South Africa’s proposed law could affect the future of the country’s young scientists.Credit: Alet Pretorius/Gallo Images/Getty
What do engineers, environmental-health officers and health-care workers have in common? These occupations 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.
South Africa’s scientists must register with official body or risk prison
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 an existing government-backed regulator called the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP). The text defines ‘practising’ as “rendering of a service or provision of advice in the natural scientific profession”, whether for remuneration or for free. Registration is not required, however, for people who teach at a recognized 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 (Nature 656, 804–805; 2026).
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 incentivize compliance without immediately threatening imprisonment. For instance, rule violations in health-care 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 organizations. 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 specialized 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.
