The National Health Research Ethics Council 2024 Guidelines – suspended in part, legally precarious in whole
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
-
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. National Health Research Ethics Council, South Africa. South African Ethics in Health Research Guidelines: Principles, Processes and Structures. 3rd ed., version 3.1. Pretoria: National Department of Health, 2024. https://www.health.gov.za/ nhrec-guidelines/ (accessed 4 August 2025).
2. Bellengère D, A Bellengère Irregular appointment of the NHREC: Implications for legitimacy and the path forward for South Africa’s health research ethics guidelines. S Afr J Bioethics Law 2025;18(2):e2660. https://doi.org/10.7196/ SAJBL.2025.v18i2.2660
3. Thaldar D, Shozi B. The legal status of human biological material used for research. S Afr Law J 2021;138(4):881-907. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9
4. Thaldar DW, Townsend BA, Donnelly D-L, et al. The multidimensional legal nature of personal genomic sequence data: A South African perspective. Front Genet 2022;13:997595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.997595
5. Thaldar DW. The wisdom of claiming ownership of human genomic data: A cautionary tale for research institutions. Dev World Bioeth 2025;25(1):16-23. https:// doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12443
6. Esselaar P, Swales L, Bellengère D, Mhlongo B, Thaldar DW. Forcing a square into a circle: Why South Africa’s draft revised material transfer agreement is not fit for purpose. Front Pharmacol 2024;15:1333672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1333672
7. Thaldar D. Ownership of personal information? S Afr Law J 2025;142(1):175-198.
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v142/i1a10
8. Health Professions Council of South Africa. Guidelines for Good Practice in the Healthcare Professions: Guidelines on the Keeping of Patient Health Records. Booklet 9. Pretoria: HPCSA, 2022. https://www.hpcsa.co.za/ethics (accessed 4 August 2025).
9. Thaldar D, Maboea U, Gooden A. Why the South African National Health Research
Ethics Council is wrong about ownership of human biological material and
data. Dev World Bioeth 2025;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12475
10. Thaldar D, Shozi B. Is benefit sharing with research participants lawful in South Africa? An unexplored question in the governance of genomics research. J Law Biosci 2023;10(1):Isad018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad018
11. Kamau C, Prinsen L, Thaldar D. Benefit-sharing with human participants in health research in South Africa: A call for clarity. Dev World Bioeth 2025;25(2):144-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12456
12. Cotty v Registrar, Council for Medical Schemes [2021] ZAGPPHC 68, 2021 (4) SA 466 (GP).
13. Gensinger and Neave CC v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy [2024] ZASCA 49, 2025 (4) SA 84 (SCA).
14. Academy of Science of South Africa. POPIA Compliance Framework for Researchers and Research Institutions. May 2025. https://doi.org/10.17159/ assaf.2025/113 (accessed 4 August 2025).