Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 January 2021 | Story Dr Nitha Ramnath | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Phillippe Burger.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the entire world, claiming more than two million lives and sparing no region. The world is confronted with urgent unsolved challenges, with the poor and vulnerable populations, low-skilled workers, and refugees most affected. 

These challenges will be addressed by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission and its various task forces, one of which is the Fiscal Policy and Financial Markets task force. Prof Philippe Burger, Professor of Economics and Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development at the University of the Free State, serves as a member of the commission’s Fiscal Policy and Financial Markets task force. The eleven members of the task force include two Nobel prize laureates in economics, as well as academics and public-policy specialists from across the world, under the co-chairpersonship of Dr Vitor Gaspar (Director of the Department of Fiscal Affairs at the IMF) and Prof Felipe Larraín (Professor of Economics, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and former Minister of Finance of Chile).

The commission is an interdisciplinary initiative across the health sciences, business, finance, and public policy, and was created to help speed up global, equitable, and lasting solutions to the pandemic. The work of the commission is divided into 12 task forces, each composed of members from diverse disciplinary interests, geographies, and identities. These task forces provide support in areas ranging from vaccine development to humanitarian relief strategies, to safe workplaces, to global economic recovery. 

Key aims of the commission is to speed up awareness and the worldwide adoption of strategies to suppress transmission, as well as to ensure that COVID-19 vaccines and key technologies are equitably accessible across the world.

The Fiscal Policy and Financial Markets task force will consider fiscal and financial issues related to the pandemic affecting advanced, emerging market, and developing economies. Based on evidence and best practices, the task force will provide recommendations on managing the effects of the pandemic and will also manage the transition to a resilient, smart, inclusive, and green growth path. Issues related to fiscal sustainability as well as debt relief in poor countries are on the task team’s agenda.

Many multilateral institutions such as the WHO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN, the UN World Food Programme, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and others face profound challenges in undertaking their crucial missions to coordinate the global response to the pandemic. The Lancet COVID-19 Commission also aims to make recommendations to strengthen the efficacy of these critical institutions. Moreover, the commission reaches out to regional groupings, including the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and others, to support the efforts of these bodies in fighting the pandemic. 

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and its task teams include leaders in health science and healthcare delivery, business, politics, and finance from across the world. They volunteer to serve in their individual capacities – not as formal representatives of their home institutions – and will work together towards a shared and comprehensive outlook on how to stop the pandemic and how best to promote an equitable and sustainable recovery. 

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