[A2k] Le Monde Diplomatique: A new initiative at the WHO

[James Love]

http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/20wha

* Now the WHO will be setting up a new working group that will
include governments, as well as a number of observers and invited
experts and stakeholders, in order to create a medium-term framework
to identify R&D priorities, including methods and sources of funding.
Further decisions have yet to be made.

* Public health groups and some experts will be pushing for new open
source methods of conducting research, and new incentive systems that
reward innovations that improve health outcomes in developing
countries, which are not tied to marketing monopolies or high drug
prices. Big drug companies will lobby for measures that link high
prices for blockbuster drugs to R&D for neglected diseases.

*  This initiative is important. If we can create a global framework
that stimulates R&D in areas of medical priority and also promotes
access, we may be able to replace or "de-emphasise" global agreements
that simply raise drug prices.

http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/20wha

Le Monde Diplomatique
May 2006
A new initiative at the WHO
Prizes rather than prices
By James Love

May 30. =97 The World Health Organisation (WHO) has taken an important
step to reform the global system for supporting medical research and
development (R&D). The organisation=92s governing body has just passed
a new =97 hotly-debated =97 resolution to set up a new intergovernmental
working group that will immediately start work to "draw up a global
strategy and plan of action." This will include a new framework to
support sustainable, needs-driven, essential R&D work on diseases
that disproportionately affect developing countries.

The WHO=92s action is part of a larger effort to implement
recommendations from an extensive review of intellectual property
rules, by the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation
and Public Health (CIPIH). This commission was deadlocked on key
issues. Do we need new incentive system for medical R&D that is not
tied to high drug prices? Should the WHO back new global agreements
on medical R&D, addressing the setting priorities and sharing of
costs of such research? And should these new agreements supplement or
replace existing trade agreements on patents and drug prices?

For three years public health non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
and scientists pushed for the new paradigm for medical R&D. Big drug
companies pushed back, claiming the existing systems of strong patent
protection and market driven R&D priorities were working fine. The
United States aggressively opposed any discussion of R&D treaties or
agreements at the WHO. The CIPIH could not reach consensus on these
issues.

In January the governments of Kenya and Brazil proposed a bold new
WHO initiative to create a new global framework for essential health
R&D. The United States and the European Commission initially opposed
it. But at the WHO=92s general assembly meeting in May, the US split
with the big drug companies and the European Commission, and backed
the Kenya/Brazil proposal.

During the May negotiations, public health groups were gratified that
the US government (1) and some members of the Congress (2) had come
to see the logic and benefit of a multilaterial discussion of who
pays for essential R&D, given the increasing difficulty of pushing
for higher global drug prices in bilateral negotiations, the growing
US outlays for medicare part D, and the failure of other governments
to match the US outlays in projects such as the NIH backed research
in vaccines in AIDS and other global projects.What was as surprising
was the hard-line position taken by the European Commission (3),
which led to calls for a investigation of undue influence by industry
lobbyists. (4)

Now the WHO will be setting up a new working group that will include
governments, as well as a number of observers and invited experts and
stakeholders, in order to create a medium-term framework to identify
R&D priorities, including methods and sources of funding. Further
decisions have yet to be made.

Public health groups and some experts will be pushing for new open
source methods of conducting research, and new incentive systems that
reward innovations that improve health outcomes in developing
countries, which are not tied to marketing monopolies or high drug
prices. Big drug companies will lobby for measures that link high
prices for blockbuster drugs to R&D for neglected diseases.

This initiative is important. If we can create a global framework
that stimulates R&D in areas of medical priority and also promotes
access, we may be able to replace or "de-emphasise" global agreements
that simply raise drug prices.

More about James Love (http://mondediplo.com/_James-Love_)

Original text in English

(1) Bush Administration Plays Very Positive Role in UN Debate Over
R&D and Access to Medicine, The Huffington Post http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/bush-administration-plays_b_21714.html

(2) http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/who/59wha/congress05192006.pdf

(3) See http://www.cptech.org/rnd/ec-industry-compared-rnd.pdf

(4) http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2006-May/009618.html

* James Love is director of CPTech - www.cptech.org


English language editorial director: Wendy Kristianasen -
Le Monde diplomatique.

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton