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 study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

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