Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries

This article responds to recent criticisms by Professor Jantina de Vries regarding my research group's position on the legal status of heritable human genome editing (HHGE) in South Africa. De Vries challenges our interpretation of section 57 of the National Health Act (NHA), questions the met...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Donrich Thaldar
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: North-West University 2025-05-01
Series:Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/21163
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849309600181911552
author Donrich Thaldar
author_facet Donrich Thaldar
author_sort Donrich Thaldar
collection DOAJ
description This article responds to recent criticisms by Professor Jantina de Vries regarding my research group's position on the legal status of heritable human genome editing (HHGE) in South Africa. De Vries challenges our interpretation of section 57 of the National Health Act (NHA), questions the methodology of our deliberative public engagement study, and speculates about the broader intentions behind our work. In this response, I clarify our interpretation of section 57 using established principles of statutory interpretation and show that the provision prohibits reproductive cloning but does not ban HHGE outright. I address misconceptions surrounding the scope and structure of the provision, and demonstrate why an interpretation that bans HHGE would result in internal inconsistency. I also defend the methodological soundness and peer-reviewed credibility of our public engagement research, and respond to concerns about our broader strategic intent. Finally, I propose a constructive path forward: a context-sensitive regulatory framework for HHGE grounded in constitutional values, public health priorities and rigorous ethical oversight. The article aims to re-centre the debate on substantive legal and governance issues and invites evidence-based academic engagement on the future of HHGE in South Africa. In doing so it contributes to a more principled and legally coherent foundation for regulating advanced biotechnologies in constitutional democracies.
format Article
id doaj-art-068b7fd5feaa4a52a4880a38c007fb6c
institution Kabale University
issn 1727-3781
language Afrikaans
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher North-West University
record_format Article
series Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
spelling doaj-art-068b7fd5feaa4a52a4880a38c007fb6c2025-08-20T03:54:02ZafrNorth-West UniversityPotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal1727-37812025-05-012810.17159/1727-3781/2025/v28i0a21163Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De VriesDonrich Thaldar0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-3490University of KwaZulu-Natal This article responds to recent criticisms by Professor Jantina de Vries regarding my research group's position on the legal status of heritable human genome editing (HHGE) in South Africa. De Vries challenges our interpretation of section 57 of the National Health Act (NHA), questions the methodology of our deliberative public engagement study, and speculates about the broader intentions behind our work. In this response, I clarify our interpretation of section 57 using established principles of statutory interpretation and show that the provision prohibits reproductive cloning but does not ban HHGE outright. I address misconceptions surrounding the scope and structure of the provision, and demonstrate why an interpretation that bans HHGE would result in internal inconsistency. I also defend the methodological soundness and peer-reviewed credibility of our public engagement research, and respond to concerns about our broader strategic intent. Finally, I propose a constructive path forward: a context-sensitive regulatory framework for HHGE grounded in constitutional values, public health priorities and rigorous ethical oversight. The article aims to re-centre the debate on substantive legal and governance issues and invites evidence-based academic engagement on the future of HHGE in South Africa. In doing so it contributes to a more principled and legally coherent foundation for regulating advanced biotechnologies in constitutional democracies. https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/21163health lawgenome editingNational Health Actpublic engagementstatutory interpretation
spellingShingle Donrich Thaldar
Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
health law
genome editing
National Health Act
public engagement
statutory interpretation
title Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
title_full Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
title_fullStr Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
title_full_unstemmed Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
title_short Clarifying Misconceptions and Recentring the Debate on Heritable Human Genome Editing in South Africa: A Response to De Vries
title_sort clarifying misconceptions and recentring the debate on heritable human genome editing in south africa a response to de vries
topic health law
genome editing
National Health Act
public engagement
statutory interpretation
url https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/21163
work_keys_str_mv AT donrichthaldar clarifyingmisconceptionsandrecentringthedebateonheritablehumangenomeeditinginsouthafricaaresponsetodevries