Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 November 2023 | Story André Damons | Photo SUPPLIED
Prof Atangana
Prof Abdon Atangana, a professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of the Free State (UFS), is the highest-ranked UFS scientist included in Stanford University’s World’s Top 2% Scientists list.

A professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of the Free State (UFS) is again the highest-ranked scientist from the institution included in Stanford University’s annual ranking of the top 2% of scientists in the world. 

Prof Abdon Atangana from the UFS’s Institute for Groundwater is ranked number one in applied mathematics, mathematical physics, mathematics, and statistics in the world, and number 260 in all of science, technology, and engineering in the Stanford University World’s Top 2% Scientists list. He is also ranked highest (5 620) of all the UFS scientists included in the career-long data set. 

‘Africans in Africa can impact the world’

“The ranking provides us with the impact of our outputs, and it shows that Africans can contribute to the development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics while still in Africa,” Prof Atangana said. “This also shows that Africans in Africa can have impact on the world. My motivation is to tell the next generation that Africans do not always need to graduate from the top universities of the global North to make a global impact.  

“We must work hard to make our African universities reach the same level of those from the global North, such that a student from the global North will wish to enroll in our universities. The development of our continent does not rest on sport, music, and so forth alone, but on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Having the best scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in the world in Africa should be the strive of all Africans.” 

Three of the UFS’s SARChI Research Chairs have also been included in this list: Prof Hendrik Swart, Chair: Solid-state Luminescent and Advanced Materials (Applied Physics, ranked 40 269 in the single-year dataset); Prof Melanie Walker, Chair: Higher Education and Human Development (ranked 68 337); and Prof Maryke Labuschagne, Chair: Disease Resistance and Quality in Field Crops (Plant Sciences, 165 780).  

Other UFS scientists included in the single-year data set are: Prof John M. Carranza (Geology, 4 837); Prof Muhammad Altaf Khan ( Applied Mathematics, 6 366); Prof Maxim Finkelstein (Statistics/ Mathematical Statistics, 63 394); Prof Marianne Reid (School of Nursing, 72 861); Prof John Owen (Centre for Development Support, 103 368); Prof Brownhilder Neneh (Department of Business Management, 73 635); Prof Jorma Hölsä (Research Fellow: Department of Physics, 88 833); Prof Johann Beukes (Philosophy & Classics, 6 547 764); Rian Venter, (829 709); Dr Yuri Marusik (Zoology and Entomology, 553 619); Prof Robert Schall (Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, 276 681); Prof Deborah Posel (Department of Sociology, 275 535); Dr Vijay Kumar (Physics, 274 541); Dr Abhay Prakash Mishra (Pharmacology, 229 625); Prof RE Kroon (Physics, 226 554); Dr Krishnan Anand (Chemical Pathology, 235 300); Prof Andrew Marston (Chemistry, 147 147); Dr Seda Igret Araz (Applied Mathematics,125 824); Prof Jeanet Conradie (Chemistry, 106 521); Prof Louis Scott (Plant Sciences, 73 874); Prof Johan Grobbelaar (Plant Sciences, 97 722); Prof David Motaung (Physics, 53 553); Dr Samuel Nambile Cumber (Health Systems Research and Development, 555 563). 

Career-long data set 

The Stanford University rankings also include a list of the top 2% of world-class researchers based on citations over their full careers. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists with at least five published papers. Career-long data is updated to the end of 2021, and single recent-year data pertain to citations received during calendar year 2021. The selection is based on the top 100 000 scientists by C-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above in the sub-field.

The career-long data set includes the names of:

Prof Carranza (17 466); Prof Scott (55 882); Prof Reid (57 173); Prof Hölsä (64 402); Prof Grobbelaar (71 094); Prof Walker (78 239); Prof Andrew Marston (Chemistry, 84 484); Prof Schall (90 268); HA Snyman (Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, 96 374); Prof Swart (103 895); Robert WM Frater Cardiovascular Research Centre (111 896); Prof Frederick Kruger (Centre for Environmental Management,117 971); Prof Finkelstein (124 118); Prof Johan Visser (Geology, 125 331); Prof James C du Preez (Biotechnology, 168 841); Prof Posel (172 295); Prof Conradie (178 157); Prof Michael D MacNeil (Dairy and Animal Science, 184 193); Prof Khan (201 101); Prof Owen (262 897). 

“The representation of our researchers from a variety of disciplinary domains in this prestigious ranking, is confirmation of their excellence, impact, and the global esteem they hold. UFS is proud to be a home to scholars in our midst who take us incrementally forward as an institution because of their cutting-edge research,” said Prof Vasu Reddy, UFS Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research and Internationalisation. 

  • Prof Atangana has also been shortlisted as one of the finalists for the prestigious Alkebulan Immigrants Impact Awards (AIIA) 2023, in the South African Flag Carrier category. Voting started on 1 November, and the award ceremony is set to take place on 23 November in Johannesburg. 

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