Health Law

In this podcast, Professor Thaldar interviews Mr Paul Esselaar, Ms Devarasi Bellengère, and Mr Banele Mhlongo on the topic of the NHREC’s draft revised MTA. Summary The South African National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) has issued a revised draft of the 2018 material transfer agreement (MTA), prompting discussions on its mandate, treatment of data and biological material, and avoidance of ownership terminology. With the activation of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in 2021, doubts arise regarding NHREC's authority over personal information in health research. The draft MTA's approach to data is criticized as superficial, and its handling of human biological material overlooks legal and ethical concerns related to pathogens. The use of "steward" instead of "owner" in the MTA clashes with South African law and neglects ethical arguments for ownership recognition. Recommendations for the MTA's improvement include making its adoption optional, separating data transfer agreements, addressing liability for pathogen-containing materials, and adopting a decolonial framework that acknowledges the ownership rights of local research institutions to support bio-economy growth. Further reading 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. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1333672 See also Swales L, Ogendi P, Botes M, Townsend B, Donnelly D-L, Abdulrauf L, Thaldar DW. A data transfer agreement template for South Africa (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7537396 Swales L, Botes M, Donnelly D-L, Thaldar DW. Towards a data transfer agreement for the South African research community: The empowerment approach. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law. 2023;16(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i1.827 Thaldar DW, Botes M, Nienaber A. South Africa’s new standard material transfer agreement: proposals for improvement and pointers for implementation. BMC Medical Ethics 2020;21(85):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00526-x Thaldar DW. One material transfer agreement to rule them all? A call for revising South Africa’s new standard material transfer agreement. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2020;7(105) https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00600-0

In this podcast episode, Ms Nomfundo Mthembu and Ms Amy Gooden discuss the ethical considerations in establishing an open access genomics database in South Africa. Summary Although genomics research has the potential to improve healthcare, only a small percentage of genomic data used internationally relates to persons of African origin. Although the establishment of a large scale, open access genomics database of South Africans may contribute to solving this problem, it is not without its ethics concerns, such as privacy risks and informed consent. Open consent offers a potential solution by being explicit about the risks involved. Furthermore, in the South African context—where local culture is infused with Ubuntu—community engagement is vital for establishing and maintaining an open access genomics database of South Africans. Further reading Gooden, A., and Thaldar, D. (2023). Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: Ethical considerations. Frontiers in Genetics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1166029 Thaldar D, Gooden A and Steytler M (2023) Open science and human genetic data: recommendations on South Africa’s Draft National Open Science Policy. Frontiers in Genetics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1248747 See also Thaldar, D., Gooden, A., and Donnelly, D.-L. (2023). Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: Legal considerations. South African Journal of Science. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/15069

