Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 January 2025 | Story Charlene Stanley | Photo Supplied
University of the Free State - Main Gate
The THE rankings are known to guide potential students to identify the best institutions for their chosen field of study, allowing them to compare different universities based on the strength of their academic offerings in specific study fields.

The recently published Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings by Subject 2025 shows that the University of the Free State (UFS) is ranked among the top 1 000 global higher learning institutions in its nine evaluated subjects, with most subject areas showing improved results from those recorded in 2024. 

The annually published THE World University Rankings by Subject is a highly regarded, trusted global benchmark for academic excellence in specific disciplines. Its methodology is designed to evaluate universities by employing a range of performance indicators categorised under five core pillars, namely Teaching, Research Environment, Research Quality, Industry, and International Outlook. 

Under Teaching, factors such as reputation, student-to-staff ratio, doctorate-to-bachelor ratio, and institutional income are considered. The Research pillar focuses on aspects such as productivity, citation impact, and influence. Among the other considerations are the income generated from industry partnerships and patents, as well as the number of international students, staff, and co-authored publications.

The methodology is carefully adjusted for each subject, ensuring fairness and accuracy by considering field-specific research cultures and publication practices.

The complete list of UFS subject rankings is as follows:

Law: 301+  *
Arts and Humanities: 501-600 # 
Education Studies: 501-600  #
Psychology: 501-600  #
Life Sciences: 601-800  #
Social Sciences: 601-800 #
Medical and Health: 801-1 000  #

Physical Sciences: 801-1 000 #

*The “+” label indicates that there is no upper limit and is used in instances where the THE does not provide exact ranks for universities beyond this position, therefore grouping institutions together to avoid overly fine distinctions at lower ranking tiers. (Eg. 801+ indicates 801st or lower.)

# The range label (eg. 801-1000), indicates that a university is ranked somewhere within this narrower range, (eg. between 801st  and 1000th. )

For more detail, visit: www.timeshighereducation.com

The THE rankings are known to guide potential students to identify the best institutions for their chosen field of study, allowing them to compare different universities based on the strength of their academic offerings in specific study fields. It also often paves the way for research collaboration, as companies are more likely to partner with highly ranked institutions in a specific sector for research and development projects. Furthermore, strong subject rankings enhance the international reputation of universities and enable comprehensive comparison in particular disciplines.

“This type of global benchmarking is extremely valuable in enhancing the international reputation of the UFS, enabling us to ultimately recruit and attract the most talented students and staff from our region and from across the globe. This aligns with our institutional strategy contained in Vision 130, whereby we aim to grow and extend our impact and influence locally, regionally, and globally,” says Prof Anthea Rhoda, acting UFS Vice-Chancellor and Principal. “Valuable knowledge and insights are also garnered during each evaluation process, allowing us to remain a globally competitive force in higher education, and to take the UFS to even greater heights in the years to come.”

Click to view document Click to view UFS Times Higher Subject Scores

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