From james.love@cptech.org Sat Oct 9 16:55:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E38829B6B for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2457 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2004 20:55:38 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 09 Oct 2004 20:55:38 -0000 Received: from 194.209.131.192 ([194.209.131.192]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 09 Oct 2004 20:55:38 -0000 Message-ID: <41685049.5070504@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] ULR for current drafts of treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat Oct 9 16:57:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:55:37 -0400 The most recent verison of the proposed treaties will be here: http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From Pierrechirac@aol.com Wed Oct 13 08:31:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from imo-m24.mx.aol.com (imo-m24.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.5]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF16A29B47 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Pierrechirac@aol.com by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id 8.c4.175fb7eb (4320) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:31:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierrechirac@aol.com Message-ID: To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10502 x-plaintext: Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Small and big treaties Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Oct 13 08:40:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:31:53 EDT -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Dear all, Thank you very much for the interesting proposals. I believe there is a lot of thinking behind this proposals, but I need some clarifications. 1- I would need a simulation to know how far we are today from the targets. My feeling is that many rich countries are already above the targets... 2- I understand that these proposals are complementary of the current system. Then their bigger interest (for me) is to secure minimal amount of effort devoted to needs which are not targeted enough (or at all) by the current system (mainly market oriented). This objective is not clear enough in the proposals. The secondary objectives (open access, tech transfer, etc.) should be presented as "bonuses". 3- The proposal is very precise on some aspects (how much to pay) and very vague on the target (vaccines, biomedical research, etc.). Of course this is very difficult to define the needs and priorities but I am not impressed by the groups of 12 people meeting every 1 of 2 years... 4- The allocation of money to specific projects is not mentioned at all. If we consider that the treaties fill a gap, why not defining a list (ARV-FDC pediatric formulations, heat stable insuline, and so on) and then set up tenders or auctions (for instance). 5- I am not at ease with the preambles mentioning "innovation" without defining it. We should proactively define what we mean by this word (not necessarily medicines, among medicines not necessarily new chemical entities, etc.). 6- The current proposal is not equitable enough because of threshold effect (you pay a very different share when you change of GDP category). I hope this is usefull and that I have not bored you with comments already made. Best Pierre Chirac MSF From th@sanger.ac.uk Wed Oct 13 18:03:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from smtp.sanger.ac.uk (smtp.sanger.ac.uk [193.62.203.215]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E07C29B47 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ssh.sanger.ac.uk ([193.62.203.55] helo=[10.0.1.2]) by intmail1.internal.sanger.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CHrCs-00078d-Nx; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:02:51 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: th@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Pierrechirac@aol.com, bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: Tim Hubbard Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] Small and big treaties content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 14 02:54:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:03:55 +0100 Dear Pierre, Here's my take on this. One of the key objectives of (at least) the big treaty, is to create a 'structure' to provide a worldwide, sustainable, evaluated, long term source of funding for medical research & development. By creating this structure we hope to (1) reduce/remove the need to spend time continuously chasing one-off money for research, especially for neglected diseases; (2) provide a mechanism for supporting research that is independent of sales, to remove the justification for non generic prices (so that new drugs are potentially available to all at marginal cost) and replace the market based selection of research targets with ones that are based on need. This is the reason that the treaty doesn't go into specifics, but instead concentrates on structures. >Thank you very much for the interesting proposals. >I believe there is a lot of thinking behind this proposals, but I need some >clarifications. >1- I would need a simulation to know how far we are today from the targets. >My feeling is that many rich countries are already above the targets... If you look at the all NIH spending + the faction of sales of drugs in the US that are reinvested in research, then total number is comparable to the 0.2 % GDP as listed in the treaty. However there is no way that this is being spent in a way that prioritizes research based on need, since the selection of research targets is so market dominated. Even if the treaty were not to greatly change the total amount of money in the system, the change in priorities will have a huge impact. >2- I understand that these proposals are complementary of the current system. >Then their bigger interest (for me) is to secure minimal amount of effort >devoted to needs which are not targeted enough (or at all) by the >current system >(mainly market oriented). This objective is not clear enough in the proposals. >The secondary objectives (open access, tech transfer, etc.) should be >presented as "bonuses". This is the objective, but to do it in a way that creates a long term solution. Part of that solution is to support capacity building everywhere. Open access and tech transfer are important aspects of this. >3- The proposal is very precise on some aspects (how much to pay) and very >vague on the target (vaccines, biomedical research, etc.). Of course this is >very difficult to define the needs and priorities but I am not >impressed by the >groups of 12 people meeting every 1 of 2 years... I agree that 12 people alone wouldn't be enough - the intention isn't clear in the text. The treaty is to specify formal decision making structures (this is of course only a draft) however the process of evaluating qualifying research in each country would of course require a substantial secretariat to organise and analysis data for the relevant committees. One thing I would specify here is that all data around the evaluation and the evaluation itself should be entirely open, so that any external organisation can if they wish carry out their own analysis - such mechanism (openness models) are good ways of keeping potentially bureaucratic structures honest. >4- The allocation of money to specific projects is not mentioned at all. If >we consider that the treaties fill a gap, why not defining a list (ARV-FDC >pediatric formulations, heat stable insuline, and so on) and then >set up tenders >or auctions (for instance). Again, the treaty is meant to be much more general than address specific gaps. Gaps change, so the idea to create a system that makes it less likely that they arise in future. Its meant to provide a long term mechanism such that there is money to fill whatever gaps are considered to exist, by whatever mechanisms are most successful (i.e. allowing competition between different funding approaches). >5- I am not at ease with the preambles mentioning "innovation" without >defining it. We should proactively define what we mean by this word >(not necessarily >medicines, among medicines not necessarily new chemical entities, etc.). I agree - I certainly wasn't assuming that 'innovation' implied purely drugs, but rather anything that improves world health. >6- The current proposal is not equitable enough because of threshold effect >(you pay a very different share when you change of GDP category). I guess this could be dealt with by a continuous scale, using average GDP figures within the 4 categories as anchor points, so there are no big jumps. Personally however I don't like the fact that there are variable GDP rates at all. I am sure this view is highly contentious - I guess it will be something to discuss in Geneva - the original outline in Jamie and my PLoS paper had a flat rate for all countries. In particular, I don't like the idea of any country paying zero basis point contributions. The argument in favour of variable rates is that the poorest countries have enough problems and shouldn't be expected to pay for this, but I think that one of the key objectives of this treaty is to put the commitment to support of local medical research on a secure footing in ALL countries. If would also be possible to design some cross subsidy mechanism, however I think sociologically its probably really important that everyone/every country feels they are both involved and contributing, rather than it being yet another rich country driven project. If its seen that all governments have treaty obligations to supporting research in their country then I think it will provide much needed security for individuals to spend their careers building up local capacity rather than leave for abroad. I don't think there is any country where there is absolutely no local research going on, but I think a universal treaty commitment would considerably strengthen the position of such institutes and their workers, which would in turn strengthen their voice in their countries for governments to do more for health in general. It goes without saying that local medical research will ensure local problems are not neglected and local medical solutions will get a chance to be developed and applied more widely. Best wishes, Tim -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Tim Hubbard email: th@sanger.ac.uk Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Tel (direct): +44 1223 494983 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus Tel (switch): +44 1223 834244 Hinxton Fax: +44 1223 494919 Cambridgeshire. CB10 1SA. URL: http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/th ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From james.love@cptech.org Thu Oct 14 01:48:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69ED129B33 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25049 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2004 05:48:29 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 14 Oct 2004 05:48:29 -0000 Received: from 217.56.73.209 ([217.56.73.209]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 14 Oct 2004 05:48:29 -0000 Message-ID: <416E132F.50206@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierrechirac@aol.com Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] Small and big treaties References: In-Reply-To: content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 14 02:54:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:48:31 -0400 Pierrechirac@aol.com wrote: 1- I would need a simulation to know how far we are today from the targets. > My feeling is that many rich countries are already above the targets... At present, all low income countries are probably above targets, and some middle and high income countries are below. One way to estimate, most countries spend around 1 percent of GDP on drugs. If firms reinvest 10 to 15 percent into R&D, they are now supporting something like 10 to 15 basis points of GDP on R&D this way, plus whatever else they spend on public sector R&D. > 2- I understand that these proposals are complementary of the current system. > Then their bigger interest (for me) is to secure minimal amount of effort > devoted to needs which are not targeted enough (or at all) by the current system > (mainly market oriented). This objective is not clear enough in the proposals. > The secondary objectives (open access, tech transfer, etc.) should be > presented as "bonuses". I think they are all important. > 3- The proposal is very precise on some aspects (how much to pay) and very > vague on the target (vaccines, biomedical research, etc.). Of course this is > very difficult to define the needs and priorities but I am not impressed by the > groups of 12 people meeting every 1 of 2 years... The WHO World Health Assembly meets once a year. The WHA Exective Board meets 2 times a year. But the Secretariat and various committees meet year round. In the WTO, the Ministerial meetings are about once every 18 months. The TRIPS council meetings more frequently. At WIPO, the General Assembly is once a year. Variouis Standing Committees meeting about once or twice a year. What you propose in terms of how frequently the governing bodies meet? > 4- The allocation of money to specific projects is not mentioned at all. If > we consider that the treaties fill a gap, why not defining a list (ARV-FDC > pediatric formulations, heat stable insuline, and so on) and then set up tenders > or auctions (for instance). These type of details do not go in a treaty. This is the type of thing the (big treaty) Committee on Priority Medical Research and Development would address. > 5- I am not at ease with the preambles mentioning "innovation" without > defining it. We should proactively define what we mean by this word (not necessarily > medicines, among medicines not necessarily new chemical entities, etc.). The whole point of the treaty is to support innovation. Otherwise, why spend any money as consumers or taxpayers on R&D? But the exercise will be more successful if we can initially limit its scope to something managable. Suggestions for definitions and scopes are really welcome. How would you do it? > 6- The current proposal is not equitable enough because of threshold effect > (you pay a very different share when you change of GDP category). Not equitable enough? You want the same rate for everyone? You want different rates? More income bands? > I hope this is usefull and that I have not bored you with comments already > made. Not bored with this topic at all. -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From peters@earlham.edu Thu Oct 14 14:44:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490B629B5C for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CRPB058.earlham.edu (h-67-100-157-190.mclnva23.covad.net [67.100.157.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9EIiNL4067421; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:44:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from peters@earlham.edu) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20041014121516.03024898@pop.earlham.edu> X-Sender: peters@pop.earlham.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: Peter Suber In-Reply-To: <416E9557.9000608@cptech.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20041014101024.0301fed0@pop.earlham.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20041014101024.0301fed0@pop.earlham.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.18 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.172 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] two thoughts on the "small" treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 14 15:09:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:42:55 -0400 Dear colleagues, Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend next week's meeting in Geneva on the Agreement on Priority Medical Innovation. But here are two thoughts on the discussion draft of the "small" treaty for those who will be able to attend. * My own work focuses on open access to scientific and scholarly research literature. See for example my Open Access Overview . Consequently, I'm delighted to see provision 8.1 in the small treaty calling on members to require open access to published articles based on publicly-funded research. I've been part of the effort to advance just such a policy in the United States, . If anyone at the upcoming meeting raises objections to provision 8.1, then I would welcome the chance to respond to the objections. If you've heard doubts or difficulties raised by others and wonder how well they can be answered, I would be happy to respond to them as well. If I can't participate in person, at least I want to offer this form of virtual participation. * The same provision 8.1 proposes to create a Committee on Open Access Publishing. I recommend that we remove the word "publishing" from the name of this committee. The concept in the treaty is to provide open access through archives or repositories, like PubMed Central, which is the right concept. Both friends and foes of open access, however, will understand the term "open access publishing" to refer to open-access journals (as opposed to archives or repositories). To mandate publishing publicly-funded research in open-access journals would mean either that conventional journals must change their business models (coercive and horrifying to them) or that we must launch many new open-access journals (expensive and time-consuming). Since the problem lies with the terminology, and not the substance, we could disarm many irrelevant objections, both from friends and foes, by changing the word early in the process. I don't have a preference for the new name, but one possibility is the Committee on Open Access to Publicly-Funded Research. Best wishes for next week, Peter ---------- Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.suber@earlham.edu 207-326-9482 From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 15 05:05:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9094729B47 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27504 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2004 09:05:30 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 15 Oct 2004 09:05:30 -0000 Received: from 217.56.73.209 ([217.56.73.209]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 15 Oct 2004 09:05:30 -0000 Message-ID: <416F92DE.9040207@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Pharmaceutical expenditures as share of Gross National Income - 2000 Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 15 05:07:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:05:34 -0400 If you take the World Bank GNI per capita data, and the WHO data on per capita pharmaceutical expenditures, you can calculate pharma expenditures as a share of national income. jamie Income above $20,000 1.16% > $10,000, < $20,000 1.24% > $5,000, < $10,000 1.51% (excluding mexico) > $1,000, < $5,000 1.37% > less than $1,000 1.23% COUNTRY_NAME Percentage of GNI Albania 0.70% Algeria 0.95% Angola 1.06% Antigua and Barbuda 1.59% Argentina 2.57% Armenia 1.76% Australia 1.22% Austria 1.26% Azerbaijan 0.33% Bahamas, The 0.76% Bahrain 0.69% Bangladesh 1.32% Barbados 1.63% Belarus 0.51% Belgium 1.27% Belize 1.03% Benin 0.51% Bhutan 0.39% Bolivia 1.31% Botswana 1.50% Brazil 1.66% Bulgaria 1.01% Burkina Faso 1.20% Burundi 1.82% Cambodia 3.93% Cameroon 1.55% Canada 1.44% Cape Verde 1.36% Central African Republic 1.43% Chad 1.00% Chile 0.96% China 2.38% Colombia 0.93% Comoros 1.32% Congo, Rep. 1.76% Costa Rica 1.10% Cote d'Ivoire 1.01% Croatia 1.58% Cyprus 2.33% Czech Republic 1.50% Denmark 0.68% Djibouti 1.57% Dominica 1.73% Dominican Republic 1.08% Ecuador 0.98% Egypt, Arab Rep. 1.41% El Salvador 2.25% Equatorial Guinea 1.00% Eritrea 2.22% Estonia 1.29% Ethiopia 0.91% Fiji 0.58% Finland 0.96% France 1.75% Gabon 1.06% Gambia, The 0.91% Georgia 1.13% Germany 1.30% Ghana 1.21% Greece 1.16% Grenada 1.40% Guatemala 1.47% Guinea 0.67% Guinea-Bissau 1.67% Guyana 1.16% Haiti 0.60% Honduras 2.67% Hungary 1.63% Iceland 1.38% India 0.67% Indonesia 0.88% Iran, Islamic Rep. 2.36% Ireland 0.73% Israel 1.02% Italy 1.67% Jamaica 1.59% Japan 1.49% Jordan 3.08% Kazakhstan 0.39% Kenya 2.00% Kiribati 0.61% Korea, Rep. 0.94% Kuwait 0.93% Kyrgyz Republic 1.79% Lao PDR 0.69% Latvia 2.59% Lebanon 3.20% Lesotho 0.73% Liberia 0.77% Lithuania 1.23% Luxembourg 0.67% Madagascar 0.40% Malawi 1.76% Malaysia 0.44% Maldives 0.94% Mali 1.25% Malta 1.90% Marshall Islands 1.36% Mauritania 1.03% Mauritius 1.22% Mexico 0.16% Moldova 0.26% Mongolia 0.77% Morocco 1.69% Mozambique 0.95% Namibia 0.91% Netherlands 0.80% New Zealand 0.96% Nicaragua 5.00% Niger 0.56% Nigeria 0.74% Norway 0.76% Oman 0.51% Pakistan 1.11% Panama 0.99% Papua New Guinea 1.34% Paraguay 2.89% Peru 1.12% Philippines 1.46% Poland 1.37% Portugal 1.95% Romania 1.49% Russian Federation 0.70% Rwanda 1.15% Saudi Arabia 0.92% Senegal 1.43% Seychelles 1.37% Sierra Leone 1.54% Singapore 1.23% Slovak Republic 1.84% Slovenia 1.32% Solomon Islands 0.45% South Africa 1.01% Spain 1.26% Sri Lanka 0.11% Sudan 1.21% Suriname 1.42% Swaziland 0.94% Sweden 1.10% Switzerland 0.96% Syrian Arab Republic 0.42% Tajikistan 0.56% Tanzania 0.37% Thailand 1.04% Togo 1.03% Tonga 1.33% Trinidad and Tobago 1.77% Tunisia 1.59% Turkey 1.95% Turkmenistan 1.09% Uganda 0.71% Ukraine 0.72% United Kingdom 1.00% United States 1.57% Uruguay 1.84% Uzbekistan 0.32% Venezuela, RB 0.97% Vietnam 2.37% Yemen, Rep. 1.90% Zambia 1.56% Zimbabwe 2.05% -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 15 05:52:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A10FC29B47 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15650 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2004 09:52:09 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 15 Oct 2004 09:52:09 -0000 Received: from 217.56.73.209 ([217.56.73.209]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 15 Oct 2004 09:52:09 -0000 Message-ID: <416F9DCE.1050009@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] list archives Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 15 05:55:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:52:14 -0400 Right now the list archives are private. It might be useful to make the archives public. However, this clearly makes our strategic discussions public. I am in favor of a public archive, because it is not realistic to think of these discussions that not being shared with industry and governments (they are all invited to participate in the Oct 22-24 event and on this list), and it allows a broader audience to follow thinking on this. What do people think? Jamie -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From rufus.pollock@okfn.org Fri Oct 15 07:41:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from sm1.matthewlloyd.net (sm1.matthewlloyd.net [67.19.124.106]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1E229B47 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpc1-cmbg6-6-0-cust94.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([81.104.213.94] helo=[192.168.1.100]) by sm1.matthewlloyd.net with asmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CIQSd-0004zo-7d; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:41:37 -0700 Message-ID: <416FB752.9080807@okfn.org> From: Rufus Pollock User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <416F9DCE.1050009@cptech.org> In-Reply-To: <416F9DCE.1050009@cptech.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 81.104.213.94 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rufus.pollock@okfn.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] list archives X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on sm1.matthewlloyd.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:06:07 +0200) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on sm1.matthewlloyd.net) content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 15 07:44:03 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:41:06 +0100 James Love wrote: > Right now the list archives are private. It might be useful to make the > archives public. However, this clearly makes our strategic discussions > public. > > I am in favor of a public archive, because it is not realistic to think > of these discussions that not being shared with industry and governments > (they are all invited to participate in the Oct 22-24 event and on this > list), and it allows a broader audience to follow thinking on this. > > What do people think? I support opening the archives since: 1. It is very unlikely that someone who wanted to follow these discussions would not be able to get hold of them even with the list private (and even pseudo-anonymously). 2. As you say openness will allow for broader participation and will set a good precedent for the conduct of these discussions Regards, Rufus From peters@earlham.edu Fri Oct 15 09:30:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED63429B47 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CRPB058.earlham.edu (h-67-100-157-190.mclnva23.covad.net [67.100.157.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9FDUeL6078973 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:30:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from peters@earlham.edu) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20041015092853.03010718@pop.earlham.edu> X-Sender: peters@pop.earlham.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: Peter Suber Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] list archives Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.18 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.172 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 15 09:36:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:29:11 -0400 I support a public archive as well. We should be able to find ways to communicate privately in the exceptional case when that is necessary. However, I'm new to the list and I don't know what's at stake in making previous postings public retroactively. If they were written on the assumption of privacy, then perhaps the public archive should start with future postings. Peter Suber At 12:41 PM 10/15/2004 +0100, you wrote: >James Love wrote: >>Right now the list archives are private. It might be useful to make the >>archives public. However, this clearly makes our strategic discussions >>public. >> >>I am in favor of a public archive, because it is not realistic to think >>of these discussions that not being shared with industry and governments >>(they are all invited to participate in the Oct 22-24 event and on this >>list), and it allows a broader audience to follow thinking on this. >> >>What do people think? > >I support opening the archives since: > 1. It is very unlikely that someone who wanted to follow these > discussions >would not be able to get hold of them even with the list private (and even >pseudo-anonymously). > 2. As you say openness will allow for broader participation and will > set a >good precedent for the conduct of these discussions > >Regards, > >Rufus From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 15 19:35:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C19829B6D for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15836 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2004 23:35:07 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 15 Oct 2004 23:35:07 -0000 Received: from 217.56.73.209 ([217.56.73.209]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 15 Oct 2004 23:35:07 -0000 Message-ID: <41705EB0.6030507@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] archives will be public Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 15 19:38:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:35:12 -0400 based upon comments, the archives of this will be public. jamie -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From rob@essential.org Sat Oct 16 20:05:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5084529B60 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F395FD09 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16620-05 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [216.15.52.248] (216-15-52-248.c3-0.nmex-ubr1.lnh-nmex.md.cable.rcn.com [216.15.52.248]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335905FD05 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4171B749.4050205@essential.org> From: Robert Weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Re: Article 11 big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun Oct 17 08:33:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:29 -0400 robert weissman wrote: > I think the concept is fine, but the frame should be a bit different. > > Treaties use lofty language before the detailed stuff. > > So I'd start with something saying: > > 11.1 The whole purpose of this treaty is to deal with R&D directly, and > through mechanisms broader than patents. (yes, I know this is earlier in > the treaty) B/c of the specificity of this treaty, and that it manifests > a different approach than other treaties with binding obligations which > relate to but are not directly concerned with R&D, countries agree that > members of this treaty will deal with R&D and patent-related questions > through this treaty, and not through other mechanisms. > > Then, next level: 11.2 Members agree to rely on mechanisms of this > treaty, not patent and related IP provisions in other treaty. > > Then, next level: 11.3 Specifically, what you have in Article 11 (at > least the Article references; you might put the general principle of no > resort to trade agreements for pricing disputes in 11.2. > > I'd also spend a few minutes thinking about the concept of "unilateral > trade polices" and find some other way to capture what you're getting > at. You want a broader prohibition than this, at least as an > aspirational principle. > > One thing that is missing from the current version -- and which a) you > definitely need; and b) which you need if the treaty is to displace > trade rules -- is an enforcement mechanism. Elements: > > 1. Who measures expenditures? Who audits the claims? > 2. What do countries do if they find a country is not upholding its > investment commitments? What is the dispute settlement system? > 3. What are the sanctions for noncompliance? > > Also missing, by the way, is a definitional section. > > I think a smart approach, if you haven't already, is to look at some > existing treaties to see if there are elements you are overlooking. I'd > start with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which I think is > structured very nicely. One element it has, not in your current draft, > are guiding principles. In a way more meaningful than an objective > section, I think they will help establish interpretive rules over time. > > Other recent treaties worth checking are: Persistent Organic Pollutants > (POPS), maybe Kyoto Protocol, Basel Convention (ban on hazardous waste > trade), landmine ban, maybe CITES (species protection), and the > Convention on Biological Diversity. > > Sorry I can't be there to help. Things are pretty demanding here, though. > > James Love wrote: > >> Rob, can you tell me what you think or suggestion for Article 11 of this? >> >> Jamie >> > > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From james.love@cptech.org Sun Oct 17 08:32:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E2AA29B0F for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25259 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2004 12:32:11 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 17 Oct 2004 12:32:11 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 17 Oct 2004 12:32:11 -0000 Message-ID: <41726653.7080108@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] hollis paper on prizes for pharma innovation Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun Oct 17 08:34:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:19 -0400 Some people may find Aidan Hollis'research on pharma prizes interesting and relevant to the trade framework for R&D. Here is a recent draft. He is happy to have comments and criticisms. Jamie http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/pharmprizehollis10oct04.pdf -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From james.love@cptech.org Sun Oct 17 10:15:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CECF29B4E for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 16622 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2004 14:15:58 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 17 Oct 2004 14:15:58 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 17 Oct 2004 14:15:58 -0000 Message-ID: <41727EA6.7020409@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Weissman Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <4171B749.4050205@essential.org> In-Reply-To: <4171B749.4050205@essential.org> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Article 11 big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun Oct 17 10:20:03 2004 X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:16:06 -0400 It would be good if someone would try a rewrite of Article 11. Rob, do you have time for this? Jamie Robert Weissman wrote: > robert weissman wrote: > >> I think the concept is fine, but the frame should be a bit different. >> >> Treaties use lofty language before the detailed stuff. >> >> So I'd start with something saying: >> >> 11.1 The whole purpose of this treaty is to deal with R&D directly, and >> through mechanisms broader than patents. (yes, I know this is earlier in >> the treaty) B/c of the specificity of this treaty, and that it manifests >> a different approach than other treaties with binding obligations which >> relate to but are not directly concerned with R&D, countries agree that >> members of this treaty will deal with R&D and patent-related questions >> through this treaty, and not through other mechanisms. >> >> Then, next level: 11.2 Members agree to rely on mechanisms of this >> treaty, not patent and related IP provisions in other treaty. >> >> Then, next level: 11.3 Specifically, what you have in Article 11 (at >> least the Article references; you might put the general principle of no >> resort to trade agreements for pricing disputes in 11.2. >> >> I'd also spend a few minutes thinking about the concept of "unilateral >> trade polices" and find some other way to capture what you're getting >> at. You want a broader prohibition than this, at least as an >> aspirational principle. >> >> One thing that is missing from the current version -- and which a) you >> definitely need; and b) which you need if the treaty is to displace >> trade rules -- is an enforcement mechanism. Elements: >> >> 1. Who measures expenditures? Who audits the claims? >> 2. What do countries do if they find a country is not upholding its >> investment commitments? What is the dispute settlement system? >> 3. What are the sanctions for noncompliance? >> >> Also missing, by the way, is a definitional section. >> >> I think a smart approach, if you haven't already, is to look at some >> existing treaties to see if there are elements you are overlooking. I'd >> start with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which I think is >> structured very nicely. One element it has, not in your current draft, >> are guiding principles. In a way more meaningful than an objective >> section, I think they will help establish interpretive rules over time. >> >> Other recent treaties worth checking are: Persistent Organic Pollutants >> (POPS), maybe Kyoto Protocol, Basel Convention (ban on hazardous waste >> trade), landmine ban, maybe CITES (species protection), and the >> Convention on Biological Diversity. >> >> Sorry I can't be there to help. Things are pretty demanding here, though. >> >> James Love wrote: >> >>> Rob, can you tell me what you think or suggestion for Article 11 of >>> this? >>> >>> Jamie >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > James Love | Consumer Project on Technology > http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 > voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From Pierrechirac@aol.com Mon Oct 18 05:34:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com (imo-m14.