In a podcast, Professor Mnyongani interviews Dr. Swales and Dr. Donnelly, who developed a Data Transfer Agreement (DTA) template for the South African research community. Summary The DTA template helps ensure legal compliance, notably with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). It aids researchers by providing a standardized, flexible legal document, saving time and reducing costs. Unlike the regulatory approach of the 2018 Material Transfer Agreement by the Health Ministry, their ‘empowerment approach’ equips researchers with tools and knowledge without mandating usage. The DTA emphasizes clear data ownership and adaptability for commercial purposes, ensuring legality and ethical considerations. With upcoming regulations like ASSAf's Code of Conduct for Research, the DTA aligns and complements these frameworks. For international collaborations, the template addresses data transfers between South Africa and foreign entities, aligned with POPIA. The goal is a comprehensive, adaptable, and empowering tool that considers various scenarios in research data transfer. Further reading Swales L, Ogendi P, Botes M, Townsend B, Donnelly D-L, Abdulrauf L, Thaldar DW. A data transfer agreement template for South Africa (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7537396 Swales L, BotesM, Donnelly D-L, Thaldar DW. Towards a data transfer agreement for the South African research community: The empowerment approach. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law. 2023;16(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i1.827 See also Thaldar DW, Botes M, Nienaber A. South Africa’s new standard material transfer agreement: proposals for improvement and pointers for implementation.BMC Medical Ethics2020;21(85):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00526-x Thaldar DW. One material transfer agreement to rule them all? A call for revising South Africa’s new standard material transfer agreement. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2020;7(105) https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00600-0 Funding This episode was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Nomfundo Mthembu discusses the ownership of the HeLa cell line with Professor Donrich Thaldar. Summary The HeLa cell line was created in 1951 without consent from Henrietta Lacks, the person whose tissue sample was used. Ownership of cell lines is investigated from a South African legal perspective by considering three possible contemporary scenarios bearing points of similarity to the Henrietta Lacks case. The importance of legal compliance and good faith is highlighted. Further reading Thaldar DW. Who would own the HeLa cell line if the Henrietta Lacks case happened in present-day South Africa? Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2023. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/10/1/lsad011/7165261 See also Thaldar DW, Shozi B. The legal status of human biological material used for research. South African Law Journal. 2021. https://www.jutajournals.co.za/the-legal-status-of-human-biological-material-used-for-research/ Funding This episode was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Dr Faith Kabatadiscuss the governance of human genomic data in Africa. Summary Genomic sovereignty has no utility value in human genomic research as it violates the rights of individuals and researchers. Mexico’s regulatory approach that is based on genomic sovereignty is contrasted with Finland’s more individual-centric, human rightsapproach. It is suggested that this human rights approach is more promising, as it aligns with states’ obligations under international human rights law—in particular the right to science. Further reading Kabata F, Thaldar DW. Regulating human genomic research in Africa: Why a human rights approach is a more promising conceptual framework than genomic sovereignty. Frontiers in Genetics2023;14. Funding This episode was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this episode, we speak about the res nullius construction of human genomic data. Summary No one domain of the law holds exclusive sway over human genomic data. Instead, genomic data have a multidimensional legal nature, meaning that multiple legal domains — including property law, privacy law, contract law, and intellectual property law — are all applicable. From a property law perspective, the res nullius construction of genomic data provides a useful way to understand how newly generated genomic sequences are viewed by the law. Further reading Thaldar et al. The multidimensional legal nature of personal genomic sequence data: A South African perspective. Frontiers in Genetics.(2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.997595 Funding This episode was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Ms Aliki Edgcumbe discuss the genetic-link requirement for surrogate motherhood agreements. Summary What do Kim Kardashian, Elon Musk, and Elton John have in common? Well, it is not just their mega success as celebrities. These stars share something far more interesting – they are just some of the rich and famous who have used a surrogate to have their children. But, the surrogacy stories are not limited to the gossip columns in your local tattler. The ones less told are the stories of ordinary infertile couples (and individuals) who look to surrogacy to build a family they would otherwise be unable to have. Professor Donrich Thaldar is joined by Ms Aliki Edgcumbe, a doctoral research fellow at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. She has written an article on the current case, that of KB v Minister of Social Development, where she asks whether the writing is on the wall for the genetic link requirement in surrogacy agreements. Further reading Edgcumbe, A. (2023). Is the Writing on the Wall for the Genetic Link Requirement in Surrogacy Agreements?. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 26, (Published on 3 March 2023) pp 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13363

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Ms Michaela Steytler discuss the right to freedom of scientific research. Summary Despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly protects the right to freedom of scientific research, this right features neither in the preamble of any legislation, nor in any reported case law. If the right to freedom of scientific research remains in obscurity, South Africa can slip into totalitarian control of the scientific enterprise – to the detriment not only of scientists, but also of society in general. The right to freedom of scientific research should play a more central role in policy-making. This is not only because it is an enumerated constitutional right, but also because it is important in its own right, as it serves purposes that are at the core of our constitutional value-system: promoting individual autonomy, facilitating the search for truth, and supporting democracy. The notion that government should somehow seek to regulate every new scientific development is erroneous, as freedom should be the default position in science-related policy, and should only be limited by regulation if and to the extent that it is constitutionally justified. Further reading Thaldar DW, Steytler M. Time for Cinderella to go to the ball: Reflections on the right to freedom of scientific research. South African Law Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i2a2

