Practical guidance in understanding the nuance of benefit sharing and what this means for South African health research ethics committees: Part 2
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article examines benefit sharing within health research, a subject of growing importance in South African regulatory and ethical frameworks. With reference to the National Health Act (NHA), this article builds on previous discussions about defining key terms in benefit sharing and offers health research ethics committees (RECs) in South Africa guidance in evaluating benefit-sharing provisions. It navigates three critical legislative frameworks – the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act (IPRA), the Indigenous Knowledge Act (IKA) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) – interpreting each for REC evaluation of research protocols involving publicly funded research, indigenous knowledge and non-human biological materials. The article also addresses the implications of section 60(4) of the NHA on benefit sharing for human participant research, dissecting questions around permissible forms of benefits to participants and research institutions. Through a decision-making diagram and two hypothetical scenarios, this article provides practical tools to help RECs assess and regulate benefit sharing in line with ethical and legal standards, ultimately promoting fair research practices.
Article Details
Issue
Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJBL is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. Republic of South Africa. National Health Act No. 61 of 2003.
2. Department of Health of South Africa. Ethics in health research: Principles, processes and structures. 3rd ed. 2024. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/ fo/2wddzxo6vonsrfpyeohs1/h?rlkey=vzf45esf0sas2pkx2b36iy8u1&e=1&
dl=0 (accessed 19 February 2024).
3. Kamau C, Prinsen L, Thaldar D. Benefit-sharing with human participants in South
Africa: A call for clarity. Developing World Bioeth 2024;1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/
dewb.12456
4. Prinsen L. Practical guidance in understanding the nuance of benefit sharing and what this means for South African health research ethics committees: Part 1. S Afr J Bioethics Law 2025;18(1):e2815. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2025. v18i1.2815
5. Legal aspects of using data science in health innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa Law). DS-I Africa – Law. 2022. www.datalaw.africa (accessed 19 February 2024). 6. Republic of South Africa. Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed
Research and Development Act No.51 of 2008.
7. Republic of South Africa. Protection, Promotion, Development and Management
of Indigenous Knowledge Act No. 6 of 2019.
8. Republic of South Africa. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act
No. 10 of 2004.