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.204]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0948829B0F for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:34:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Pierrechirac@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id 8.102.51f70d8c (25711) for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:34:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierrechirac@aol.com Message-ID: <102.51f70d8c.2ea4e826@aol.com> To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5003 x-plaintext: Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 05:56:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:34:30 EDT -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Dear all, Following the discussion we had last week about the levels of contribution, I agree with Tim that everybody should participate but disagree with adopting a same level for everybody. Progressivity of tax (the richest you are the more (in relative and absolute terms) you pay) is considered as favouring social justice because it has a redistributive effect. This principle is used in many countries I believe for income taxes and can be measured by Lorenz curb and Gini coefficient. I believe the financial contribution to the Treaty should follow standard social justice principles with a progressive contribution. Avoiding threshold effect (which is not equitable) would need to adopt a formula more complicated than a single % (like the one we have in France for income taxes...). I am sure the distinguished economists in this list will give this very easily... Best Pierre Chirac MSF From james.love@cptech.org Mon Oct 18 06:38:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D8E429B0F for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24201 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2004 10:38:03 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 18 Oct 2004 10:38:02 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 18 Oct 2004 10:38:02 -0000 Message-ID: <41739D14.1040209@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierrechirac@aol.com Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels References: <102.51f70d8c.2ea4e826@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <102.51f70d8c.2ea4e826@aol.com> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 06:43:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:38:12 -0400 Pierre, Writing an equation is easy. Knowing what the values should be is hard. Assuming we want to have a formula provide a graduated change between high and low percentages (I'm not convinced this is a better approach, but let's consider it), we need to know how high is the maximum and how low is the minimum, and have a notion of the relative difference between four very different bands of countries. high (US, Europe, Australia, etc) middle high (Malaysia, Chile, etc) middle low (Brazil, Jordan, etc) low (Uganda, Vietnam, etc). Right now each group has been assigned a value. Tim thinks it is a mistake to set zero for the countries with low incomes, and indeed, he likes a fixed percentage of income for everyone. I'm inclined to think of a graduated scale. For me, it should not be too graduated... probably less than in the current spreadsheet. I think also that for Pierre, some evidence that the rate is progressive has a symbolic and qualitative importance, regardless of the empirical nature of the rate. I would suggest the following. 1. All high income countries at the top rate. 2. All low income countries at one quarter the top rate. 3. For all countries that are middle income, the rate would be in between, but I would have to think about how the in between rates would be done. It can't be too low for the middle income countries (one of the two important groups, economically), or the whole thing is not interesting to serious trading partners. I'm not interested in a symbolic moral statement, but in building a viable trade framework that we can sell North and South. It seems to me, the high middle income countries cannot have a rate that is lower than half the high income rate, and for me, it should be more like 2/3 of the high income rate. I could see 1/2 the high income rate for the low middle income countries. If we agree on these general magnitudes, one can do the equations to map this into a rate for every country. However, I do not think having infinitely different rates for most countries as a plus. I personally think a more simple system has advantages. These are minimum R&D expenditures, after all. I would hope countries would do more than the minimum. Jamie Pierrechirac@aol.com wrote: > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > Dear all, > Following the discussion we had last week about the levels of contribution, > I agree with Tim that everybody should participate but disagree with adopting > a same level for everybody. > Progressivity of tax (the richest you are the more (in relative and absolute > terms) you pay) is considered as favouring social justice because it has a > redistributive effect. This principle is used in many countries I believe for > income taxes and can be measured by Lorenz curb and Gini coefficient. > I believe the financial contribution to the Treaty should follow standard > social justice principles with a progressive contribution. Avoiding threshold > effect (which is not equitable) would need to adopt a formula more complicated > than a single % (like the one we have in France for income taxes...). I am > sure the distinguished economists in this list will give this very easily... > Best > Pierre Chirac > MSF > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From nicka@immf.net Mon Oct 18 07:40:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from smtp.aaisp.net.uk (B.painless.aaisp.net.uk [81.187.81.52]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC16C29B45 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [81.2.104.59] (helo=nashtondesk) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CJVs6-0006Mm-9g for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:40:15 +0100 From: "Nick Ashton-Hart" To: Subject: RE: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcS1Bzq2yc/G4yQSQWS0IcNCaWwfQw== In-Reply-To: <41739D14.1040209@cptech.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-Id: <20041018114015.CC16C29B45@lists.essential.org> x-plaintext: Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 09:35:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:40:13 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] At the risk of seeming foolish since I've jumped into this discussion in the middle, I'd make two points (if everyone knows this please accept my apologies in advance): 1) A graduated system is what is currently used to fund the UN Secretariat - and so would be easily sold as a principle. 2) Perhaps the calculation system which is used for the above purpose could be employed for this one? It is rather complex, but was the outcome of extensive negotiations over an extended period. It may provide the benefit of being hard for member states to find fault with - since it is how they are currently "paying their dues". For further information about the current assessment, see General Assembly Resolution A/RES/58/1B. Click here to go directly to it: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/237/80/PDF/N0423780.pdf?OpenEleme nt In case you don't know, it will I'm sure not surprise you to hear that the scale of assessments of member-states for the regular UN biennial budget is a subject of endless wrangling, and the scale changes every several years. There is a separate scale for the funding of peacekeeping operations. If one were to use this system as the funding mechanism for "our" treaty, I think mechanically one would want the treaty to simply make reference to using the then-currently-agreed scale. It has an additional benefit - as positive innovations in UN funding are agreed over the course of time, the R&D funding mechanism benefits from it. It may not be something which could be directly "lifted" for our purposes but could be the founding basis upon which the R&D calculations are based, perhaps? Any thoughts? If this has all been thought of an rejected previously, my apologies. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart -----Original Message----- From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org] Sent: 18 October 2004 11:38 To: Pierrechirac@aol.com Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels Pierre, Writing an equation is easy. Knowing what the values should be is hard. Assuming we want to have a formula provide a graduated change between high and low percentages (I'm not convinced this is a better approach, but let's consider it), we need to know how high is the maximum and how low is the minimum, and have a notion of the relative difference between four very different bands of countries. high (US, Europe, Australia, etc) middle high (Malaysia, Chile, etc) middle low (Brazil, Jordan, etc) low (Uganda, Vietnam, etc). Right now each group has been assigned a value. Tim thinks it is a mistake to set zero for the countries with low incomes, and indeed, he likes a fixed percentage of income for everyone. I'm inclined to think of a graduated scale. For me, it should not be too graduated... probably less than in the current spreadsheet. I think also that for Pierre, some evidence that the rate is progressive has a symbolic and qualitative importance, regardless of the empirical nature of the rate. I would suggest the following. 1. All high income countries at the top rate. 2. All low income countries at one quarter the top rate. 3. For all countries that are middle income, the rate would be in between, but I would have to think about how the in between rates would be done. It can't be too low for the middle income countries (one of the two important groups, economically), or the whole thing is not interesting to serious trading partners. I'm not interested in a symbolic moral statement, but in building a viable trade framework that we can sell North and South. It seems to me, the high middle income countries cannot have a rate that is lower than half the high income rate, and for me, it should be more like 2/3 of the high income rate. I could see 1/2 the high income rate for the low middle income countries. If we agree on these general magnitudes, one can do the equations to map this into a rate for every country. However, I do not think having infinitely different rates for most countries as a plus. I personally think a more simple system has advantages. These are minimum R&D expenditures, after all. I would hope countries would do more than the minimum. Jamie Pierrechirac@aol.com wrote: > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > Dear all, > Following the discussion we had last week about the levels of contribution, > I agree with Tim that everybody should participate but disagree with adopting > a same level for everybody. > Progressivity of tax (the richest you are the more (in relative and absolute > terms) you pay) is considered as favouring social justice because it has a > redistributive effect. This principle is used in many countries I believe for > income taxes and can be measured by Lorenz curb and Gini coefficient. > I believe the financial contribution to the Treaty should follow standard > social justice principles with a progressive contribution. Avoiding threshold > effect (which is not equitable) would need to adopt a formula more complicated > than a single % (like the one we have in France for income taxes...). I am > sure the distinguished economists in this list will give this very easily... > Best > Pierre Chirac > MSF > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 _______________________________________________ Bellagio-rnd mailing list Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd -- From rob@essential.org Mon Oct 18 11:45:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC98329B3E for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8677D5FD13 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 13941-01-10 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BE95FD05 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4173E505.9030304@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels References: <20041018114015.CC16C29B45@lists.essential.org> In-Reply-To: <20041018114015.CC16C29B45@lists.essential.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 11:50:06 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:45:09 -0400 I think the system should be graduated, in part b/c current spending is in fact graduated. If we go for either a flat rate, then either the low end countries have a sudden burden to do a lot more than what they are now doing, or the high end countries are free to do a lot less than they are now doing. Maybe Jamie's data on drug expenditures counteract this point, but it is surely true when looking at UNESCO data on actual expenditures on R&D (all R&D, not just healthcare). My inclination would be that the number for LDCs should be zero. Remember, the Doha Declaration gives them the right not to enforce patents on medicines, so their obligation under the status quo is effectively zero. I think the zero number also makes more sense in light of the fact that these countries now spend basically nothing on R&D -- not good policy, for sure, and we'd like to encourage more, but I don't think the treaty-making effort should be muddled by forcing this policy on them, when what's really at stake doesn't involve these countries. Relatedly, and for these reasons, I think zero is smarter politically, too. Against this line of reasoning are already-existing commitments by LDCs to increase spending on R&D. See: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2004-August/006858.html Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > At the risk of seeming foolish since I've jumped into this discussion in the > middle, I'd make two points (if everyone knows this please accept my > apologies in advance): > > > > 1) A graduated system is what is currently used to fund the UN Secretariat - > and so would be easily sold as a principle. > > > > 2) Perhaps the calculation system which is used for the above purpose could > be employed for this one? It is rather complex, but was the outcome of > extensive negotiations over an extended period. It may provide the benefit > of being hard for member states to find fault with - since it is how they > are currently "paying their dues". > > > > For further information about the current assessment, see General Assembly > Resolution A/RES/58/1B. Click here to go directly to it: > http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/237/80/PDF/N0423780.pdf?OpenEleme > nt > > In case you don't know, it will I'm sure not surprise you to hear that the > scale of assessments of member-states for the regular UN biennial budget is > a subject of endless wrangling, and the scale changes every several years. > There is a separate scale for the funding of peacekeeping operations. > > If one were to use this system as the funding mechanism for "our" treaty, I > think mechanically one would want the treaty to simply make reference to > using the then-currently-agreed scale. It has an additional benefit - as > positive innovations in UN funding are agreed over the course of time, the > R&D funding mechanism benefits from it. It may not be something which could > be directly "lifted" for our purposes but could be the founding basis upon > which the R&D calculations are based, perhaps? > > > Any thoughts? If this has all been thought of an rejected previously, my > apologies. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org] > Sent: 18 October 2004 11:38 > To: Pierrechirac@aol.com > Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] minimal levels > > > > Pierre, > > > > Writing an equation is easy. Knowing what the values should be is hard. > > > > Assuming we want to have a formula provide a graduated change between > > high and low percentages (I'm not convinced this is a better approach, > > but let's consider it), we need to know how high is the maximum and how > > low is the minimum, and have a notion of the relative difference between > > four very different bands of countries. > > > > high (US, Europe, Australia, etc) > > middle high (Malaysia, Chile, etc) > > middle low (Brazil, Jordan, etc) > > low (Uganda, Vietnam, etc). > > > > Right now each group has been assigned a value. Tim thinks it is a > > mistake to set zero for the countries with low incomes, and indeed, he > > likes a fixed percentage of income for everyone. I'm inclined to think > > of a graduated scale. For me, it should not be too graduated... > > probably less than in the current spreadsheet. > > > > I think also that for Pierre, some evidence that the rate is progressive > > has a symbolic and qualitative importance, regardless of the empirical > > nature of the rate. I would suggest the following. > > > > 1. All high income countries at the top rate. > > 2. All low income countries at one quarter the top rate. > > 3. For all countries that are middle income, the rate would be in > > between, but I would have to think about how the in between rates would > > be done. > > > > It can't be too low for the middle income countries (one of the two > > important groups, economically), or the whole thing is not interesting > > to serious trading partners. I'm not interested in a symbolic moral > > statement, but in building a viable trade framework that we can sell > > North and South. It seems to me, the high middle income countries > > cannot have a rate that is lower than half the high income rate, and for > > me, it should be more like 2/3 of the high income rate. I could see 1/2 > > the high income rate for the low middle income countries. > > > > If we agree on these general magnitudes, one can do the equations to map > > this into a rate for every country. However, I do not think having > > infinitely different rates for most countries as a plus. I personally > > think a more simple system has advantages. These are minimum R&D > > expenditures, after all. I would hope countries would do more than the > > minimum. > > > > Jamie > > > > > > Pierrechirac@aol.com wrote: > > > > >>-- > > >>[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > >>Dear all, > > >>Following the discussion we had last week about the levels of > > contribution, > > >>I agree with Tim that everybody should participate but disagree with > > adopting > > >>a same level for everybody. > > >>Progressivity of tax (the richest you are the more (in relative and > > absolute > > >>terms) you pay) is considered as favouring social justice because it has > > a > > >>redistributive effect. This principle is used in many countries I believe > > for > > >>income taxes and can be measured by Lorenz curb and Gini coefficient. > > >>I believe the financial contribution to the Treaty should follow standard > > >>social justice principles with a progressive contribution. Avoiding > > threshold > > >>effect (which is not equitable) would need to adopt a formula more > > complicated > > >>than a single % (like the one we have in France for income taxes...). I am > > >>sure the distinguished economists in this list will give this very > > easily... > > >>Best > > >>Pierre Chirac > > >>MSF > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Bellagio-rnd mailing list > > >>Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > > >>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > > > > > > > > -- > > James Love | Consumer Project on Technology > > http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org > > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 > > voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 > > _______________________________________________ > > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > From james.love@cptech.org Mon Oct 18 11:59:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from questmail.futurequest.net (questmail.futurequest.net [69.5.6.251]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8A8B29B3E for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 7866 invoked by uid 12315); 18 Oct 2004 15:59:33 -0000 Received: from 198.151.217.101 (SquirrelMail authenticated user james.love@cptech.org); by QuestMail.FutureQuest.net with HTTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <56153.198.151.217.101.1098115173.squirrel@198.151.217.101> From: "James Love" To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Reply-To: james.love@cptech.