The emergence of COVID-19 has led to a pandemic that has caused millions of cases of disease, variable morbidity and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Currently, only remdesivir and dexamethasone have demonstrated limited efficacy, only slightly reducing disease burden, thus novel approaches for clinical management of COVID-19 are needed. We identified a panel of human monoclonal antibody clones from a yeast display library with specificity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain that neutralized the virus in vitro. Administration of the lead antibody clone to Syrian hamsters challenged with SARS-CoV-2 significantly reduced viral load and histopathology score in the lungs. Moreover, the antibody interrupted monocyte infiltration into the lungs, which may have contributed to the reduction of disease severity by limiting immunopathological exacerbation. The use of this antibody could provide an important therapy for treatment of COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

AI is altering not only local and global society, but what it means to be human, or, to be counted as such. In the midst of concerns about the ethics of AI, calls are emerging for AI to be decolonized. What does the decolonization of AI imply? This article explores this question, writing from the post-colony of South Africa where the imbrications of race, colonialism and technology have been experienced and debated in ways that hold global meaning and relevance for this discussion. Proceeding in two parts, this article explores the notion of de/coloniality and its emphasis on undoing legacies of colonialism and logics of race, before critiquing two major discontents of AI today: ethics as a colonial rationality and racializing dividing practices. This article develops a critical basis from which to articulate a question that sits exterior to current AI practice and its critical discourses: can AI be decolonized?

The Act will have implications for all research activities that involve the collection, processing, and storage of personal information. POPIA provides for the development of Codes of Conduct to guide the interpretation of the Act with respect to a particular sector or class of information. 1 Codes of Conduct are particularly important for providing for prior authorisations in terms of Section 57 of POPIA for the sector to which it applies. Prior authorisations are required for using unique identifiers of personal information in data processing activities, and for sharing special personal information or the personal information of children with countries outside of South Africa that do not have adequate data protection laws. In order to understand and functionally interpret the provisions of POPIA for the research community in the Republic of South Africa (South Africa), the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) is leading a process to develop a Code of Conduct (Code) for research under the Act. A Code can be developed by the Information Regulator or by a public or private body deemed 'sufficiently representative' of the bodies in respect of the particular class of information or sector to which the Code will apply. During 2020, ASSAf was approached by scientists in South Africa to consider the development of a Code for research, and public events were held during Open Access Week in October 2020, and Science Forum South Africa in December 2020, to further discuss the role of ASSAf in this regard. A Commentary published in this issue sets out the full rationale for the development of the Code by ASSAf and details the consultation process to date. 2 Within the research setting, POPIA regulates the processing of personal information for research purposes, and the flow of data across South Africa's borders to ensure that any limitations on the right to privacy are justified and aimed at protecting other important rights and interests. The new regulatory system that POPIA establishes will function alongside other legislation and regulatory structures governing research in South Africa, as outlined below. The law which takes precedent will be that which provides the most comprehensive protections to the rights of individuals in South Africa.This paper sets out the key discussion points in relation to the development of the Code. It is intended as a paper that can support further stakeholder consultation and public engagement in the process of developing a Code which meets the needs, and is representative of, the South African research community.

No abstract

A one-year grace period was provided to give organisations time to comply with the provisions of the Act. It will therefore be mandatory as of 1 July 2021, for all sectors in South Africa to comply with POPIA.POPIA gives effect to the constitutional right to privacy. In so doing, it balances the right to privacy with other rights and interests, including the free flow of information within South Africa and across its borders. POPIA adopts a principle-based approach to the processing of personal information. It sets out eight conditions for the lawful processing of personal information: accountability, processing limitation, purpose specification, further processing limitation, information quality, openness, security safeguards, and data subject participation. These principles apply equally to all sectors that process personal information.

Virtual personal assistants (VPAs) are increasingly becoming a common aspect of everyday living. However, with female names, voices and characters, these devices appear to reproduce harmful gender stereotypes about the role of women in society and the type of work women perform. Designed to ‘assist’, VPAs – such as Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa – reproduce and reify the idea that women are subordinate to men, and exist to be ‘used’ by men. Despite their ubiquity, these aspects of their design have seen little critical attention in scholarship, and the potential legal responses to this issue have yet to be fully canvassed. Accordingly, this article sets out to critique the reproduction of negative gender stereotypes in VPAs and explores the provisions and findings within international women's rights law to assess both how this constitutes indirect discrimination and possible means for redress. In this regard, this article explores the obligation to protect women from discrimination at the hands of private actors under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the work of the Committee on Discrimination Against Women on gender stereotyping. With regard to corporate human rights responsibilities, the role of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is examined, as well as domestic enforcement mechanisms for international human rights norms and standards, noting the limitations to date in enforcing human rights compliance by multinational private actors.