In this episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar explains the multidimensional legal nature of personal genomic sequence data. Summary There are multiple legal dimensions applicable to personal genomic sequence data. These include (1) property rights, (2) personality rights, and (3) intellectual property rights. (1) Personal genomic sequence data can be owned. The entity that is in the best position to claim ownership of personal genomic sequence data is the research institution that generates such data, i.e., the research institution that does the sequencing of the DNA. However, the ownership of personal genomic sequence data can also be provided for through contract. (2) Personal genomic sequence data are the object of data subjects’ personality rights, which includes privacy rights. (3) Personal genomic sequence data are also the object of intellectual property rights. The interplay between legal dimensions (1), (2) and (3) is explained: Personality rights constrain ownership rights, while the exploitation of intellectual property rights is constrained by both personality rights and ownership rights. All of these rights applicable to personal genomic sequence data should be acknowledged and harmonized for such data to be used effectively. Further reading Thaldar DW, Townsend BA, Donnelly D-L, Botes M, Gooden A, Van Harmelen J, Shozi B. The multidimensional legal nature of personal genomic sequence data: A South African perspective. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.997595 See also Thaldar DW, Shozi B. The legal status of human biological material used for research. South African Law Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9 Thaldar DW. Why POPIA does not apply to DNA. South African Journal of Science. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/11286 Funding This episode was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Dr Dusty-Lee Donnelly discuss the new data transfer agreement (DTA) template (beta version) that is now available for public comment. The DTA template (beta version) can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7110269 Comments can be emailed to healthlaw@ukzn.ac.za by no later than 15 November 2022. Funding This podcast was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Dr Bonginkosi Shozi discuss whether gamete (sperm and egg) donors in South Africa must be anonymous, or whether they can choose to disclose their identities. Summary South African gamete banks and gamete donation agencies do not offer open-identity donors, as it is generally believed that donors must, by law, be anonymous. We analyse South African legislation, regulations and case law to show that this belief is mistaken, and that gamete donation in South Africa can be anywhere on the spectrum between anonymous and known. Accordingly, open-identity gamete donation would be lawful in SA and can be offered to the public by South Africa gamete banks and gamete donation agencies. Further reading Thaldar DW, Shozi B. Is open-identity gamete donation lawful in South Africa? South African Medical Journal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2022.v112i6.16368 See also Thaldar DW, Shozi B. South Africa’s latest medically assisted reproduction draft regulations: close, but no cigar. Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2022/i1a1 Thaldar DW. The in vitro embryo and the law: The ownership issue and a response to Robinson. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2020/v23i0a6217 Shozi B. Something old, something new: applying reproductive rights to new reproductive technologies in South Africa. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1776632 Thaldar DW. Egg donors’ motivations, experiences, and opinions: A survey of egg donors in South Africa. PLOS ONE. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226603

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar discusses the question of whether POPIA (the South African Protection of Personal Information Act) applies to DNA. Summary Does DNA fall within the ambit of POPIA? Many people mistakenly think that it does because DNA contains genetic information. However, one must distinguish DNA from the genetic information that it contains. POPIA only applies to personal information that is entered in a record by or for a responsible party. Is genetic information entered in DNA by or for a responsible party? Clearly not – genetic information naturally occurs in DNA. Accordingly, POPIA does not apply to the genetic information as found naturally in DNA. POPIA will only start applying to the genetic information once it is sequenced and saved on a computer. Further reading Thaldar DW. Why POPIA does not apply to DNA. South African Journal of Science. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/11286 See also Thaldar DW, The legal status of human biological material used for research. South African Law Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9 Thaldar DW, Townsend B. Exempting Health Research from the Consent Provisions of POPIA. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a10420

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar discusses the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and personality with Meshandren Naidoo. Summary DABUS, a cognition-based AI, was recently listed as inventor in a South African patent. This caused controversy globally regarding the nature of inventorship status – can AI qualify as an inventor? Opponents to the position taken in South Africa have raised questions about (1) whether the matter was truly considered by the South African Patent Office; (2) whether AI inventorship is ethical, and (3) whether this patent means that AI now has legal personality. In this podcast episode, it is concluded that (1) the granting of the patent was intentional, (2) many of the ethical concerns raised are misplaced, and that (3) the granting of the patent does not mean that DABUS obtained legal personality. Further reading Thaldar DW, Naidoo M. AI inventorship: The right decision?. South African Journal of Science. 2021. https://sajs.co.za/article/view/12509 See also Naidoo M, Thaldar DW. Clearing the CRISPR patent landscape: Towards a solution for South Africa. South African Law Journal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i2a6 Naidoo S, Bottomley D, Naidoo M, Donnelly D, Thaldar DW. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Proposals for policy development in South Africa. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law. 2022. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2022.v15i1.797