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] What constitutes support for R&D - related to minimal levels Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 12:01:12 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:59:33 -0400 (EDT) There is an important misunderstanding on how one could meet their required levels of support for R&D. Merely buying products is considered funding R&D, if the firms you buy from invest in R&D. Low income countries are about the same as high income countries, and in many cases, much higher, in terms of the share of GDP spent on covered products (drugs). Thus, they are already doing a lot. The fact that R&D is done in the US or Europe rather than in the developinng country is not important, what is important is where the market is for the products that funds the R&D. In this sense, a constant rate is in fact realistic. However, that said, I'm fine on a progressive rate. Jamie robert weissman wrote: > I think the system should be graduated, in part b/c current spending is > in fact graduated. If we go for either a flat rate, then either the low > end countries have a sudden burden to do a lot more than what they are > now doing, or the high end countries are free to do a lot less than they > are now doing. Maybe Jamie's data on drug expenditures counteract this > point, but it is surely true when looking at UNESCO data on actual > expenditures on R&D (all R&D, not just healthcare). > > My inclination would be that the number for LDCs should be zero. > Remember, the Doha Declaration gives them the right not to enforce > patents on medicines, so their obligation under the status quo is > effectively zero. > > I think the zero number also makes more sense in light of the fact that > these countries now spend basically nothing on R&D -- not good policy, > for sure, and we'd like to encourage more, but I don't think the > treaty-making effort should be muddled by forcing this policy on them, > when what's really at stake doesn't involve these countries. > > Relatedly, and for these reasons, I think zero is smarter politically, too. > > Against this line of reasoning are already-existing commitments by LDCs > to increase spending on R&D. See: > > http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2004-August/006858.html > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love@cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 From walgate@realhealthnews.net Mon Oct 18 12:22:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (mailhost2.dircon.co.uk [194.112.32.66]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33F829B4E for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [195.157.220.106] (unknown [195.157.220.106]) by mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFF460975E for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:22:53 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 From: Robert Walgate To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] LIC's proxy R&D expenditure Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 13:01:05 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:52 +0100 Interesting point! Given multinationals claim drug prices are high largely to cover their R&D costs (recently escalated, I see on ip-health, to $1.7 bn per registered product - see http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Marketing/rebuilding_big_pharma.pdf), by this argument most of low-income countries' total spending on proprietary drugs could be said to be spent on multinational drug R&D. I presume this is small as the the companies consider the poor countries a small market, but I can't immediately put a number on it. Does anyone know the figure? Jamie? Robert Walgate Jamie Love wrote: > There is an important misunderstanding on how one could meet their > required levels of support for R&D. Merely buying products is considered > funding R&D, if the firms you buy from invest in R&D. > > Low income countries are about the same as high income countries, and in > many cases, much higher, in terms of the share of GDP spent on covered > products (drugs). Thus, they are already doing a lot. The fact that R&D > is done in the US or Europe rather than in the developinng country is not > important, what is important is where the market is for the products that > funds the R&D. In this sense, a constant rate is in fact realistic. > However, that said, I'm fine on a progressive rate. > > Jamie From rob@essential.org Mon Oct 18 12:45:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C86C29B40 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4534A5FD13; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15190-02; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88CE5FD05; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4173F317.3010607@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: james.love@cptech.org Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] What constitutes support for R&D - related to minimal levels References: <56153.198.151.217.101.1098115173.squirrel@198.151.217.101> In-Reply-To: <56153.198.151.217.101.1098115173.squirrel@198.151.217.101> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 13:01:07 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:45:11 -0400 I get the point. I wasn't able to quickly find Jamie's table on drug purchases as a portion of GDP. Does it show relative constant percentage even for LDCs? I can't recall. In any case, if an LDC which funds R&D only indirectly, through drug purchases from overseas companies, moves to a no-patent regime and starts buying products from generic firms with low levels of R&D investment, then they'd have to make up the difference. This is going to seem a very different exercise for a mid level country with a nascent R&D complex, than it is for an LDC currently doing no domestic R&D. Also, don't lose the point about the Doha Declaration Para 7. Even if poor countries are now supporting R&D through purchases of patented medicines, they are not required to respect those patents. So their effective R&D obligation under the status quo is zero, even if their current payment for R&D is not. James Love wrote: > There is an important misunderstanding on how one could meet their > required levels of support for R&D. Merely buying products is considered > funding R&D, if the firms you buy from invest in R&D. > > Low income countries are about the same as high income countries, and in > many cases, much higher, in terms of the share of GDP spent on covered > products (drugs). Thus, they are already doing a lot. The fact that R&D > is done in the US or Europe rather than in the developinng country is not > important, what is important is where the market is for the products that > funds the R&D. In this sense, a constant rate is in fact realistic. > However, that said, I'm fine on a progressive rate. > > Jamie > > robert weissman wrote: > >>I think the system should be graduated, in part b/c current spending is >>in fact graduated. If we go for either a flat rate, then either the low >>end countries have a sudden burden to do a lot more than what they are >>now doing, or the high end countries are free to do a lot less than they >>are now doing. Maybe Jamie's data on drug expenditures counteract this >>point, but it is surely true when looking at UNESCO data on actual >>expenditures on R&D (all R&D, not just healthcare). >> >>My inclination would be that the number for LDCs should be zero. >>Remember, the Doha Declaration gives them the right not to enforce >>patents on medicines, so their obligation under the status quo is >>effectively zero. >> >>I think the zero number also makes more sense in light of the fact that >>these countries now spend basically nothing on R&D -- not good policy, >>for sure, and we'd like to encourage more, but I don't think the >>treaty-making effort should be muddled by forcing this policy on them, >>when what's really at stake doesn't involve these countries. >> >>Relatedly, and for these reasons, I think zero is smarter politically, too. >> >>Against this line of reasoning are already-existing commitments by LDCs >>to increase spending on R&D. See: >> >>http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2004-August/006858.html >> >>Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > > > > -- > James Love > http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love@cptech.org > mobile +1.202.361.3040 > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > From james.love@cptech.org Mon Oct 18 13:00:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from questmail.futurequest.net (questmail.futurequest.net [69.5.6.251]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9B1429B40 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 11481 invoked by uid 12315); 18 Oct 2004 17:00:07 -0000 Received: from 198.151.217.101 (SquirrelMail authenticated user james.love@cptech.org); by QuestMail.FutureQuest.net with HTTP; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <56315.198.151.217.101.1098118807.squirrel@198.151.217.101> Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] What constitutes support for R&D - related to minimal levels From: "James Love" To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Reply-To: james.love@cptech.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 13:02:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:00:07 -0400 (EDT) robert weissman wrote: > I get the point. I wasn't able to quickly find Jamie's table on drug > purchases as a portion of GDP. Does it show relative constant percentage > even for LDCs? I can't recall. this was the data. Note that shares spent on drugs is highest for middle income countries, and lowest in high income countries. (These are unweighted averages. Mexico was excluded because it appears to be an error in the WHO data). jamie ----------- If you take the World Bank GNI per capita data, and the WHO data on per capita pharmaceutical expenditures, you can calculate pharma expenditures as a share of national income. jamie Income above $20,000 1.16% > $10,000, < $20,000 1.24% > $5,000, < $10,000 1.51% (excluding mexico) > $1,000, < $5,000 1.37% > less than $1,000 1.23% COUNTRY_NAME Percentage of GNI Albania 0.70% Algeria 0.95% Angola 1.06% Antigua and Barbuda 1.59% Argentina 2.57% Armenia 1.76% Australia 1.22% Austria 1.26% Azerbaijan 0.33% Bahamas, The 0.76% Bahrain 0.69% Bangladesh 1.32% Barbados 1.63% Belarus 0.51% Belgium 1.27% Belize 1.03% Benin 0.51% Bhutan 0.39% Bolivia 1.31% Botswana 1.50% Brazil 1.66% Bulgaria 1.01% Burkina Faso 1.20% Burundi 1.82% Cambodia 3.93% Cameroon 1.55% Canada 1.44% Cape Verde 1.36% Central African Republic 1.43% Chad 1.00% Chile 0.96% China 2.38% Colombia 0.93% Comoros 1.32% Congo, Rep. 1.76% Costa Rica 1.10% Cote d'Ivoire 1.01% Croatia 1.58% Cyprus 2.33% Czech Republic 1.50% Denmark 0.68% Djibouti 1.57% Dominica 1.73% Dominican Republic 1.08% Ecuador 0.98% Egypt, Arab Rep. 1.41% El Salvador 2.25% Equatorial Guinea 1.00% Eritrea 2.22% Estonia 1.29% Ethiopia 0.91% Fiji 0.58% Finland 0.96% France 1.75% Gabon 1.06% Gambia, The 0.91% Georgia 1.13% Germany 1.30% Ghana 1.21% Greece 1.16% Grenada 1.40% Guatemala 1.47% Guinea 0.67% Guinea-Bissau 1.67% Guyana 1.16% Haiti 0.60% Honduras 2.67% Hungary 1.63% Iceland 1.38% India 0.67% Indonesia 0.88% Iran, Islamic Rep. 2.36% Ireland 0.73% Israel 1.02% Italy 1.67% Jamaica 1.59% Japan 1.49% Jordan 3.08% Kazakhstan 0.39% Kenya 2.00% Kiribati 0.61% Korea, Rep. 0.94% Kuwait 0.93% Kyrgyz Republic 1.79% Lao PDR 0.69% Latvia 2.59% Lebanon 3.20% Lesotho 0.73% Liberia 0.77% Lithuania 1.23% Luxembourg 0.67% Madagascar 0.40% Malawi 1.76% Malaysia 0.44% Maldives 0.94% Mali 1.25% Malta 1.90% Marshall Islands 1.36% Mauritania 1.03% Mauritius 1.22% Mexico 0.16% Moldova 0.26% Mongolia 0.77% Morocco 1.69% Mozambique 0.95% Namibia 0.91% Netherlands 0.80% New Zealand 0.96% Nicaragua 5.00% Niger 0.56% Nigeria 0.74% Norway 0.76% Oman 0.51% Pakistan 1.11% Panama 0.99% Papua New Guinea 1.34% Paraguay 2.89% Peru 1.12% Philippines 1.46% Poland 1.37% Portugal 1.95% Romania 1.49% Russian Federation 0.70% Rwanda 1.15% Saudi Arabia 0.92% Senegal 1.43% Seychelles 1.37% Sierra Leone 1.54% Singapore 1.23% Slovak Republic 1.84% Slovenia 1.32% Solomon Islands 0.45% South Africa 1.01% Spain 1.26% Sri Lanka 0.11% Sudan 1.21% Suriname 1.42% Swaziland 0.94% Sweden 1.10% Switzerland 0.96% Syrian Arab Republic 0.42% Tajikistan 0.56% Tanzania 0.37% Thailand 1.04% Togo 1.03% Tonga 1.33% Trinidad and Tobago 1.77% Tunisia 1.59% Turkey 1.95% Turkmenistan 1.09% Uganda 0.71% Ukraine 0.72% United Kingdom 1.00% United States 1.57% Uruguay 1.84% Uzbekistan 0.32% Venezuela, RB 0.97% Vietnam 2.37% Yemen, Rep. 1.90% Zambia 1.56% Zimbabwe 2.05% -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From rob@essential.org Mon Oct 18 18:22:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7E529B70 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79795FD1A for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22778-02-9 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6434B5FD13 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41744209.1060709@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] proposed article 11 text (big treaty) Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Oct 18 20:11:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:01 -0400 1. In order to better enhance medical innovation, Parties are encouraged to exceed the investment standards required by this Treaty, and nothing in this Treaty shall prevent a Party from exceeding the investment obligations of this Treaty. 2. The purpose of the treaty is to establish an international system that deals directly with matters of medical innovation, with the intention of both spurring such innovation and fairly allocating the cost burdens of the research and development needed to generate such innovation. Parties=92 obligations to support medical innovation should be established through the provisions of the Treaty. 3. Parties agree that the provisions of the Treaty supersede obligations in other international instruments to enforce patents, registration data exclusivity or other intellectual property protections for medicines, or which restrict in any way the ability of Parties to control the prices of medicines. These mechanisms in other instruments are intended indirectly to bolster support for medical innovation; the Treaty provides a framework to address this matter directly. 4. Specifically, Parties agree, for products defined as QMRD, to forgo dispute resolution cases on Articles 27 through 34 and Article 39.3 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, and similar provisions in regional or bilateral trade agreements. For products defined as QMRD, Parties agree not to enter into good offices, conciliation, mediation or to undertake any unilateral measures on matters relating to these provisions of the TRIPS Agreement or to price controls for medicines. 5. The provisions of the Treaty shall in no way affect the right of Parties to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements, including regional or subregional agreements, on issues relevant or additional to the Treaty, provided that such agreements are compatible with their obligations under the Treaty. Parties agree not to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to enforce patents, registration data exclusivity or other intellectual property protections for medicines, or which restrict in any way the ability of Parties to control the prices of medicines The Parties concerned shall communicate any agreements on issues relevant to the Treaty to the Council on Medical Innovation through the Secretariat. From james.love@cptech.org Tue Oct 19 07:14:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8887129B3E for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 12024 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 11:13:35 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 19 Oct 2004 11:13:34 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 19 Oct 2004 11:13:34 -0000 Message-ID: <4174F6E9.7030909@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] How much money do we want for R&D as the minimum? Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Oct 19 08:02:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:13:45 -0400 This is what is currently required as a minimum for R&D in the treaty, based upon 2002 data. Every country can meet there numbers however they like, including by purchasing products (counting the sellers reinvestment in R&D), or by funding R&D more directly or through R&D mandates. In draft 2.0 of the big treaty, total global R&D minimum is $42 billion, and priority R&D is minimum contribution-/-per capita--------- First total / then priority RND High income $38,987 $5,198 $40.41 $5.39 Upper middle income $1,702 $170 $5.14 $0.51 Lower middle income $1,700 $170 $0.71 $0.07 Low income $- $- $- $- World $42,390 $5,539 $6.84 $0.89 Is this enough for both total and priority R&D? Note that priority R&D is more than just neglected diseases. Also, some countries (particularly the USA), will be above the minimum, so total R&D investments will be higher. jamie -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From d.winters@fordfound.org Tue Oct 19 13:08:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from omta1.cgnet.com (omta1.CGNET.COM [64.95.130.134]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722A329B33 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.95.130.10] (helo=smta-hub-2.cgnet.com) by omta1.cgnet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CJxTF-00068o-9V for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:08:25 -0700 Received: from dispatcher2-out.cgnet.com ([198.93.224.251]) by smta-hub-2.cgnet.com (PMDF V6.2 #31052) with ESMTP id <0I5U00ALUCY1CQ@smta-hub-2.cgnet.com> for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.156.137.128] (helo=fordhub2.fordfound.org) by dispatcher2.cgnet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CJxT9-00070I-MW for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:08:19 -0700 Received: by fordhub2.fordfound.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:08:19 -0700 From: "Winters, David" To: "'bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-cgnet-com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-cgnet-com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: winteda@fordnyc.exch.fordfound.