contributors to social and cultural vitality”.  There is no doubt that universities, through their intellectual knowledge base, can add (and they do) enormously to the science of COVID-19, whether it is developing a new vaccine, modelling, and forecasting skills to understand the spread of the virus in specific regions or innovative methods for supplemental oxygen delivery.  The role played by universities in this context is vast and critical.  

Universities serve a large variety of functions in the delivery of the academic project, which involves teaching, learning, and research to maintain, manage, and develop the physical and digital infrastructure – the engagement with external stakeholders (to foster societal impact) such as alumni, schools, governments, industry, the private sector, commerce, donors, and philanthropic foundations. Many universities are training medical doctors and other healthcare professionals, engaging with academic hospitals and placing them at the forefront of the healthcare system – a very complex organisation to manage, even in times with no crises!

Many universities have disaster management committees that were rapidly activated during COVID-19 to prepare plans for the unexpected.  This pandemic, due to the extent of unfamiliarity and uncertainty thereof, can challenge these efforts and expose limitations in such plans.

It is important that universities have a framework approach of effective coordination, integration, and decision making that is centrally located but can act fast.  Although universities are not the same, there is a common drive for the health, well-being, and safety of staff and students. Typically, such a framework could converge in an Executive Centre (decision-making) or nerve centre, which should preferably be convened by the Vice-Chancellor, and include expertise in areas of scenario planning, project management, science (in this particular case it would be virologists and/or epidemiologists), communication, and institutional culture.  In order for the Executive Centre (EC) to be effective and fast-moving (with urgency and robust thinking), it should be organised around multi-disciplinary task teams, each with key responsibilities:

Teaching and Learning –with the suspension of classes (specifically in countries where there is a lockdown), alternative methods need to be utilised to deliver the academic project, and most universities have moved online (although not online in the purest form, rather emergency remote learning – turning a course virtual in a short period of time, and more importantly, doing it well, is nearly impossible for faculty members accustomed to lecturing in front of students). Based on the extent of the particular lockdown period, academic calendars need to be adjusted. Low-technology approaches to teaching and learning should be developed that are sensitive to the challenges of connectivity, bandwidth, and the type of devices that students use, realising the deep socio-economic inequalities and digital divide in our society. It is critically important to stay in touch with the students, and to provide online assistance with respect to counselling and mental health.

Research – focusing on how experimental research will be conducted during lockdown, how research contracts will be managed during this period and beyond, and whether research funding will be redirected or terminated;

Science – to understand epidemiological developments, verified information on COVID-19 (against the background of fake news);

Operations – mainly focusing on environmental hygiene and the business continuation of the physical and digital plant;

Staff – working remotely, essential services (as defined by government), and crucial university functions, constantly staying in touch with the staff, especially regarding their state of mind (mental health) due to social isolation;  

Students – with a focus on responsible student integration on the re-opening of the campus, where the principle of social distancing need to be adhered to;

Financial and Legal – responsible for financial scenario planning, short-term cash management and risk management, and mitigation; and

Communications – need to be centralised to ensure that it is consistent, correct, rapid and that it takes into account institutional culture when communicating – crises create anxiety, but keeping people informed helps reduce stress.

It is advisable to include a student voice or student input in the Teaching and Learning Task Team, as the living experience of students can thus be captured more accurately, which can enhance strategies.

It is clear that the world will operate differently post-COVID-19 than before the pandemic (‘new normal’); the EC will become the source of scenario planning on how universities will have to ‘re-imagine’ themselves post this pandemic.  It is thus critical to ensure that data, experiences (although a health crisis, an economic, and perhaps a social crisis – an opportunity as a thought experiment), ideas and new networks are captured with a strategic intent and reflection within the EC. Not only has this crisis questioned the neo-liberal economies that traditionally limit government intervention and prioritise market interests, it also asked universities to think differently about their models of teaching, research, and internationalisation, and how co-creation across boundaries and different sectors of the economy need to be imagined.

A crisis is never straightforward to manage, but an Executive Centre-type structure could not only assist universities during this period, but can add valuable strategies to position universities after such a crisis.



Prof Francis Petersen is Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State, South Africa. He has extensive experience in scenario planning and systems thinking in both higher education and industry.

News Archive

Cardiology Unit involved in evaluation of drug for rare genetic disease
2013-01-04

Front from the left, are: Marinda Karsten (study coordinator and registered nurse),
Laumarie de Wet (clinical technologist), Charmaine Krahenbuhl (study coordinator and radiographer),
Lorinda de Meyer (administrator), Andonia Page (study coordinator and enrolled nurse);
back Dr Gideon Visagie (sub investigator), Dr Derick Aucamp (sub investigagtor),
Prof. Hennie Theron, (principal investigator) and Dr Wilhelm Herbst (sub investigator).
Photo: Supplied
09 January 2013


The Cardiology Research Unit at the University of the Free State (UFS) contributed largely to the evaluation of the drug Juxtapid (lomitapide), which was developed by the Aegerion pharmaceutical company and approved by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration). Together with countries such as die USA, Canada and Italy, the UFS’ Unit recruited and evaluated the most patients (5 of 29) for the study since 2008.  

The drug was evaluated in persons with so-called familial homozygous hypercholesterolemia (HoFH).  

Following its approval by the FDA, Juxtapid is now a new treatment option for patients suffering from HoFH. The drug operates in a unique way which brings about dramatic improvements in cholesterol counts.  

According to Prof. Hennie Theron, Associate Professor in the Department of Cardiology at the UFS and Head of the Cardiology Contract Research Unit, HoFH is a serious, rare genetic disease which affects the function of the receptor responsible for the removal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (“bad” cholesterol) from the body. Damage to the LDL receptor function leads to extremely high levels of blood cholesterol. HoFH patients often develop premature and progressive atherosclerosis, which is a narrowing or blockage of the arteries.  

“HoFH is a genetically transmitted disease and the most severe form of hypercholesterolemia. Patients often need a coronary artery bypass or/and aortic valve replacement before the age of 20. Mortality is extremely high and death often occurs before the third decade of life. Existing conventional cholesterol-lowering medication is unsuccessful in achieving normal target cholesterol values in this group of patients.  

“The only modality for treatment is plasmapheresis (similar to dialysis in patients with renal failure). Even with this type of therapy the results are relatively unsatisfactory because it is very expensive and the plasmapheresis has to be performed on a regular basis.  

“The drug Juxtapid, as currently evaluated, has led to a dramatic reduction in cholesterol values and normal values were achieved in several people. No existing drug is nearly as effective.  

“The drug represents a breakthrough in the treatment of familial homozygous hypercholesterolemia. The fact that it has been approved by the FDA, gives further impetus to the findings,” says Prof. Theron.  

In future further evaluation will be performed in other forms of hypocholesterolemia.  

According to Prof. Theron, the findings of the study, as well as the recent successful FDA evaluation, once again confirms the fact that the UFS’ Cardiology Contract Research Unit is doing outstanding work.  

Since its inception in 1992, the Unit has already been involved in more than 60 multi-centre, international phase 2 and 3 drug studies. Several of these studies, including the abovementioned study, really affected the way in which cardiology functions.  

The UFS’ Cardiology Contract Research Unit is being recognised nationally and internationally for its high quality of work and is constantly approached for their involvement in new studies.  

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept