Science1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
A draft bill would make registration with SACNASP compulsory for practising natural scientists. Senior researchers told Nature they had not heard of it, or of the possible prison term.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
A draft South African bill dated 16 March would make registration with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) mandatory for some scientists, and would allow a sentence of up to a year in jail for practising natural scientists who do not comply [1][2][3]. Public comment closed in May, the bill is now headed for parliament with no date set for debate, and several senior researchers told Nature they had not known it existed [4][5][6].
The mechanism is not new, only the teeth. SACNASP was established in 2003 and all natural scientists in the country were supposed to register with it; many never did [7]. The draft repeals that 2003 legislation, clarifies the council's purpose and governance, and adds the possibility of a criminal record [3]. The stated aims are to "protect and promote the public interests by regulating the conduct of practising natural scientists" and "to ensure the protection of the environment" [8]. It would treat natural scientists as engineers and health professionals are already treated, with a compulsory register run by a statutory council [9].
The operational problem is the boundary. The text defines practising as "rendering of a service or provision of advice in the natural scientific profession", whether paid or free [10]. People who teach at a recognised educational institution, and those who develop natural-science policy for government, are exempt [11]. But the text does not make clear whether academics who teach or do research must register when they consult for or advise other organisations [12]. Read together, those clauses put unpaid advice inside the definition of practice while exempting the teaching that the same person does, and the bill does not resolve which side an academic consultant lands on [13]. There are also no precise details of the process for prosecuting scientists who fail to register [14]. A code of conduct is to be drawn up in consultation with scientists' representative organisations, which are themselves required to register [15].
SACNASP's acting chief executive, Matshidiso Matabane, told Nature that "our goal is not to be gatekeepers, but to professionalize the natural sciences through registration and regulation", adding that "it is our obligation to not only protect the profession itself, but the public and the environment" [16]. Nithaya Chetty, a physicist and dean of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, called it "a money-making scheme", said the draft "gives the SACNASP board considerable future power" and is ambiguous in its definitions, and had not heard of the bill until Nature raised it [17]. Lise Korsten, a plant scientist at the University of Pretoria and former president of the African Academy of Sciences, was unaware of the jail provision but supports accountability for scientists who consult, calling fraudulent "experts" a big problem for the country [18]. Neither is registered with SACNASP [17][18].
Full professional SACNASP membership costs 1,920 rand [19]. SACNASP referred Nature's questions about the bill to the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation, which had not responded by publication [20].
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Leading scientists told Nature that many researchers are unaware of the law, or of the possible penalty of a jail term.
It is not clear in the text whether academics who teach or do research need to register if they consult with or advise other organizations.
Under proposed South African legislation, it would be mandatory for some scientists to register with an existing body called the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP).
Natural scientists in South Africa could be imprisoned for up to a year for failing to register with the government-backed regulatory body, according to proposed legislation that is to go before parliament.
The text of the draft bill is dated 16 March; it repeals the previous 2003 legislation on SACNASP, clarifies the purpose and governance of the council, and introduces the possible penalty of a criminal record, with 'practising natural scientists' who do not comply liable to be sentenced to up to a year in jail.
Public comment on the bill closed in May, and it will now be presented in South Africa's parliament for debate, although the timeline is unclear.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Draft text plus named sources, single publisher
Claims rest on a dated draft bill quoted directly, an on-record statement from SACNASP's acting chief executive, and two named senior academics. But there is exactly one publisher, the bill text is not independently linked or corroborated, and the sponsoring department did not respond, so key questions of scope and enforcement stay unverified.
Established register, mandate not in force
A real register exists with about 21,000 members across 26 disciplines and a published fee schedule, but the compulsory regime is only a draft awaiting parliamentary debate, the 2003 obligation was widely ignored, and the share of unregistered scientists is unknown.
Slightly ahead of the legislative reality
The prison penalty is genuinely in the quoted draft, so the framing is not invented, and the article itself flags the unset debate date, missing prosecution process and definitional ambiguity. Still, presenting jail risk as an established consequence runs modestly ahead of a bill that has no parliamentary date, no enforcement mechanism and no government comment.
Fee-funded regulator expanding its mandate
Sources with clear stakes speak on both sides: SACNASP, funded by annual and one-off registration fees on a 21,000-member base, would gain compulsory intake and, per the draft, considerable board power; a dean who is unregistered calls it a money-making scheme; a consulting-active academic supports accountability against fraudulent experts. The department that would own the regime is silent, so the sponsor's incentive is undisclosed.
Solid on text, thin on outcome
What the draft says is reliably documented and attributed; what it will mean is not. One publisher, no sponsoring-department comment, no timeline, unresolved scope for academic consultants and no unregistered-population data keep confidence moderate.
science
Rydberg chain spectra match Ising CFT predictions, turning a simulator into an instrument1 distinct publisher
science
Pasqal's prompt-to-circuit agent still needs a physicist in the loop1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 18, 2026