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] re: Definitional Section; Traditional Medicines Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Oct 19 13:15:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:07:10 -0700 Rob makes some excellent points particularly on enforcement and I agree about the definitional section. I think this section or a statement of principles that precedes the Preamble would be enormously helpful to the uninitiated. In the long run, you are going to need to win over people who don't deal with this issue on a regular basis. They will need to understand what is not working about the current "system" of R&D (e.g. over investment on me-too drugs) or at the very least they will need to see some sort of explanation of why this, why now. Indeed few people understand the complexities of how R&D is supported/promoted, let alone comprehend the challenges inherent in signing over the production of essential public goods to private interests. An opening paragraph or two articulating a vision of medicines innovation that is different from what we have now could be helpful in convincing people of the need for this treaty. I'd be happy to work on that later, if the treaty framers would find it useful and important. Unfortunately, I simply don't have time between now and the 23rd to work on it. 1.3 Preamble. Just a little editing note on v. I would take out the word intelligent and replace it with something like 'socially just'. Traditional Medicine. I see that this important area of medical research consideration is not mentioned. For example, when a majority of Africans visit traditional healers (as well as hundreds of millions of people globally) it seems like we're missing a very important area of medical innovation if we don't specifically include reference to traditional medicines. I would recommend that under Objectives 1.3 v. that we add something like the following: 'respect traditional culture and explore innovations in traditional medicines.' I would also add traditional medicine as a specific point under 3.1 QMRD. Final note. Maybe I'm asking the impossible, but perhaps after the Geneva meeting, a handful of editors could sit down with the document and try to devise more user-friendly committee names and acronyms. By the time I finished the treaty I was getting a little lost in the acronym soup. I look forward to participating this weekend. I'm sure it will be an exciting event. David Winters Program Officer, Human Rights Ford Foundation -----Original Message----- From: bellagio-rnd-request@lists.essential.org [mailto:bellagio-rnd-request@lists.essential.org] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:00 PM To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Bellagio-rnd digest, Vol 1 #6 - 3 msgs Send Bellagio-rnd mailing list submissions to bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to bellagio-rnd-request@lists.essential.org You can reach the person managing the list at bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Bellagio-rnd digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Article 11 big treaty (Robert Weissman) 2. hollis paper on prizes for pharma innovation (James Love) 3. Article 11 big treaty (James Love) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:05:29 -0400 From: Robert Weissman To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Re: Article 11 big treaty robert weissman wrote: > I think the concept is fine, but the frame should be a bit different. > > Treaties use lofty language before the detailed stuff. > > So I'd start with something saying: > > 11.1 The whole purpose of this treaty is to deal with R&D directly, and > through mechanisms broader than patents. (yes, I know this is earlier in > the treaty) B/c of the specificity of this treaty, and that it manifests > a different approach than other treaties with binding obligations which > relate to but are not directly concerned with R&D, countries agree that > members of this treaty will deal with R&D and patent-related questions > through this treaty, and not through other mechanisms. > > Then, next level: 11.2 Members agree to rely on mechanisms of this > treaty, not patent and related IP provisions in other treaty. > > Then, next level: 11.3 Specifically, what you have in Article 11 (at > least the Article references; you might put the general principle of no > resort to trade agreements for pricing disputes in 11.2. > > I'd also spend a few minutes thinking about the concept of "unilateral > trade polices" and find some other way to capture what you're getting > at. You want a broader prohibition than this, at least as an > aspirational principle. > > One thing that is missing from the current version -- and which a) you > definitely need; and b) which you need if the treaty is to displace > trade rules -- is an enforcement mechanism. Elements: > > 1. Who measures expenditures? Who audits the claims? > 2. What do countries do if they find a country is not upholding its > investment commitments? What is the dispute settlement system? > 3. What are the sanctions for noncompliance? > > Also missing, by the way, is a definitional section. > > I think a smart approach, if you haven't already, is to look at some > existing treaties to see if there are elements you are overlooking. I'd > start with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which I think is > structured very nicely. One element it has, not in your current draft, > are guiding principles. In a way more meaningful than an objective > section, I think they will help establish interpretive rules over time. > > Other recent treaties worth checking are: Persistent Organic Pollutants > (POPS), maybe Kyoto Protocol, Basel Convention (ban on hazardous waste > trade), landmine ban, maybe CITES (species protection), and the > Convention on Biological Diversity. > > Sorry I can't be there to help. Things are pretty demanding here, though. > > James Love wrote: > >> Rob, can you tell me what you think or suggestion for Article 11 of this? >> >> Jamie >> > > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:19 -0400 From: James Love To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] hollis paper on prizes for pharma innovation Some people may find Aidan Hollis'research on pharma prizes interesting and relevant to the trade framework for R&D. Here is a recent draft. He is happy to have comments and criticisms. Jamie http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/pharmprizehollis10oct04.pdf -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:16:06 -0400 From: James Love To: Robert Weissman Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Article 11 big treaty It would be good if someone would try a rewrite of Article 11. Rob, do you have time for this? Jamie Robert Weissman wrote: > robert weissman wrote: > >> I think the concept is fine, but the frame should be a bit different. >> >> Treaties use lofty language before the detailed stuff. >> >> So I'd start with something saying: >> >> 11.1 The whole purpose of this treaty is to deal with R&D directly, and >> through mechanisms broader than patents. (yes, I know this is earlier in >> the treaty) B/c of the specificity of this treaty, and that it manifests >> a different approach than other treaties with binding obligations which >> relate to but are not directly concerned with R&D, countries agree that >> members of this treaty will deal with R&D and patent-related questions >> through this treaty, and not through other mechanisms. >> >> Then, next level: 11.2 Members agree to rely on mechanisms of this >> treaty, not patent and related IP provisions in other treaty. >> >> Then, next level: 11.3 Specifically, what you have in Article 11 (at >> least the Article references; you might put the general principle of no >> resort to trade agreements for pricing disputes in 11.2. >> >> I'd also spend a few minutes thinking about the concept of "unilateral >> trade polices" and find some other way to capture what you're getting >> at. You want a broader prohibition than this, at least as an >> aspirational principle. >> >> One thing that is missing from the current version -- and which a) you >> definitely need; and b) which you need if the treaty is to displace >> trade rules -- is an enforcement mechanism. Elements: >> >> 1. Who measures expenditures? Who audits the claims? >> 2. What do countries do if they find a country is not upholding its >> investment commitments? What is the dispute settlement system? >> 3. What are the sanctions for noncompliance? >> >> Also missing, by the way, is a definitional section. >> >> I think a smart approach, if you haven't already, is to look at some >> existing treaties to see if there are elements you are overlooking. I'd >> start with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which I think is >> structured very nicely. One element it has, not in your current draft, >> are guiding principles. In a way more meaningful than an objective >> section, I think they will help establish interpretive rules over time. >> >> Other recent treaties worth checking are: Persistent Organic Pollutants >> (POPS), maybe Kyoto Protocol, Basel Convention (ban on hazardous waste >> trade), landmine ban, maybe CITES (species protection), and the >> Convention on Biological Diversity. >> >> Sorry I can't be there to help. Things are pretty demanding here, though. >> >> James Love wrote: >> >>> Rob, can you tell me what you think or suggestion for Article 11 of >>> this? >>> >>> Jamie >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > James Love | Consumer Project on Technology > http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 > voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Bellagio-rnd mailing list Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd End of Bellagio-rnd Digest From amy.kapczynski@yale.edu Tue Oct 19 13:11:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from pantheon-po05.its.yale.edu (pantheon-po05.its.yale.edu [130.132.50.34]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2961B29B33 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ank8.yale.edu (g-268-01.law.yale.edu [130.132.165.62]) by pantheon-po05.its.yale.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9JHBMWZ016516 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:11:22 -0400 Message-Id: <6.0.2.0.2.20041019130310.01ec4ec0@ank8.mail.yale.edu> X-Sender: ank8@ank8.mail.yale.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.2.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: Amy Kapczynski Mime-Version: 1.0 X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2a (attachment(s) not renamed) content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] human rights obligations to fund R&D Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Oct 19 13:15:06 2004 X-Original-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:11:20 -0400 I just came across this statement, which might be of some use in a preamble, etc. http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2001.13.En?Opendocument -- in which the High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that "The right to health includes obligations on States to promote research. States are obliged to promote medical research, in particular with respect to certain categories of diseases including HIV/AIDS. The obligation on States to fulfil the right to health includes the need for States to take positive measures including through fostering research into health-related areas." The report cites the CESCR's General Comment on the right to health - No. 14, paras 36 & 37 (E/C.12/2000/4), adopted on 11 May 2000.) - which can be found here: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument Among other things, the General Comment notes that member state "obligations include: (i) fostering recognition of factors favouring positive health results, e.g. research and provision of information." I believe there are now 111 state parties to the CESCR treaty (which this Comment interprets). Best Amy Kapczynski From jrovira@soikos.com Tue Oct 19 21:08:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from soikos.com (190.Red-80-37-96.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.37.96.190]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB5529B33 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [212.78.154.1] by Servidor (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.0)); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:10:27 +0200 From: Joan Rovira To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] A few suggestions in relation to the discussion on the Treaties’ draft Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Oct 19 21:19:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:10:27 +0200 1. Definition of innovation for the purposes of the Treaty. It should be clearly defined as therapeutic, rather than chemical innovatio= n. It might be specified as the contribution of a new product, treatment, i= ndication, program or strategy to increasing health outcomes and reducing r= esource utilization and other costs. 2. There are many tools available in order to measure the health gains of a= technology with a sufficient degree of accuracy for the purposes of estima= ting the contribution of a technology to health and for setting priorities = for allocating funds to competing ends or disease areas. The DALYs (disabil= ity adjusted life years) and the QALYs (quality adjusted life years) are pr= obably the most popular measures for macro and micro approaches, respective= ly 3. According to the most accepted economic approaches, the priority for all= ocating funds to health activities should be based on the criterion of maxi= mising either the net benefit (welfare economics) or the cost-effectiveness= ratio, e.g. the cost per QALY (extra-welfarist approaches). The consequenc= e of such a criterion is the maximization of the total health gain with a g= iven resource constrain. The QALYs or any other measure of health gain migh= t be weighted by criteria that reflect equity concerns or other social valu= es. For instance, it could be decided that a QALY gained by a disabled per= son should be given a higher value than a QALY gained by a healthy person. 4. The discipline of economic evaluation has developed a large tool kit of = analytical approaches. However, it is usually accepted that quantitative me= thods for measuring and valuing the benefits of health technologies and oth= er activities aimed at improving health (biomedical research) might not be = able to capture all the legitimate values and preferences of society. Parti= cipative methods of priority setting and resource allocation might provide = a better answer. Indicators such as QALYs, or cost per QALY might still be = seen as an input to these type of decision making processes. 5. It might often be impossible to assess the final benefits of a certain r= esearch activity, as it depends on whether a successful innovation is fou= nd, on the effectiveness and cost of the treatment or program, etc. The all= ocation of research funds among diseases might be guided by the relative bu= rden of the diseases, weighted by the estimated probability of success of t= he competing research activities and by the likely effectiveness of the exp= ected innovations. 6. In order to avoid the problems of discontinuities in determining the inc= ome-related contribution of countries to the fund, the formula must be cumu= lative. For instance, countries might have to pay a 0005 of GDP up to 1,000 US$ per capita, 001 from 1,000 to 5,000 US$ per capita 0013 from 5,000 to 10,000 US$ per capita 0015 from 10,000 onwards The contribution of country with a GDP of 8,000 US$ per capita would be com= puted as: 0005 x 1,000 + .001 x (5,000 =96 1,000) + .0013 (8,000 =96 5,000) 7. I find that there are more compelling arguments for setting a small but = non-zero contribution for the lowest income countries. First, there is the = issue of ownership and responsibility. Moreover, although the LDC are (in t= heory) exempt under the present system, they do not have any role in settin= g priorities for allocating funds to biomedical research, as they are going= to have under the Treaty. . From ahollis@ucalgary.ca Wed Oct 20 16:56:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (outbound01.telus.net [199.185.220.220]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6CA29B6B for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DH6JZL51 ([66.222.251.106]) by priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with SMTP id <20041020205623.VHAI12847.priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net@DH6JZL51> for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:56:23 -0600 Message-ID: <00b201c4b6e7$3bc2a890$6afbde42@DH6JZL51> From: "Aidan Hollis" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] hollis comments on big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 21 10:47:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:56:12 -0600 Comments on the Big R&D treaty I think Jamie and Tim are to be commended on this incredibly valuable initiative. If others also deserve credit, I apologize for not knowing your contribution. In reading the treaty, I tried to think about some of the arguments that would be made by PhRMA supporters. I have tried to reflect these below, which means that the comments made are not reflecting my own views so much as criticisms that I think could be made. 1. There is an uncomfortable disconnect between incentives and rewards in the treaty. The patent system can work well when firms are rewarded for developing innovations which are valued by society. I am not sure that I see the same clear connection between value and reward here. In the example given at the end of section 3.1, a country which achieves its QMRD quota through patents can only do so if there is a specific reinvestment by the patentees. This leads to several problems: (a) identifying the level of reinvestment is likely to be extremely difficult; (b) the level of reinvestment by patentees is typically not in the hands of the government in the buying country (as the patentees may not be domiciled there.); (c) it would be a foolish use of resources to impose reinvestment requirements even if such requirements were possible. For example, a country might be buying drugs from company X, which currently has a moribund R&D program and decides to use the money on marketing and stock buybacks. But then the buying country explains that they need to meet their QMRD quota, so could company X either reduce the price or increase its R&D budget. X may end up increasing R&D simply to meet the needs of buying countries, even though its R&D program is not terribly effective. More generally, R&D should be undertaken in response to perceived opportunities and value, rather than because companies are required to spend some money on it. 2. Another way of thinking about the problem in (1) is that there is a minimum level of spending on R&D required, but the mechanisms do not automatically connect research success with the spending. One can easily imagine countries in which mandated research might be used as the method of achieving the QMRD quota, with the mandated research essentially being used to reward a friend of the government. At the same time, however, because the country is achieving its QMRD quota through mandated research, the country decides to override all medical patents. This will not lead to higher levels of useful R&D. 3. Mandated research appears to be research required of private firms, or possibly of government-funded organizations. This may count towards QMRD. But market transaction also apply to QMRD. So how are we to be sure that there is not double counting? For example, Canada undertakes relatively little direct spending on QMRD, but pays high prices for drugs which in turn provide incentives for foreign companies to engage in R&D. Suppose that the foreign R&D had been mandated by a foreign government (i.e. a foreign government had ordered its firm to engage in R&D). Why wouldn't there be double-counting here? And if there is to be only single counting, which country gets to claim the R&D, which is not after all even related to the drug being consumed? Even worse, what if the company is state-owned? 