The plan to force some South African scientists to register with a professional body could protect people and the environment, but the current version lacks clarity, notes an editorial in the journal Nature.
Engineers, environmental-health officers and healthcare workers are occupations that can, in some instances, be practised only by people who have registered with a relevant professional body. This typically requires candidates to pass qualifying exams and adhere to a code of practice that includes sanctions for violations.
The process is intended to create the highest standards of quality, ethics and safety.
In most countries, scientists are not defined as a group of regulated workers, although many are members of professional bodies that impose their own codes and disciplinary procedures.
But that is not the case in South Africa, where scientists already face regulations, and the government is planning to tighten the process. In March, a draft law was published that would require “practising natural scientists” to register with the existing government-backed regulator – the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP), which was set up in 2003.
All natural scientists in the country were meant to have registered with it, but many never did.
The text defines ‘practising’ as “rendering of a service or provision of advice in the natural scientific profession”, whether for remuneration or free. Registration is not required, however, for people who teach at a recognised educational institution or who develop government policy related to the natural sciences.
If the law is passed, South Africa could be one of the first countries to make it a legal requirement for scientists to be professionally registered as a community. Anyone who violates the law could be imprisoned for up to a year.
It’s difficult to argue against the principle of aligning scientists with other professions that involve potential risks to people or to the environment.
The problem is that the law is lacking in several respects. First, government communication has been poor. Although the draft text was open for public comment between March and May, many scientists – including those in positions of responsibility – found out about it only last week through a Nature news article.
Second, drafting a law that affects a community without consulting any of its key members is unwise. As well as raising awareness – crucial if the law is to be adhered to – discussions with stakeholders could have improved the legislation’s clarity and precision.
As it is, the law is sometimes ambiguous and hard to parse. One example relates to who needs to register. Although registration is not required for researchers who teach at universities or who develop government policies related to natural sciences, the text does not specify whether they would need to register if they are also considered “practising” natural scientists.
And then there’s the question of the proposed sanction: a prison term for not registering, without evidence of having caused harm, is excessive. There are many ways to incentivise compliance without immediately threatening imprisonment.
For instance, rule violations in healthcare roles and other professions with strict codes of conduct have a range of repercussions, including fines, termination of employment contracts and being struck off the register.
Finally, SACNASP is a governmental agency and, according to the draft law, the government will appoint board members, who are nominated by independent organisations.
But there are good reasons why regulatory bodies need to sit outside government. Professional standards should be set by specialists, according to the best available evidence, and free from government influence. Moreover, people are more likely to trust guidelines that are drawn up by those with specialised knowledge and who are not influenced by political factors.
It is right for the South African government to strengthen standards and accountability in research fields that directly affect the safety and well-being of people and the environment. Other countries have considered doing something similar, but have not come as close to implementation.
But the South African government must clarify the text and reconsider some aspects, including what is an appropriate sanction and how to ensure the regulatory body’s independence from government.
It would ideally do this through consultation and discussion with the scientists who will be affected by the rules; the public, which the rules are designed to protect; and researchers with relevant knowledge.
A date has not yet been set for when the Bill will be discussed in, and eventually voted on by, South Africa’s Parliament, so the government has time.
If South Africa gets it right, the law could offer a template for the global community on how to strengthen research integrity, protect the public and distinguish sound scientific advice from misinformation.
Scientists unaware
In Nature’s earlier article, “South Africa’s scientists must register with official body or risk prison, according to draft law”, we wrote that many researchers were unaware of the upcoming law.
“Our goal is not to be gatekeepers, but to professionalise the natural sciences through registration and regulation,” SACNASP acting chief executive Matshidiso Matabane told Nature. “It is our obligation to not only protect the profession itself, but the public and the environment.”
The proposed legislation states that it aims to “protect and promote the public interests by regulating the conduct of practising natural scientists” and “to ensure the protection of the environment”.
It would regard natural scientists similarly to engineers and healthcare professionals, who need to register with their respective regulatory bodies: the Engineering Council of South Africa and the Healthcare Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).
However, leading scientists told Nature that many researchers are unaware of the law, or of the possible penalty of imprisonment. A date for the legislation to be debated in parliament had yet to be set.
“It’s a money-making scheme,” said Nithaya Chetty, a physicist and dean of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, who is not registered with SACNASP and was unaware of the proposed law until Nature brought it to his attention.
He was concerned that the draft Bill “gives the SACNASP board considerable future power”, and that it was ambiguous in its definitions.
Lise Korsten, a plant scientist at the University of Pretoria and former president of the African Academy of Sciences, was also unaware of the provision for prison time in the proposed law.
However, Korsten, also not registered with SACNASP, said she supports accountability for scientists who are involved in consulting. Fraudulent ‘experts’ are “a big problem” for the country. “It’s for public protection,” she added.
New law for old
The text of the draft Bill, dated 16 March, repeals the previous 2003 legislation on SACNASP. It clarifies the purpose and governance of the council, and introduces the possible penalty of a criminal record if “practising natural scientists” do not comply with the legislation.
Public comment on the Bill closed in May, and it will now be presented in the country’s Parliament for debate, although the timeline for this is unclear.
SACNASP referred all questions regarding the Bill to the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation. The department had not responded to Nature’s questions at the time of publication.
The Bill also does not include precise details about the process that would be used to prosecute scientists who fail to register. But it does say that a code of conduct will be drawn up in consultation with scientists’ representative organisations (which are also required to register).
High costs
A full professional SACNASP membership costs R1 920 annually, but there is also a one-off registration charge, which is R2 560 for South Africans and R5 410 for foreign scientists.
At present, about 21 000 scientists are registered with SACNASP, Matabane said. These members span 26 disciplines, including mathematics, geological sciences and the physical sciences. No data are available on how many of the country’s academics have not registered.