Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32883298›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

South Africa's new standard material transfer agreement: proposals for improvement and pointers for implementation.

Donrich W Thaldar, Marietjie Botes, Annelize Nienaber

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Donrich W ThaldarSchool of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. ThaldarD@ukzn.ac.za.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-3490
Marietjie BotesSchool of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-6977
Annelize NienaberFaculty of Law, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4518-4312

Funding

National Research Foundation 116275University of KwaZulu-Natal African Health Research Flagship Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhenever South African (SA) research institutions share human biological material and associated data for health research or clinical trials they are legally compelled to have a material transfer agreement (MTA) in place that uses as framework the standard MTA newly gazetted by the South African Minister of Health (SA MTA). MAIN BODY: The article offers a legal analysis of the SA MTA and focuses on its substantive fit with the broader legal environment in South Africa, and the clarity and practicality of its terms. The following problematic aspects of the SA MTA are highlighted: (a) Where only data and no human biological material are transferred, the SA MTA does not apply, leaving a lacuna; (b) Health Research Ethics Committees are required to be parties to a MTA despite it being outside their legal mandate and undermining their oversight function; (c) the SA MTA's consent provisions are not aligned with extant law; and, similarly, (d) its provision on donor ownership is misaligned with extant law; (e) its creation of fictitious performance can only cause frustration on the part of an injured party; (f) its benefit-sharing provision is vague and will have little practical effect; (g) its dispute-resolution provisions fail to adequately protect South African research institutions and research participants; (h) it fails to provide substantive guidance regarding intellectual property as its provisions relating to intellectual property may cause practical problems; and, finally, (i) its data privacy provision is insufficiently specific, is overbroad, and fails to provide terms that in general would facilitate the international sharing of human biological material and associated data in terms of existing privacy law.

conclusionsWhile some of the problematic aspects of the SA MTA are intricate and require consultative processes with stakeholders and others, to develop comprehensive solutions, most of the problematic aspects can be resolved immediately through amendments by the South African Minister of Health. The formulation of such amendments is proposed and, where possible, interim measures are suggested that may ameliorate the problems presented by the SA MTA.

Indexed as

Intellectual PropertyTransfer AgreementEthics Committees, ResearchHumansOwnershipSouth AfricaBenefit-sharingConsentHuman biological materialIntellectual property rightsMaterial transfer agreementMTAPrivacyResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID32883298
PMCPMC7469330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.