4. A significant proportion of medical R&D in Canada is chemicals research used to develop generic drugs. Would this count? It would be difficult not to count it, because it is in part about lowering production costs or finding new processes. At the same time, generic drugs do not typically offer new therapeutic properties (aside from their price), which is, I think, the main purpose of the treaty. 5. Some R&D has both medical and non-medical applications. Does such R&D count? What if, ex post, research that was expected to be non-medical is shown to have medical applications? Many research tools might fit into this category. Or what if research which was allegedly all about medicine turns out to have only non-medical applications: for example, research on medical interventions against bio-chemical weapons could easily be turned into applications in bio-chemical weaponry. 6. Knowledgeable medical R&D people will be able to think of lots of problems of deciding exactly what is QMRD and what is not. This suggests to me that the problems of measuring QMRD and then enforcing compliance would be fraught with immense difficulties. I suspect that creative accounting would enable countries to easily achieve these targets without spending a dollar on the sort of R&D which would lead to more cures for real diseases. 7. Given some of the difficulties in measurement and enforcement, can the treaty really be credible? 8. I think that there is a case to be made for limiting the treaty to include a requirement either to support the patent system as we know it or to allocate the required minimum to direct payments to innovators as a reward for their medical innovations. This maintains the familiar (and useful) connection between reward and achievement. 9. The PMRD requirement is for around $5bn globally; for many smaller countries, particularly those of lower income, the total requirement would be trivial. For example, Macedonia would be required to spend $200,000 annually on this research. Submitting reports, going to meeting, etc, would take up most of the money. This just seems like it is creating a new administrative/regulatory burden, but seems unlikely to create new useful findings. 10. Why wouldn't 100% of PMRD count towards QMRD? 11. I am not sure about the meaning or purpose of the section on open public goods. While I cannot attend the meetings this weekend, I hope that my comments and questions are useful. Aidan Hollis Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Calgary 2500 University Dr NW Calgary Alberta T2N 1N4 Canada tel: 403 220 5861 fax: 403 282 5262 email: ahollis@ucalgary.ca web: http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm From james.love@cptech.org Thu Oct 21 12:51:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E22F129B37 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 22907 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2004 16:51:03 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 21 Oct 2004 16:51:02 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 21 Oct 2004 16:51:02 -0000 Message-ID: <4177E8F5.2060009@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aidan Hollis Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] hollis comments on big treaty References: <00b201c4b6e7$3bc2a890$6afbde42@DH6JZL51> In-Reply-To: <00b201c4b6e7$3bc2a890$6afbde42@DH6JZL51> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 21 12:53:04 2004 X-Original-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:51:01 -0400 Aidan Hollis wrote: > Comments on the Big R&D treaty > 1. There is an uncomfortable disconnect between incentives and rewards in > the treaty. The patent system can work well when firms are rewarded for > developing innovations which are valued by society. I am not sure that I > see > the same clear connection between value and reward here. In the example > given at the end of section 3.1, a country which achieves its QMRD quota > through patents can only do so if there is a specific reinvestment by the > patentees. Patents don't achieve quotas per se. Buying products, patented or not patented, would count as support for R&D, if the firms (the industries) that sell the products reinvest in R&D. That said, how one measures that is up for discussion. Right now the purchase of drugs is a very important part of the incentive system for innovation. People invest to develop products that will generate sales. All other things being equal, countries with high prices for those products provide bigger incentives than countries with low prices. How does one measure the economic value of the incentive? One approach is to look at the evidence of R&D investment, as a percentage of sales, and use that. It could be a global estimate of reinvestment rates. If there is $500 billiion in global sales, and $60 billion in private sector global R&D on pharmaceutical products, the rate of reinvestment would be 12 percent. One could take the global average, and apply it to all drug purchases. $100 million in sales = $12 million in R&D. One could refine this at the level of groups within industries (big pharma, little pharma, generic drug firms), or even at the firm level (if there is disclosure, like there is for publicly traded firms). Treaty members could require reporting of anyone who sells products (part of the transparency and accounting requirements), and even subject such disclosures to seller financed but independently directed audits. If this approach was used, it would not matter if there was systematic under or over reporting on R&D, per se, since policy makers will always have other ways to look at the appropriate total levels, including exmaining R&D outputs. The estimated rate is only important as a relative measure against other types of R&D, like public sector NIH type R&D spending. If the reinvestment rate is over estimated, it makes private sector R&D look better than it should. If underestimated, worst than it should. But I don't think this is a huge problem by itself. This leads to several problems: (a) identifying the level of > reinvestment is likely to be extremely difficult; see above >(b) the level of > reinvestment by patentees is typically not in the hands of the > government in > the buying country (as the patentees may not be domiciled there.); Not really an issue. >(c) it > would be a foolish use of resources to impose reinvestment requirements > even > if such requirements were possible. For example, a country might be buying > drugs from company X, which currently has a moribund R&D program and > decides > to use the money on marketing and stock buybacks. But then the buying > country explains that they need to meet their QMRD quota, so could > company X > either reduce the price or increase its R&D budget. X may end up increasing > R&D simply to meet the needs of buying countries, even though its R&D > program is not terribly effective. More generally, R&D should be undertaken > in response to perceived opportunities and value, rather than because > companies are required to spend some money on it. > Well, reinvestment mandates on companies have been proposed in several countries. In the US we do require firms to undertake fairly expensive testing of products they want to sell, and do things also like phase IV trials. Argentina and India have talked about requiring firms to engaged in a minimum percentage of sales in R&D. I don't see why that is a bad idea. The firms can choose whatever projects they want, event joint projects. The idea is to not let competition drive prices so low that there is no investment in R&D. Some countries may want to do this. Indeed, some States in Brazil have such requirments, and in the USA, BMS proposed something like this is 1997 (6 percent of sales, 3 spend by BMS, and 3 donated to NIH), in connection with extended protection of data. > 2. Another way of thinking about the problem in (1) is that there is a > minimum level of spending on R&D required, but the mechanisms do not > automatically connect research success with the spending. One can easily > imagine countries in which mandated research might be used as the method of > achieving the QMRD quota, with the mandated research essentially being used > to reward a friend of the government. At the same time, however, because > the > country is achieving its QMRD quota through mandated research, the country > decides to override all medical patents. This will not lead to higher > levels > of useful R&D. I think the terms I have used are confusing to people. So maybe this should be fixed. But Mandated R&D would include government funded projects, like the NI or the CDC or Navy R&D efforts, to mention only a few. In any case, we will need a more clear section on this, which was rushed in the first draft. > > 3. Mandated research appears to be research required of private firms, or > possibly of government-funded organizations. This may count towards QMRD. > But market transaction also apply to QMRD. So how are we to be sure that > there is not double counting? For example, Canada undertakes relatively > little direct spending on QMRD, but pays high prices for drugs which in > turn > provide incentives for foreign companies to engage in R&D. Suppose that the > foreign R&D had been mandated by a foreign government (i.e. a foreign > government had ordered its firm to engage in R&D). Why wouldn't there be > double-counting here? And if there is to be only single counting, which > country gets to claim the R&D, which is not after all even related to the > drug being consumed? Even worse, what if the company is state-owned? Accounting is always a mess, not only with the treaty, but with any organization, public or private. I used to teach accounting, and I used to deal with accounting issues in public utility work. But the there is no need for great detail in reporting, and some rough mechanisms will possible (see answer to 1). > > 4. A significant proportion of medical R&D in Canada is chemicals research > used to develop generic drugs. Would this count? It would be difficult not > to count it, because it is in part about lowering production costs or > finding new processes. At the same time, generic drugs do not typically > offer new therapeutic properties (aside from their price), which is, I > think, the main purpose of the treaty. > I had not thought a lot about this, but it might be better to have the treaty deal with the development of new products, like the US tax credit for R&D does now, and leave these manufacturing R&D issues outside the treaty, to be addressed by normal market forces as generic firms compete against each other. It is not bad, at this stage, to leave things out, and to build a strong core that works. > 5. Some R&D has both medical and non-medical applications. Does such R&D > count? What if, ex post, research that was expected to be non-medical is > shown to have medical applications? Many research tools might fit into this > category. Or what if research which was allegedly all about medicine turns > out to have only non-medical applications: for example, research on medical > interventions against bio-chemical weapons could easily be turned into > applications in bio-chemical weaponry. > I would favor narrower definitions, rather the broader definitions. What is important is to focus on the essential stuff you want to include. Basic medical research, drug development (pre-clinical and clinical), (Phase IV testing?), David Winters suggests investments in the preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge. Getting this list right is different from making it a huge list. > 6. Knowledgeable medical R&D people will be able to think of lots of > problems of deciding exactly what is QMRD and what is not. This suggests to > me that the problems of measuring QMRD and then enforcing compliance would > be fraught with immense difficulties. I suspect that creative accounting > would enable countries to easily achieve these targets without spending a > dollar on the sort of R&D which would lead to more cures for real diseases. > I am not so pessimistic. The "Q" in QMRD stands for "qualified." Not everything would qualify. But in terms of spending on useless R&D, the current system does a pretty good job of that. What is the "evidence" the current public sector R&D programs are wasteful? The NIH NCI invested in clinical trials for 50 of 77 of the successful cancer drugs approved from 1950 to 1996. Seems like a pretty decent targeting of funds. How often are NIH funded research studies cited in patent applicatioins? > 7. Given some of the difficulties in measurement and enforcement, can the > treaty really be credible? I just don't see the measurement problems being so hard to address in practice. Maybe you want more out of measurement than I do. That said, I developed a portfollio reporting system for the IBM pension fund and a return attribution system for DEC. Both systems took pretty difficult problems and provided very useful management reporting systems. I also worked on issues regarding measurement of real estate indexes, financial and physical investment. I have seen problems being solved, when people wanted to solve problems. We have not really talked about enforcement yet. > 8. I think that there is a case to be made for limiting the treaty to > include a requirement either to support the patent system as we know it or > to allocate the required minimum to direct payments to innovators as a > reward for their medical innovations. This maintains the familiar (and > useful) connection between reward and achievement. This approach biases the treaty in favor of a winner take all for profit model. Maybe this is best. Maybe it is not best. Why hard wire it? Do you really think what the NIH does is unimportant? > 9. The PMRD requirement is for around $5bn globally; for many smaller > countries, particularly those of lower income, the total requirement would > be trivial. For example, Macedonia would be required to spend $200,000 > annually on this research. Submitting reports, going to meeting, etc, would > take up most of the money. This just seems like it is creating a new > administrative/regulatory burden, but seems unlikely to create new useful > findings. Small countries can do surveys, clinical trials, translations, etc. Or they can send their money to Merck, if they prefer. > 10. Why wouldn't 100% of PMRD count towards QMRD? > It does.... > 11. I am not sure about the meaning or purpose of the section on open > public > goods. > I can tell. > While I cannot attend the meetings this weekend, I hope that my comments > and > questions are useful. > They are. > Aidan Hollis > > Associate Professor > Department of Economics > University of Calgary > > 2500 University Dr NW > Calgary Alberta > T2N 1N4 Canada > > tel: 403 220 5861 fax: 403 282 5262 > > email: ahollis@ucalgary.ca > web: http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Thu Oct 21 22:11:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mr1.ucalgary.ca (mr1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.34.165]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8EF29B37 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.ucalgary.ca (smtp1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.36.18]) by mr1.ucalgary.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DC97F36 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:11:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (S0106000d87581bad.cg.shawcable.net [68.145.254.23]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp1.ucalgary.ca (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9M2BSV08632 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:11:28 -0600 Message-ID: <417DB2AB.9080506@ucalgary.ca> From: Gregor Wolbring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Thunderbird/0.7.1 Mnenhy/0.6.0.101 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] a few comments Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 01:48:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:12:59 -0600 Hi everybody, here some of my initial thoughts. 1)in regards to Patents I encourage you to link up with the Biological Innovation for Open Society (BIOS)Open Source Open Access initiative http://www.bios.net/ 2) If "The right to health includes obligations on States to promote research" point 31 in http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2001.13.En?Opendocument than this has to include the whole area of health which is much more than the absence of a disease and include social determinants of health. (WHO definition of health entered into force on 7 April 1948. http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/ Jakarta Declaration on Leading Health Promotion into the 21st Century http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/jakarta_declaration_en.pdf Health Canada's 12 determinants of health http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/phdd/determinants/index.html#key_determinants http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/hlth_determ_table.html; http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/phdd/overview_implications/01_overview.html; Disability, including management and rehabilitation April 8th 2004 executive board document EB114/4 Provisional agenda item 4.2 http://policy.who.int/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=ebdoc-en&record={A5E6}&softpage=Document42 People's Health Charter and so forth It also has to look at whether many of the disease can be best dealt with with high tech medicine, low tech medicine no medical approach or a combination of the three. THerefore I think that the treaty should be about health reseach not medical research. 3) THere is a growing resistence to the existing measure the health gains like DALY as they all do not take societal determinants into account which increasingly is seen as important in order to look at health. 