Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 August 2024 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
Maricel-van-Rooyen
Maricél van Rooyen, Project Manager for Research Information Management System (RIMS) and Research Ethics Adviser in the Directorate Research Development (DRD) at the University of the Free State (UFS), is the Programme Coordinator for a first-of-its-kind Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA)/ COP webinar on Environment and Biosafety Research Ethics.

The University of the Free State (UFS) is playing host to a first-of-its-kind webinar on Environment and Biosafety Research Ethics later this month with Maricél van Rooyen, Project Manager for Research Information Management System (RIMS) and Research Ethics Adviser in the Directorate Research Development (DRD), playing a pivotal role.

The webinar, which is part of the Eastern Region Community of Practice (COP), is taking place on 20 August. The target market for this virtual workshop is Biosafety and Environmental Research Ethics Committee (REC) chairpersons and members, professionals including research management professionals, administrators, research compliance managers and advisers, and research directors in Southern Africa and beyond.

Van Rooyen will be the Programme Coordinator for this Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA)/ COP Research Ethics Webinar, while Prof Robert Bragg, chairperson of the UFS Environmental and Biological Research Ethics Committee (EBREC), will give a presentation on the establishment of an EBREC.

The UFS, Stellenbosch University and the University of the Witwatersrand, form part of the COP which is a SARIMA (Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association) initiative to assist and share research ethics questions between institutions to empower research management and ethics compliance. SARIMA assisted with the online hosting and advertising of the webinar.

Purpose of the webinar

“Environment and Biosafety Committees in South Africa are a new idea, and only a few institutions in the country have such a committee. The UFS and the other institutions that will present at the workshop, take a leading role because they have already registered committees in place. We want to share and assist with establishing and operating such committees,” says Van Rooyen.

According to her, the need for the webinar arises from the upsurge of research and innovation in biotechnology and related fields over the past two decades that has led to exciting new discoveries in areas such as the engineering of biological processes, gene editing, stem cell research, CRISPR-Cas9 technology, Synthetic Biology, recombinant DNA, LMOs and GMOs, to mention only a few.

These advances, however, have generated concerns about biosafety, biosecurity and adverse impacts on biodiversity and the environment, leading to the establishment of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) at Higher Education and Research Institutions dedicated to reviewing research with implications for biosafety and the environment.

These EBRECs are in the early stages of their establishment and formalisation in South Africa, and there is much uncertainty about their composition, scope, procedures of decision-making and the principles that should guide their deliberations and assessments.

Leading the charge

The UFS took the lead in South Africa in ensuring international ethical compliance in this extended area of research, by establishing its own Environmental and Biological Research Ethics Committee (EBREC) six years ago. The UFS EBREC is one of only two such ethics committees at a South African university that combines the biosafety committee with environmental and biological research ethics to ensure ethics compliance in these fields.  The initiative started with Van Rooyen and her RIMS EthicsTeam, (Willem Kilian and Amanda Smith). The university is again taking charge with this webinar, which is a first of its kind.  

News Archive

UFS research sheds light on service delivery protests in South Africa
2015-01-23

UFS research sheds light on service delivery protests in South Africa

Service delivery protests in the country have peaked during 2014, with 176 major service delivery protests staged against local government across South Africa.

A study by the University of the Free State (UFS) found that many of these protests are led by individuals who previously held key positions within the ANC and prominent community leaders. Many of these protests involved violence, and the destruction had a devastating impact on the communities involved.

This study was done by Dr Sethulego Matebesi, researcher and senior lecturer at the UFS. He focused his research on the dynamics of service delivery protests in South Africa.

Service delivery protests refer to the collective taken by a group of community members which are directed against a local municipality over poor or inadequate provision of basic services, and a wider spectrum of concerns including, for example, housing, infrastructural developments, and corruption.

These protests increased substantially from about 10 in 2004 to 111 in 2010, reaching unprecedented levels with 176 during 2014.

The causes of these protests are divided into three broad categories: systemic (maladministration, fraud, nepotism and corruption); structural (healthcare, poverty, unemployment and land issues); and governance (limited opportunities for civic participation, lack of accountability, weak leadership and the erosion of public confidence in leadership).

In his research, Dr Matebesi observed and studied protests in the Free State, Northern Cape and the North-West since 2008. He found that these protests can be divided into two groups, each with its own characteristics.

“On the one side you have highly fragmented residents’ groups that often use intimidation and violence in predominantly black communities. On the other side, there are highly structured ratepayers’ associations that primarily uses the withholding of municipal rates and taxes in predominantly white communities.”

 

Who are the typical protesters?

Dr Matebesi’s study results show that in most instances, protests in black areas are led by individuals who previously held key positions within the ANC - prominent community leaders. Generally, though, protests are supported by predominantly unemployed, young residents.

“However, judging by election results immediately after protests, the study revealed that the ANC is not losing votes over such actions.”

The study found that in the case of the structured ratepayers’ associations, the groups are led by different segments of the community, including professionals such as attorneys, accountants and even former municipal managers.

Dr Matebesi says that although many protests in black communities often turned out violent, protest leaders stated that they never planned to embark on violent protests.

“They claimed that is was often attitude (towards the protesters), reaction of the police and the lack of government’s interest in their grievances that sparked violence.”

Totally different to this is the form of peaceful protests that involves sanctioning. This requires restraint and coordination, which only a highly structured group can provide.

“The study demonstrates that the effects of service delivery protests have been tangible and visible in South Africa, with almost daily reports of violent confrontations with police, extensive damage to property, looting of businesses, and at times, the injuring or even killing of civilians. With the increase of violence, the space for building trust between the state and civil society is decreasing.”

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