Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 November 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Peterse, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS.

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State

We are currently witnessing a time of the year that has become associated with intense campaigning against gender-based violence.

In the same way, it is also the season for school and university examinations and the annual holiday season. We also seem to have adopted a season for activism.

The 16 Days of Activism period, initiated by the first Women’s Global Leadership Institute in 1991, sees countries around the globe staging anti-abuse campaigns from 25 November (International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women) to 10 December (Human Rights Day). 

And while every effort to focus attention on our country’s disturbing problem of gender-based violence remains important, we also run the risk of not only restricting our efforts to a certain period of time, but of ‘normalising’ the phenomenon of abuse. 

It is as if we are simply accepting that abuse is as unavoidable as end-of-year examinations or the upcoming holiday season. 

A second pandemic

In the light of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s acknowledgment earlier this year that gender-based violence (GBV) is as much of a pandemic as COVID-19, it would make sense to evaluate the response to our GBV scourge against the standard reaction to a pandemic of any nature. 

There has certainly been criticism of the way governments around the world have handled the threats posed by COVID-19. 

But I believe there are important lessons we can learn from the way leadership around the globe has dealt with this pandemic.    

Lesson 1: The Power of Priorities

It has become clear that once a threat is identified that is deemed serious enough, it takes prevalence above most other priorities. Action to address this is normally immediate and far-reaching. There is also general buy-in from the vast majority of citizens, accepting that all this is necessary and in everyone’s best interest. Only after this all-important first step has been made, subsequent issues such as legislation, funding, communication, and a plan of action can fall into place.

Lesson 2: The Power of Interruption

Once a pandemic is clearly prioritised, it is normally followed by an immediate break from the status quo. This break is sometimes partial, sometimes absolute, but almost always immediate.

It is born out of a general realisation that things cannot continue the way they are. That new ways of thinking about and doing things need to be adopted – and adopted at once.  Practices and habits that allow the threat to fester and grow are summarily changed or abandoned altogether.  

When one looks at the painfully slow progress that we are making in addressing gender-based violence in our country, it seems clear that we fall dismally short of the appropriate reaction to a pandemic.

Policy Framework a step in the right direction

Encouraging progress has, however, been made in the pre-lockdown period. 

In May last year, then Education minister Naledi Pandor appointed a ministerial task team to look into sexual harassment and violence at universities. One of the areas they assisted in, was to advise the department on the introduction and implementation of a policy framework to help institutions deal with gender-based violence. This policy framework was released by the Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation in early August 2020.
Another positive development was the call last year by our 26 heads of public universities under the banner of the university vice-chancellors’ body, Universities South Africa (USAf), to act decisively in addressing violence against women amid escalating incidents of violence against women on university campuses in the country. 

USAf CEO, Prof Ahmed Bawa, reiterated the need for the kind of ‘interruption’ I referred to earlier, when he said: “If we want our society to change for the better, we need to respond differently to the decay that we’re increasingly witnessing in our society. Universities need to lead South Africa towards that change.”

Redefining education 

But just how do we do that? 

There are no simple solutions. But I believe a key factor is to focus on prevention and not only on reaction. We need to concentrate our efforts on creating the kind of citizens for whom abuse is simply not an option.

Our school and tertiary curriculums are sometimes criticised for not containing enough practical life skills. And although a lot of headway has been made to address this in recent years, I believe we need to critically look at the value we attach to these learning areas, and re-energise our efforts to communicate them effectively to learners and students. 
In the end, ‘education’ entails so much more than just teaching facts, figures, and concepts. We need to transfer a deep understanding of respect, equality, and tolerance along with our academic programmes.

At the University of the Free State, we implemented our unique UFSS module a few years ago. It is a compulsory module for all study fields and a prerequisite for completion of a degree, aimed at not only ensuring that students are successful in the world of work, but also that they form part of the next generation of responsible citizens in various ways. Initiatives like these need to be copied, continued, and intensified. 

Lesson 3: The Power to Adapt

At a recent protest against gender-based violence outside Parliament in Cape Town, one of the posters caught my eye.
“Being a woman in South Africa is to already have one foot in the grave,” it stated. It saddened and upset me greatly.
In a society that relies heavily on women in a social, professional, and leadership context, we simply cannot afford to have our women exposed to this kind of fearful reality.

And here lies another lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic: how quickly societies around the world could adapt to a new way of doing things. 

A vital pre-requisite though, is general buy-in from everyone involved. 

Women are vital for South Africa’s future

Judging by the pronouncements made by some of the most influential voices in government, education, and civil society, plus the unabated vigour of anti-abuse activists, we seem to have taken the first lesson of priorities to heart. 
 
What we now need is an interruption of the status quo, a significant and deliberate break away from condoning toxic masculinity and twisted paternalism; from turning a blind eye to even the smallest instance of abuse; from accepting bullying and an imbalance of power; from shirking our duty as educators, simply because it is safer to focus on purely academic learning content.  

And then we need to adapt – systematically and swiftly implementing a culture of human rights, respect, and equality in every sphere of society.

We need to do this, because we realise that there is a pressing urgency that comes with a pandemic. We need to move to a ‘new normal’ where women don’t feel that they are living with one foot in the grave. A ‘new normal’ where both their feet are firmly on solid ground, supported on either side by government and civil society – leading balanced lives as caregivers, business and industry leaders, and agents for change. 

We must do what is needed to rescue our women from the clutches of a pandemic. 

Because South Africa needs them.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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