4)I would like to see some definitions to certain terms in orrder to be better able to ascertain the spirit of the treaty a)sustainable system of medical innovation b)health c) innovation d) medical...... 5) change in general medical research to health research with the needed changes everywhere in the text. 1.2 viii. to "Looks for the best solution to advance health medical, technological or social" 1.3.ii ii. to "transparency, including mechanisms to report, measure and understand the nature of investment flows in medical research and development (scientific, social and economic dimensions), 3.1.Members agree to support a certain degree of) health research and development. 3.1. v. new v. Social and ethical evaluation of these products 6) nowhere is the relationship between western and traditional medicine mentioned Well these are some of my initial thoughts. Cheers Gregor -- Dr. Gregor Wolbring webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ Phone 1-403-2108710 work e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO Chair: Disabled People's International Bioethics Taskforce Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Founder and Executive director of the International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the International Network on Bioethics and Disability http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join From gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Thu Oct 21 22:23:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mr1.ucalgary.ca (mr1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.34.165]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA53529B37 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.ucalgary.ca (smtp1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.36.18]) by mr1.ucalgary.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DA77F2B; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:23:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (S0106000d87581bad.cg.shawcable.net [68.145.254.23]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp1.ucalgary.ca (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9M2NmV10729; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:23:48 -0600 Message-ID: <417DB58F.50708@ucalgary.ca> From: Gregor Wolbring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Thunderbird/0.7.1 Mnenhy/0.6.0.101 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregor Wolbring Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <417DB2AB.9080506@ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <417DB2AB.9080506@ucalgary.ca> X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] small /big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 01:49:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:25:19 -0600 Can someone give me the history of difference between small and big treaty and which one is first advanced...? The small has a lot of the same language as the big treaty so where they are the same my comments apply to both also I would like it to have it defined what innovation in health care means (small treaty) and social interventions shoould be part of innovations in health care Cheers GRegor Dr. Gregor Wolbring webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ Phone 1-403-2108710 work e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO Chair: Disabled People's International Bioethics Taskforce Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Founder and Executive director of the International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the International Network on Bioethics and Disability http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 22 06:23:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84F8929B3D for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 30059 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 10:23:52 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 22 Oct 2004 10:23:52 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 22 Oct 2004 10:23:52 -0000 Message-ID: <4178DFB7.3020201@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregor Wolbring Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] small /big treaty References: <417DB2AB.9080506@ucalgary.ca> <417DB58F.50708@ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <417DB58F.50708@ucalgary.ca> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 06:25:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:23:51 -0400 Gregor Wolbring wrote: > Can someone give me the history of difference between small and big > treaty and which one is first advanced...? There has been a longstanding interest in a treaty to enhance funding for neglected diseases. For example, James Orbinski of MSF called for an R&D treaty the day MSF won the Nobel prize in 1999, at a meeting in Paris on R&D for neglected diseases. Tony Fauci has pushed for an international alliance to accelerate HIV vaccine research (See: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040611/02 http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2004-June/006550.html), and there are countless proposals to enhance global support R&D for malaria, TB, and other diseases. There is also growing interest in increasing global spending on public goods, like the Human Genome Project or the HapMap Project, SARS research, and on other enhancements of the research commons, like expanding access to government funded R&D, or supporting open access publishing. Collectively all of these issues fit within fairly well-known public health agendas. About two years ago Tim Hubbard and I worked with Aventis to discuss more radical and fundamental changes in the trade framework for medical innovation. From this dialogue came a proposal for an R&D treaty that would address more fundamental concerns about R&D. A treaty was proposed to address the "free rider" problem for R&D. This treaty would then supplement or even eventually replace treaties on IPR or drug prices. It would give countries more flexibility to use new methods to support innovation, including innovation prizes, competitive intermediators, various open source approaches, and combinations of the traditional and non-traditional mechanisms to support innovation (patents+prizes+open source, etc). It also brought public sector R&D into the trade framework (it is essentially left out of TRIPS). One objective in this new discussion was to make it feasible to support a separation of the market for the products and the market for innovation -- to allow marginal cost pricing of drugs, and providing separate mechanisms to reward innovators. In meetings about R&D policy, there was some interest, but also some opposition to this broader critique/reform of the trade framework for R&D. Some from the traditional public health community thought the new proposal was too radical and too unrealistic, and that it would hurt the neglected disease proposals. There was a split into the "small" and the "big" camps. This was the dominate theme of a Bellagio meeting on the trade framework for R&D that was held last year. Since then, we have tried to move both the "small"and the "big" R&D treaty approaches forward. At the meeting this weekend, we will spend equal time on each approach. Right now the "big" treaty includes everything in the small treaty. It just does more. The big treaty does not address a handful of shortcoming in the present system (inadequate R&D for tropical diseases, etc), but it offers a fundamental change in the trade framework. Jamie -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 22 06:31:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AD2129B37 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 14831 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 10:31:34 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 22 Oct 2004 10:31:34 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 22 Oct 2004 10:31:34 -0000 Message-ID: <4178E185.90901@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love Cc: Gregor Wolbring , bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <417DB2AB.9080506@ucalgary.ca> <417DB58F.50708@ucalgary.ca> <4178DFB7.3020201@cptech.org> In-Reply-To: <4178DFB7.3020201@cptech.org> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] correction -- small /big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 06:33:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:31:33 -0400 James Love wrote: > neglected disease proposals. There was a split into the "small" and > the "big" camps. This was the dominate theme of a Bellagio meeting on this was the *dominant* theme > equal time on each approach. Right now the "big" treaty includes > everything in the small treaty. It just does more. The big treaty does > not address a handful of shortcoming in the present system (inadequate The big treaty does not *only* address.. > R&D for tropical diseases, etc), but it offers a fundamental change in > the trade framework. it offers a more fundamental change in the trade framework. -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 22 09:50:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F04729B6E for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18644 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 13:50:10 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 22 Oct 2004 13:50:09 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 22 Oct 2004 13:50:09 -0000 Message-ID: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] version 3 of small treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 09:54:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:50:09 -0400 Is now on http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Fri Oct 22 10:22:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mr1.ucalgary.ca (mr1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.34.165]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732FC29B6E for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.ucalgary.ca (smtp1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.36.18]) by mr1.ucalgary.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32B581ED; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:22:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ucalgary.ca (leblanc.meds.ucalgary.ca [136.159.178.25]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp1.ucalgary.ca (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9MELxV12852; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:21:59 -0600 Message-ID: <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> From: gregor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love , bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] version 3 of small treaty References: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> In-Reply-To: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 10:35:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:22:04 -0600 suggested changes in the text in brackets *Convention on Priority [health care or health research or health] Innovation (CP[H]I)* 1.1 The Convention on Priority [health care or health research or health] Innovation (CP[H]I)** 1.2. This convention recognizes and addresses the importance of a global framework to support innovation in [health research in general and health care in particular], particularly as it relates to areas in the greatest need, such as in the areas [of research into social determinants of health] of new vaccines, medicines for neglected disease, and public goods which are essential for innovation, and the transfer of technology 1.3.ii. transparency, including the reporting and measurement of scientific, medical, [social, ethical] and economic aspects of investment flows and outcomes in medical research and development, 1.3.v. incentives for investments that enhance the productivity [ replce may be with effectiveness] of innovation efforts 2.2 [1/3 of the members will be elected among member nations classified as high income by the World Bank. 1/3f will be elected among member nations classified as middleincome by the World Bank and 1/3 will be elected among member nations classified as low income by the World Bank]. No country will have more than one representative. ** 3. Priority [health or health care] Research 3.1.Identification of priority [health or health care] research targets 3.1. g social determinants of health h. traditional medicine and health/health care knowledge i.. Other appropriate priority research 11 a. In order to better enhance [health and health care] innovation b. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish an international system that deals directly with matters of priority [health research and health care] innovation James Love wrote: > Is now on http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html > > -- > James Love | Consumer Project on Technology > http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 > voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd -- Dr. Gregor Wolbring webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO Chair: Disabled People's International (www.dpi.org) Taskforce for Bioethic= s Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Me= dicine University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of Community= Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education University of C= algary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, Uni= versity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Founder and Executive director of the International Center for Bioethics, C= ulture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the International Network = on Bioethics and Disability http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join Phone 1-403-2108710 Fax 1-403-283-4740 e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca From rob@essential.org Fri Oct 22 11:36:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2C729B37 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E465FD24; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32242-01; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A424B5FD23; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41792908.2020801@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gregor Cc: James Love , bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] version 3 of small treaty References: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 11:41:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:40 -0400 One stylistic suggestion for both versions: limit the use of acronyms to the cases where we really have the same term appearing repeatedly. I think acronyms make things easier for people who are steeped in an issue, or once they reach a certain level of repetition (eg., WMD) -- but on first read they tend to confuse more than simplify. gregor wrote: > suggested changes in the text in brackets > > *Convention on Priority [health care or health research or health] > Innovation (CP[H]I)* > > 1.1 The Convention on Priority [health care or health research or > health] Innovation (CP[H]I)** > > > 1.2. This convention recognizes and addresses the importance of a global > framework to support innovation in [health research in general and > health care in particular], particularly as it relates to areas in the > greatest need, such as in the areas [of research into social > determinants of health] of new vaccines, medicines for neglected > disease, and public goods which are essential for innovation, and the > transfer of technology > > 1.3.ii. transparency, including the reporting and > measurement of scientific, medical, [social, ethical] and economic > aspects of investment flows and outcomes in medical research and > development, > > 1.3.v. incentives for investments that enhance the > productivity [ replce may be with effectiveness] of innovation efforts > > 2.2 [1/3 of the members will be elected among member nations classified > as high income by the World Bank. 1/3f will be elected among member > nations classified as middleincome by the World Bank and 1/3 will be > elected among member nations classified as low income by the World > Bank]. No country will have more than one representative. ** > > 3. Priority [health or health care] Research > 3.1.Identification of priority [health or health care] research targets > > 3.1. > > g social determinants of health > h. traditional medicine and health/health care knowledge > > i.. Other appropriate priority research > > 11 a. In order to better enhance [health and health care] > innovation > b. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish an international system > that deals directly with matters of priority [health research and health > care] innovation > > > James Love wrote: > >> Is now on http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html >> >> -- >> James Love | Consumer Project on Technology >> http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org >> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 >> voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bellagio-rnd mailing list >> Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > > > -- > Dr. Gregor Wolbring > webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org > blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ > > Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO > > Chair: Disabled People's International (www.dpi.org) Taskforce for > Bioethics > > Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of > Medicine University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of > Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education > University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, > University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada > > Founder and Executive director of the International Center for > Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the > International Network on Bioethics and Disability > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join > > Phone 1-403-2108710 > Fax 1-403-283-4740 > e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 22 12:25:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E12B29B37 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 16463 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 16:25:10 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 22 Oct 2004 16:25:09 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 22 Oct 2004 16:25:09 -0000 Message-ID: <41793464.4040407@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gregor Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] medical v health Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 12:27:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:25:08 -0400 It is a substantive decision to frame this narrower (medical) or broader (health). I'm not anxious to make it too broad right now, since we are struggling with definitions, accounting issues, etc... and it is not clear that we have the same type of market failures for the broader health issues (we probably have somewhat different market failures). Jamie gregor wrote: > suggested changes in the text in brackets > > *Convention on Priority [health care or health research or health] > Innovation (CP[H]I)* > > 1.1 The Convention on Priority [health care or health research or > health] Innovation (CP[H]I)** > > > 1.2. This convention recognizes and addresses the importance of a global > framework to support innovation in [health research in general and > health care in particular], particularly as it relates to areas in the > greatest need, such as in the areas [of research into social > determinants of health] of new vaccines, medicines for neglected > disease, and public goods which are essential for innovation, and the > transfer of technology > > 1.3.ii. transparency, including the reporting and > measurement of scientific, medical, [social, ethical] and economic > aspects of investment flows and outcomes in medical research and > development, > > 1.3.v. incentives for investments that enhance the > productivity [ replce may be with effectiveness] of innovation efforts > > 2.2 [1/3 of the members will be elected among member nations classified > as high income by the World Bank. 1/3f will be elected among member > nations classified as middleincome by the World Bank and 1/3 will be > elected among member nations classified as low income by the World > Bank]. No country will have more than one representative. ** > > 3. Priority [health or health care] Research > 3.1.Identification of priority [health or health care] research targets > > 3.1. > > g social determinants of health > h. traditional medicine and health/health care knowledge > > i.. Other appropriate priority research > > 11 a. In order to better enhance [health and health care] > innovation > b. