The idea of a data transfer agreement (DTA) template for the South African (SA) research community is receiving increasing attention. Whiledeveloping such a DTA template is certainly a worthwhile project, questions regarding the project’s practical execution should be addressed,including how to best operationalise the envisioned DTA template, and the content of the envisioned DTA template. It is proposed that anempowerment approach be followed in operationalising the envisioned DTA template, which is contrasted with the regulatory approachfollowed with the material transfer agreement (...) that the Minister of Health promulgated in 2018. While the regulatory approach would entailgovernment making the use of the envisioned DTA template compulsory regardless of the quality of such a template, the empowermentapproach, by contrast, entails a focus on developing a high-quality, professionally drafted DTA template for the SA research community andmaking the use thereof a matter of own choice. Regarding the content of the envisioned DTA template, four hot-button content provisionsare analysed, and it is argued that SA research institutions and researchers should be empowered to: (i) have clarity and legal certaintyregarding their ownership of data, where relevant; (ii) be able to commercialise their research findings without unnecessary contractualconstraints; (iii) avoid falling into the trap of unlawful benefit sharing with research participants; and (iv) be aware that their legal role asresponsible parties, where relevant, cannot be contracted out via a DTA. (shrink)

Background. South African surrogacy law includes a provision, known as the genetic link requirement, that commissioning parents must use their own gametes for the conception of a surrogate child. As a result, infertile persons who cannot contribute gametes for the conception of a child are prohibited from accessing surrogacy as a way to establish families. The genetic link requirement was previously the subject of a constitutional challenge, but the challenge was rejected by a divided Constitutional Court bench with a seven-to-four (...) majority. The genetic link requirement is again being challenged in a new lawsuit.Objective. In light of the history of the issue, this article investigates the viability of relying on infertile persons’ right to family life in the new lawsuit. Method. The investigation takes the form of a human rights analysis.Results. The right to family life was not considered in the previous case. As such, the right to family life constitutes a new legal issue that falls outside the scope of the precedent set by the Constitutional Court, and can therefore be relied upon. The genetic link requirement is a clear violation of infertile persons’ right to family life, which includes the right to establish a family. Potential justifications for such violation are considered, but found wanting. Accordingly, the genetic link requirement is unconstitutional and should be struck out.Conclusion. The outcome of the previous lawsuit was an injustice towards infertile persons. The new lawsuit presents an opportunity for this injustice to be rectified by vindicating infertile persons’ right to family life. (shrink)