A careful reading of the draft Natural Scientific Professions Bill, No 54325, dated 16 March 2026, suggests that there is potential for jail time for academics and researchers in the natural sciences if they do not register with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP).
I was first approached by the then-CEO of SACNASP, Dr Pradish Ramerpersad, in 2022, when he broached the subject of mandatory registration of natural scientists working in an academic or research environment. It was raised by the National Science Dean’s Forum with the then-director-general of the department of science and technology, who has since retired.
We did not hear back from SACNASP until a journalist brought the Bill to our attention in 2026 (see Nature 656, 804-805 (2026) and Nature 656, 794 (2026)).
I have gone through the Bill specifically looking for the provisions that could force a university academic to register with SACNASP before carrying out ordinary academic work. My reading is that the position is nuanced — the Bill expressly excludes university teaching from the definition of “practise” but it leaves an important ambiguity around academic research and other scientific work.
The key provision is section 1, which defines “practise” as rendering a service or providing advice in the natural scientific profession, whether for payment or free. Crucially, however, it then expressly states that this does not include “the teaching of natural sciences at a recognised educational institution in the Republic”. I understand it to mean that one would not need to register with SACNASP in order to teach physics at a university. The Bill deliberately carves teaching out of the regulated activity.
In Section 2, the registration requirement then says that the Act applies to “any person practising in any of the fields of practice”. Section 18(9) goes further: a person who is not registered “may not practise in any of the fields of practice”. Breaching section 18(9) is an offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment of up to 12 months or both.
The whole question turns to what counts as “practising”. The Bill does not expressly exempt:
- academic research;
- supervision of research students;
- publication of scientific research;
- running a university research laboratory;
- giving scientific advice arising from one’s academic expertise;
- participating in externally funded research;
- research collaborations with government or industry;
- being interviewed on radio or television to share an opinion; or
- writing, as I am doing, in the public media and so on.
Nor does it expressly say that the activities constitute practice. In fact, the word “academic” does not appear in the Bill and the substantive provision headed “Education, research and training” does not regulate academics; it principally gives SACNASP certain roles relating to qualifications, competency standards and higher education.
This creates a potentially serious drafting ambiguity.
If I am in my office developing quantum-mechanical theory, supervising a PhD student, publishing a paper or presenting my research at a conference, I would find it difficult to characterise that as “rendering a service or providing advice” within the meaning of the Bill. On the wording alone, pure academic research seems different from professional practice.
However, suppose a Wits geoscientist produces a groundwater assessment for a municipality, an environmental scientist gives a formal expert opinion to a company or a chemist certifies analytical results for an outside client. The activities look much more clearly like “rendering a service or providing advice” and could reasonably fall within regulated professional practice.
Why I would nevertheless be concerned: section 28 gives the SACNASP Board considerable future power. It requires the board, after consultation, to develop the “scope of work” and required competencies for the various fields of practice; the minister may then publish these in the Gazette and amend the prescribed fields of practice and categories of registration.
While the Bill does not say “all academics must register”, it potentially allows the detailed scope of regulated work to be determined later through regulations and ministerial notices. That is where universities should pay particular attention.
There is another striking point. The Bill expressly exempts people registered under several other professional statutes — engineering, architecture, quantity surveying, and so on — from SACNASP registration for natural science work incidental to those professions. Yet it contains no corresponding blanket exemption for university academics and researchers working at a national laboratory, for example, the South African Astronomical Observatory. The only explicit academic-type exemption is teaching.
In summary, the Bill means:
- Teaching at a university is clearly excluded and does not require registration;
- Ordinary scholarly research is not expressly regulated and probably should not constitute professional practice but the Bill does not say this explicitly;
- Professional or consultancy work is much more likely to fall within the Act; and
- The real danger is that future regulations defining “fields of practice”, “scope of work” and “competencies” could expand SACNASP’s reach unless academic research is expressly protected. The consequences are not trivial — once an activity is classified as “practice”, registration becomes effectively compulsory, and non-registration potentially becomes a criminal offence.
The South African government information page states broadly that anyone employed as a natural scientist, including in “academia”, [must register with SACNASP], creating more ambiguity and confusion.
There is a strong case for universities to request an explicit academic exemption, perhaps by amending the definition of “practise” to exclude teaching, academic research, postgraduate supervision and scholarly activity undertaken within a recognised higher education or public research institution, except where such activity constitutes the provision of professional scientific services to a third party.
Not permitting this exemption is to erode university autonomy, since universities have the right to employ whoever they deem fit in accordance with the academic criteria that they set. This also erodes academic freedom in ways that may prevent natural scientists from freely conducting their academic work.
A natural scientists’ academic exemption would preserve SACNASP’s legitimate role in regulating professional scientific services without placing the ordinary intellectual work of university scientists under a professional licensing regime.
I would be concerned about leaving this to interpretation or to regulations developed later. The distinction should be written into the primary legislation itself.
Professor Nithaya Chetty is dean of science at Wits University