Research imperialism resurfaces in South Africa in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic – this time, via a digital portal
Keymanthri Moodley
Abstract
Often, 'African researchers were left out of the full research process, invited to collaborate only as is useful for sample collection, but without any benefit of the research returning to support African researchers or infrastructure. What often resulted was a publication in a prestigious international journal (or a thesis or dissertation), authored by academics from the global north, replete with recommendations on how to do things better in Africa. Sometimes these foreign researchers were junior postgraduate students or research assistant. Mindful of the exploitative nature of such imperialistic research, the South African (SA) Ministry of Health, in its guidance on research, instituted measures to end safari research. The South African Good Clinical Practice (SAGCP) guideline made it mandatory that every biomedical research project had to be led by an SA principal investigator resident in the country and that all research in SA had to be approved by an SA research ethics committee (REC) registered with the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC). Both the SAGCP guideline and the research ethics guidance from the Department of Health are in the process of revision. It is important that these guidelines incorporate ethical and legal issues related to digital health research so that all South Africans - participants, clinicians, academics, REC members, regulators, researchers and medical journal/newsletter editors - are acutely aware of potential loopholes in the system, as has been exposed by the abortion study in the latest issue of Medical Brief. The NHREC plays an indispensable role in guidance development and dissemination, as well as in provision of oversight of RECs in SA.