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar discusses the issue of heritable human genome editing with Dr Bonginkosi Shozi and Ms Tamanda Kamwendo. Summary The global discourse on heritable genome editing is dominated by Western perspectives. We argue for a broadening of this discourse, pointing out the significance of differences in culture and context between countries. These differences illustrate the need for approaches to the governance of heritable genome editing that are open to a variety of perspectives, a point we make with reference to South Africa. We warn that failing to account for culture and context in developing global governance frameworks may lead to policies that amount to ethical imperialism. Further reading Thaldar DW, Shozi B, Kamwendo T. Culture and context: Why the global discourse on heritable genome editing should be broadened from the South African perspective. BioLaw Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.15168/2284-4503-2052 See also Thaldar DW, Townsend B, Botes M, Shozi B, Pillay S. A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol. PLOS ONE 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256097 Townsend BA, Shozi B. Altering the human genome: mapping the genome editing regulatory system in South Africa. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. 2021. https://journals.assaf.org.za/index.php/per/article/view/9179 Townsend BA. Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors. BMC Medical Ethics. 2020. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-020-00527-w Thaldar DW, Botes M, Shozi B, Townsend B, Kinderlerer J. Human germline editing: Legal-ethical guidelines for South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 2020. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/6760

In this podcast, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Dr Bonginkosi Shozi discuss the question of whether human biological material that is donated for research can be owned. Summary Can human biological material that is used for research be owned in South African law? The answer to this question is contested, but under-investigated. This situation leads to legal uncertainty for local scientists and their international collaborators. We argue that human biological material in the research context can indeed be owned. Their reasons are as follows: (1) Since South Africa’s common law is dynamic, it should recognise the reality that human biological material has become useful in the research context and therefore treat human biological material in this context as capable of being owned. This would be aligned with the general trend in comparative foreign case law. (2) The relevant South African statutes consistently use the term ‘donation’ to describe a situation where human biological material is provided by a research participant to a research institution for the purposes of research. Donation is a legal-technical term that entails transfer of ownership. Accordingly, whenever a research participant provides human biological material for a research project, it is a legal requirement that ownership be transferred to the receiving research institution. This clearly implies that human biological material that is used for research can be owned. Given (1) the common law position, and (2) the statutory position, there can be no doubt that human biological material that is used for research is indeed capable of being owned in South African law. Further reading Thaldar DW, Shozi B. The legal status of human biological material used for research. South African Law Journal 2021. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9

This is the Zulu version of the podcast titled "Why the genetic link requirement for surrogate motherhood is unjust" presented by Nomfundo Mthembu and discusses the issue of infertile people’s access to surrogate motherhood. Summary South African surrogacy law includes a provision, known as the genetic link requirement, that commissioning parents must use their own gametes for the conception of the surrogacy child. As a result, infertile persons who cannot contribute gametes for the conception of a child are prohibited from accessing surrogacy as a way to establish families. This is a clear violation of infertile persons’ right to family life, which includes the right to establish a family. The genetic link requirement has previously been the subject of a constitutional challenge that resulted in a divided Constitutional Court bench that rejected the challenge with a seven-to-four majority. This was an injustice to infertile persons. The genetic link requirement is now again being challenged in a new lawsuit. The new lawsuit presents an opportunity for this injustice to be rectified, and the equal rights of infertile persons to be vindicated. Further reading Thaldar DW. Infertility: ConCourt must right its egregious wrong. Sunday Times, 24 July 2022. https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/opinion-and-analysis/opinion/2022-07-24-infertility-concourt-must-right-its-egregious-wrong See also Thaldar DW. The Constitution as an Instrument of Prejudice: A Critique of AB v Minister of Social Development. Constitutional Court Review 2019. https://doi.org/10.2989/CCR.2019.0013 Thaldar DW. Post-truth jurisprudence: the case of AB v Minister of Social Development. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2018.1497124 Shozi B. Something old, something new: applying reproductive rights to new reproductive technologies in South Africa. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1776632

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar discusses the issue of infertile people’s access to surrogate motherhood. Summary South African surrogacy law includes a provision, known as the genetic link requirement, that commissioning parents must use their own gametes for the conception of the surrogacy child. As a result, infertile persons who cannot contribute gametes for the conception of a child are prohibited from accessing surrogacy as a way to establish families. This is a clear violation of infertile persons’ right to family life, which includes the right to establish a family. The genetic link requirement has previously been the subject of a constitutional challenge that resulted in a divided Constitutional Court bench that rejected the challenge with a seven-to-four majority. This was an injustice to infertile persons. The genetic link requirement is now again being challenged in a new lawsuit. The new lawsuit presents an opportunity for this injustice to be rectified, and the equal rights of infertile persons to be vindicated. Further reading Thaldar DW. Infertility: ConCourt must right its egregious wrong. Sunday Times, 24 July 2022. https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/opinion-and-analysis/opinion/2022-07-24-infertility-concourt-must-right-its-egregious-wrong See also Thaldar DW. The Constitution as an Instrument of Prejudice: A Critique of AB v Minister of Social Development. Constitutional Court Review 2019. https://doi.org/10.2989/CCR.2019.0013 Thaldar DW. Post-truth jurisprudence: the case of AB v Minister of Social Development. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2018.1497124 Shozi B. Something old, something new: applying reproductive rights to new reproductive technologies in South Africa. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1776632

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar discusses the meaning of ‘public interest’ in POPIA (the South African Protection of Personal Information Act) and its relevance to the research community. Summary ‘Public interest’ is an important concept in POPIA. The criteria for being in the public interest that emerged in our case law are: The ‘public’ can refer to any community in South Africa, such a community must benefit as a collective the benefit to the community can be indirect, and can coincide with direct benefit to an individual or a smaller section within the community. However, the way in which public interest has been interpreted by the Information Regulator deviates from these well-established criteria. This deviation by the Information Regulator is problematic and should be rectified. Further reading Thaldar DW. Research and the meaning of ‘public interest’ in POPIA. South African Journal of Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2022/13206 See also Thaldar DW, Townsend B. Exempting Health Research from the Consent Provisions of POPIA. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a10420 Townsend BA, Thaldar DW. Navigating uncharted waters: biobanks and informational privacy in South Africa. South African Journal of Human Rights. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1717366 Thaldar DW, Townsend B. Protecting personal information in research: Is a code of conduct the solution? South African Journal of Science. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/9490 This podcast was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Dr Dusty-Lee Donnelly discuss the meaning of ‘responsible party’ in POPIA (the South African Protection of Personal Information Act) and its impact on the research community. Summary In the research context, a ‘responsible party’ as contemplated in terms of POPIA is typically the research institution as well as the individual researcher involved. Given the potential civil liability that individual researchers could face, we suggest that the Code of Conduct for Research should place a duty on research institutions to indemnify their researchers from civil liability. While this measure will limit individual researchers’ personal financial risk in the extra-institutional legal sphere, it will in no way shield individual researchers from intra-institutional accountability and disciplinary action. Accordingly, we suggest that this measure strikes a fair balance. Further reading Swales L, Thaldar DW, Donnelly, D-L. Why research institutions should indemnify researchers against POPIA civil liability. South African Journal of Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2022/13205 See also Thaldar DW. Research and the meaning of ‘public interest’ in POPIA. South African Journal of Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2022/13206 Thaldar DW, Townsend B. Protecting personal information in research: Is a code of conduct the solution? South African Journal of Science. 2021 https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/9490 This podcast was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In this podcast episode, Professor Donrich Thaldar and Shiniel Naidoo discuss policy proposals to encourage artificial intelligence (AI) innovation in the South African healthcare sector. Summary Despite the tremendous promise offered by artificial intelligence (AI) for healthcare in South Africa, existing policy frameworks are inadequate for encouraging innovation in this field. Practical and solution-driven policy recommendations are needed to encourage the creation and use of AI systems. Our recommendations include the establishment of an ‘AI in healthcare reconciliation commission’ and making public sector health data accessible to spur on development of AI solutions. Further reading Naidoo S, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Proposals for policy development in South Africa. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 2022;15(1):11. http://www.sajbl.org.za/index.php/sajbl/article/view/721 See also Thaldar DW, Naidoo M. AI inventorship: The right decision? South African Journal of Science. 2021. https://sajs.co.za/article/view/12509 Townsend BA. Software as a medical device : critical rights issues regarding artificial intelligence software-based health technologies in South Africa. Tydskrif vir Suid-Afrikaanse Reg. 2020. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-2027da1d55 This podcast was made possible by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (award number U01MH127690) under the Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program. The content of this podcast is solely the responsibility of discussants of the podcast and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.