The Legal and Ethical Debate on Human Heritable Genome Editing (HHGE) in South Africa

The conversation around human heritable genome editing (HHGE) in South Africa is marked by controversy and conflicting interpretations of the law. At the center of this debate lies a team of lawyers based at a South African university, who have long championed a highly liberal stance toward reproductive technologies, including HHGE. Their assertions, however, have raised significant concerns among South Africa’s legal, ethical, and scientific communities.

Is heritable human genome editing already legal in South Africa?

This team has made the controversial claim that HHGE is already legal in South Africa – a position that has gained significant national and international outrage in recent days. As a non-lawyer, I have struggled to make sense of their argument which seems highly technical. Let me try to explain what I think they are saying.

Their argument seems to hinge on a specific interpretation of the National Health Act, which prohibits genetic modification for the purposes of reproductive cloning. They seem to argue that the term "reproductive" in the law should be read to refer to the purpose of the genetic manipulation – i.e. it is illegal to "clone" for reproductive purposes. However, they suggest that genetic manipulation — or by extension, HHGE — for a different purpose, such as a therapeutic purpose, falls outside the prohibition and is therefore permissible.

Most legal and scientific experts in South Africa, however, find this interpretation unconvincing. They consider that the meaning of "reproductive" in the law should be read to mean cloning with the intended outcome of a live birth. That is different from genetic manipulation for research purposes for instance – which is allowed in South Africa up to a point. In this interpretation, HHGE (as a form of genetic manipulation) is illegal under the current legislative framework.

The current law uses the term ‘cloning’ and genome editing is not a form of cloning: it does not involve creating a genetically identical copy of an organism, but rather it tries to precisely alter genetic sequences in an organism’s DNA. It is, however, a form of genetic manipulation.

A Broader Strategy at Play?

The current controversy hinges on how two words in the law should rightfully be interpreted – and the only way we will find clarity on this matter is when the issue is litigated all the way to the highest court. And perhaps this is precisely what is being prepared. One of the key figures driving the debate is a former court advocate turned academic. By publishing papers on Ubuntu philosophy, ethical principles, and public attitudes toward HHGE, this team may be constructing a narrative and evidence base that could support future legal challenges.

Public deliberation data from KwaZulu-Natal, for instance, claims that the participants are overwhelmingly in favour of HHGE - but there are methodological concerns with the study conducted. The broader academic consensus suggests these claims overstate public support and the permissibility of HHGE under current South African law.

The Need for Rigorous Scholarship and Public Engagement

Given the high stakes, this debate demands thorough scholarship and transparent public engagement. The introduction of HHGE carries profound implications for ethics, public trust, and the future of reproductive medicine in South Africa. While legal clarity will ultimately require litigation, it is essential that diverse voices—including ethicists, scientists, and legal scholars—contribute to the conversation now. Furthermore, it is equally important that entities like the Law Reform Commission - which have a formal mandate to engage the public in matters of legislative development and review - take up the charge and lead a formal process of legal review that every person in South Africa can participate in. Such a call is not new - for instance it was one of the recommendations of a consensus study report on the ethical, legal and social issues of human genome research and interventions, published by the South African Academy of Sciences in 2018. 

If the approach is indeed aimed at creating a legal pathway for HHGE, it is crucial that counterarguments, concerns, and alternative perspectives are formally documented and published. South Africa’s legal and ethical frameworks must reflect a careful balance between innovation and the safeguarding of public welfare, equity, and justice.

Why This Matters

HHGE is not merely a scientific issue—it is deeply entwined with questions of ethics, equity, and social justice. South Africa, as a country with a complex history of institutionalised racism, inequality and exploitation, must ensure that any advancement in genetic technologies does not reinforce existing disparities.

For those concerned about the potential future use of HHGE in South Africa, now is the time to speak up. Scholarly articles, public debates, and collaborative research efforts are essential to ensuring that the country’s approach to HHGE reflects its values and priorities.

The EthicsLab and other academic institutions have an important role to play in fostering critical dialogue and producing evidence-based insights. Together, we can ensure that the conversation around HHGE is grounded in care, justice, and the collective good.