Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 July 2025 | Story Martinette Brits | Photo Kaleidoscope Studios
Michael von Maltitz
Prof Michael von Maltitz challenges current science education paradigms at the inaugural NAS Research Conference, urging a shift from grade-driven learning to fostering critical thinking, curiosity, and human intelligence in the era of AI and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In his keynote address at the inaugural NAS Research Conference on 1 July 2025, Prof Michael von Maltitz delivered a wide-ranging and compelling critique of the current state of science education. Speaking to an audience of researchers and academics, he challenged assumptions about learning, assessment, and the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education – offering both caution and practical guidance.

Prof Von Maltitz – from the Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science at the University of the Free State (UFS) – opened with an overview of the industrial revolutions leading up to the current Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterised by artificial intelligence, connectivity, and data-driven automation. He warned against remaining entrenched in this phase of development, arguing that AI, while powerful, is not truly intelligent. “AI … is … artificial,” he said. “It is based on brute-forcing very large numbers of very basic operations at blazing speeds, linking external inputs to stored information. And so, it’s not intelligent. It’s just strong.”

He cautioned that the unchecked use of AI – driven by efficiency, not understanding – risks entrenching systems that prioritise ease and profit over education and well-being. “Everything is profit-driven at the moment. Everything, and I mean … everything. Really. It is this greed that keeps us firmly stuck in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

This, he suggested, makes the vision of a Fifth Industrial Revolution both necessary and urgent. The next phase, he argued, should be one that centres on sustainability, equity, human-machine collaboration – and critically – the development of human intelligence and critical thinking. “There should be something here about ‘building human intelligence’ or ‘critical thinking’. This would truly make the Fifth Industrial Revolution about bettering humanity.”

 

When the measure becomes the mission

Central to his address was the idea of ‘broken proxies’ – the phenomenon where a measurement designed to approximate a goal becomes the goal itself, distorting the original purpose. He illustrated this concept using examples ranging from GDP and crime statistics to social media algorithms, before turning to science education. Here, grades and degrees, once indicators of knowledge and progress, have become ends in themselves.

“The only things that are important to students are grades and degrees, because the incentives are linked to grades and degrees, and so, obviously, all effort will go towards grades and degrees.”

Prof Von Maltitz reflected on his own academic journey, describing how he excelled at exams and accumulated qualifications, yet absorbed little meaningful knowledge in the process. “I played the grades game, and nothing stuck in long-term memory, as is the case with many of our students today,” he said. “Why? Well, there were merit bursaries, degrees, and awards up for offer, not for learning, but for performing well.”

This system, he argued, incentivises performance over understanding and leaves students vulnerable to shortcuts – particularly through generative AI. “Under the assumption that rewards are linked to grades and not education, if you offer a student an assessment method that can be gamed … it will be gamed.”

Referencing a recent MIT study, he warned of the cognitive toll of over-reliance on AI. “They showed that, over four months, the AI users’ brains became systematically less active, especially when asked at the end of the study to do a brain-only essay. They had lower brain function in every area. In four months, they had become significantly ‘dumber’ than their counterparts in the other arms of the study.”

 

Rebuilding curiosity and competence

Despite this sobering analysis, the address was not without optimism. Prof Von Maltitz urged delegates to reimagine education by shifting away from content-heavy teaching and rigid assessment structures. He called for a renewed focus on curiosity, conscious incompetence, and lifelong learning. “Are our students able to self-assess, identify weaknesses and gaps in their knowledge bases, seek answers, and build their own learning paths? Are they humble enough to say, ‘I don’t know’, and curious enough to go and find the answers?”

To support this vision, he proposed four practical steps: redefining teaching goals, distilling module content to its essentials, focusing on graduate attributes such as critical thinking and communication, and reassessing how learning is measured. He encouraged alternatives to traditional exams, including portfolios, interviews, peer assessment, and real-world problem solving.

“We don’t have to pretend to teach students everything in a particular field – but rather we show them what is out there to be learned,” he said.

“Education should not be about teaching everything,” he concluded, “but about showing students what can be known, how to learn, and where to go next.”

 

About Prof Von Maltitz

Prof Von Maltitz is Associate Professor in the UFS Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science. He has a long-standing connection with the university, having been a student at the UFS since the start of his BSc, which he completed with distinction in 2003. Over the following years, he obtained a BCom Honours in 2004, MCom in Economics in 2005, BSc Honours in Mathematical Statistics in 2006, MSc in Mathematical Statistics in 2007, and completed his PhD in 2015 while already lecturing.

His research interests span statistics education, sequential regression multiple imputation, incomplete data, and multivariate statistics. He is also known for his strong focus on student engagement and the re-engineering of teaching and learning. His extensive contributions to the field have been recognised through multiple awards for excellence in education.

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