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish an international system > that deals directly with matters of priority [health research and health > care] innovation > > > James Love wrote: > >> Is now on http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html >> >> -- >> James Love | Consumer Project on Technology >> http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org >> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 >> voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bellagio-rnd mailing list >> Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > > > -- > Dr. Gregor Wolbring > webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org > blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ > > Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO > > Chair: Disabled People's International (www.dpi.org) Taskforce for > Bioethics > > Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of > Medicine University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of > Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education > University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, > University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada > > Founder and Executive director of the International Center for > Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the > International Network on Bioethics and Disability > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join > > Phone 1-403-2108710 > Fax 1-403-283-4740 > e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Fri Oct 22 12:57:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mr1.ucalgary.ca (mr1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.34.165]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A6929B37 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.ucalgary.ca (smtp2.ucalgary.ca [136.159.36.19]) by mr1.ucalgary.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C0E7D10; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:57:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ucalgary.ca (leblanc.meds.ucalgary.ca [136.159.178.25]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp2.ucalgary.ca (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9MGvPr28560; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:57:25 -0600 Message-ID: <41793BFB.1020009@ucalgary.ca> From: gregor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org References: <41791011.90107@cptech.org> <4179178C.40806@ucalgary.ca> <41793464.4040407@cptech.org> In-Reply-To: <41793464.4040407@cptech.org> X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Re: medical v health Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 22 19:19:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:57:31 -0600 than I would take out the references to health and health care in the treaty. if it about the concern that dcertain diseases are underserved which drives the treat than it has to be broader. medical interventions are only one way to improve health and often not the one to go especially inn LIC'S the very medicalization of health ( the original who definition of health saw health much broader than medical interventions) is one of the problems health research and health care have to fight with.nowadays. So treaty which focuses onb health research is much better equiped to deal with the problems of the underserved people than a treaty which just focuses on medical research implying that that is the only way to increase health and make health care better. if it stays medical than it has to have somewhere in the treaty an acknoledgment that medical is only one way to improve health.... I actually think the market failure is that the market focusses too much on medical avenues to 'improve' health ignoring the other evenues (social determinants and social cures ) for health Cheers Gregor James Love wrote: > It is a substantive decision to frame this narrower (medical) or > broader (health). I'm not anxious to make it too broad right now, > since we are struggling with definitions, accounting issues, etc... > and it is not clear that we have the same type of market failures for > the broader health issues (we probably have somewhat different market > failures). > > Jamie > > gregor wrote: > >> suggested changes in the text in brackets >> >> *Convention on Priority [health care or health research or health] >> Innovation (CP[H]I)* >> >> 1.1 The Convention on Priority [health care or health research or >> health] Innovation (CP[H]I)** >> >> >> 1.2. This convention recognizes and addresses the importance of a global >> framework to support innovation in [health research in general and >> health care in particular], particularly as it relates to areas in the >> greatest need, such as in the areas [of research into social >> determinants of health] of new vaccines, medicines for neglected >> disease, and public goods which are essential for innovation, and the >> transfer of technology >> >> 1.3.ii. transparency, including the reporting and >> measurement of scientific, medical, [social, ethical] and economic >> aspects of investment flows and outcomes in medical research and >> development, >> >> 1.3.v. incentives for investments that enhance the >> productivity [ replce may be with effectiveness] of innovation efforts >> >> 2.2 [1/3 of the members will be elected among member nations classified >> as high income by the World Bank. 1/3f will be elected among member >> nations classified as middleincome by the World Bank and 1/3 will be >> elected among member nations classified as low income by the World >> Bank]. No country will have more than one representative. ** >> >> 3. Priority [health or health care] Research >> 3.1.Identification of priority [health or health care] research targets >> >> 3.1. >> >> g social determinants of health >> h. traditional medicine and health/health care knowledge >> >> i.. Other appropriate priority research >> >> 11 a. In order to better enhance [health and health care] >> innovation >> b. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish an international system >> that deals directly with matters of priority [health research and health >> care] innovation >> >> >> James Love wrote: >> >>> Is now on http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html >>> >>> -- >>> James Love | Consumer Project on Technology >>> http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org >>> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 >>> voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bellagio-rnd mailing list >>> Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org >>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Gregor Wolbring >> webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org >> blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ >> >> Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO >> >> Chair: Disabled People's International (www.dpi.org) Taskforce for >> Bioethics >> >> Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty >> of Medicine University of Calgary, Canada >> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of >> Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education >> University of Calgary, Canada >> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic >> Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada >> >> Founder and Executive director of the International Center for >> Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the >> International Network on Bioethics and Disability >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join >> >> Phone 1-403-2108710 >> Fax 1-403-283-4740 >> e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bellagio-rnd mailing list >> Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd >> >> > > -- Dr. Gregor Wolbring webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO Chair: Disabled People's International (www.dpi.org) Taskforce for Bioethic= s Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Me= dicine University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of Community= Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education University of C= algary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, Uni= versity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Founder and Executive director of the International Center for Bioethics, C= ulture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the International Network = on Bioethics and Disability http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join Phone 1-403-2108710 Fax 1-403-283-4740 e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca From james.love@cptech.org Sat Oct 23 00:57:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C01FA29B43 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29347 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2004 04:57:41 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 23 Oct 2004 04:57:41 -0000 Received: from 212.254.186.13 ([212.254.186.13]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 23 Oct 2004 04:57:41 -0000 Message-ID: <4179E4C5.3000408@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] version 3 of big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat Oct 23 00:59:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:57:41 -0400 Version 3 of the big treaty is now on the web page. It has not been possible to address all of the good points people have raised. (not yet at least). In particular the current draft does not have a dispute resolution and enforcement section, there is no preamble like one finds in the Tobacco, Land mine, Climate change or other treaties. These issues will have to be addressed in the next draft. Also, I'm sure some will be put off by all of the acronyms. Some of the changes that people might want to look at include: 1. Now there are 2 different alternatives to setting minimum contributions. (article 3.2). 2. The section on governance (Article 2) is tweaked quite a bit, and looks more like the WHO Tobacco convention. 3. QMRD and PMRD now both include the preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge. 4. A new article 7 sets out three principles for accounting of expenditures. i. No double counting. ii. Source of finance rather that location of investment. iii. Evidence based estimates. (nothing in on audits yet) 5. Article 10 on exceptionally productive and useful projects works with Article 11 to create a system of effectively issuing global prizes for a limied number of projects (up to 10 percent of the PMRD). 6. In Article 11, the system of credits is expanded to include the exceptionlly productive and useful credit, and the whole credit system is made tradeable between countries, increating even stronger incentives to get the credits. No policy yet on whether one can bank unused credits. Discussion on this draft is supposed to begin on Sunday. Today we begin looking at the small treaty text (version 3.0). -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch Mon Oct 25 09:57:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mail2.bluewin.ch (mail2.bluewin.ch [195.186.4.73]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C4929B4E for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch (195.186.1.230) by mail2.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 7.0.031.3) id 4173B7FD000A72E1 for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:56:59 +0000 Received: from [172.21.1.32] by mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch with HTTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:56:59 +0000 Message-ID: <412EB75E001ABBFB@mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> From: carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Bluewin WebMail / BlueMail content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] RnD Meeting Follow Up Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Oct 26 17:07:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:56:59 +0100 Hi All, To inspire us all to continue working collectively together on the RnD project, I've typed up the "To Do" List that we came up with at the end of Sunday. Of course, there are many, many more things "to do", but these appeared to be some of the most immediate ones on which we might focus our attention. Shall leave it to each Jamie and Tim to recruit various ones among us for different tasks, but imagine they would also be grateful for volunteers. To Do List 1. 1 page summary of the concept (an outreach piece with the basic message of why, what, who, how). 2. 4-page explanatory note for various constituencies (This is basically a longer version of #1 above). It could be organized in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) format. 3. An elaboration/reformulation of the existing treaty text that presents the idea as a framework and which focuses on setting out clearly the objectives, the scope of issues it would include, and the purposes of each of its various components. So, while it would elaborate on many of the sub-headings in the treaty text, it would not attempt draft language for a treaty text nor would it propose a particular treaty format. It would not at this point, for example, include all of the detail on proposed mechanisms, but instead to emphasise the purposes of the various sections. It would in effect be 'just a few steps short' of the treaty text. 4. Ongoing technical work on the various mechanisms that might work to advance the objectives and purposes of the framework. 5. Papers/studies/evaluations of technical aspects, evaluation of proposals, and ongoing consideration of the appropriate format of a treaty (as per suggestions from Carlos Correa). To set a good example, I volunteer to help with 1,2, and 3. Hope this helps! Thanks again to CPTech for organizing a great meeting. With best wishes, Carolyn Deere Chair, Board of Directors Intellectual Property Watch Ph: +41-79-318-2021 From gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Tue Oct 26 21:10:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mr1.ucalgary.ca (mr1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.34.165]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D1229B39 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.ucalgary.ca (smtp1.ucalgary.ca [136.159.36.18]) by mr1.ucalgary.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4A97D15; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:10:51 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (S0106000d87581bad.cg.shawcable.net [68.145.254.23]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by smtp1.ucalgary.ca (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9R1AlV10896; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:10:47 -0600 Message-ID: <417EF604.7040904@ucalgary.ca> From: Gregor Wolbring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Thunderbird/0.8 Mnenhy/0.6.0.101 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch Cc: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] RnD Meeting Follow Up References: <412EB75E001ABBFB@mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> In-Reply-To: <412EB75E001ABBFB@mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 28 13:12:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:12:36 -0600 of course I help where my help is desired/requested I could work on 1,2,3,5 I also think Richard Jefferson from Cambia and his www.bios.net initiative might be a nice assett to this group Cheers Gregor Dr. Gregor Wolbring webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ Phone 1-403-2108710 work e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO Chair: Disabled People's International Bioethics Taskforce Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education University of Calgary, Canada Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Founder and Executive director of the International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the International Network on Bioethics and Disability http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch wrote: > Hi All, > > To inspire us all to continue working collectively together on the RnD project, > I've typed up the "To Do" List that we came up with at the end of Sunday. > Of course, there are many, many more things "to do", but these appeared to > be some of the most immediate ones on which we might focus our attention. > Shall leave it to each Jamie and Tim to recruit various ones among us for > different tasks, but imagine they would also be grateful for volunteers. > > > To Do List > > 1. 1 page summary of the concept (an outreach piece with the basic message > of why, what, who, how). > > 2. 4-page explanatory note for various constituencies (This is basically > a longer version of #1 above). It could be organized in a Frequently Asked > Questions (FAQ) format. > > 3. An elaboration/reformulation of the existing treaty text that presents > the idea as a framework and which focuses on setting out clearly the objectives, > the scope of issues it would include, and the purposes of each of its various > components. So, while it would elaborate on many of the sub-headings in the > treaty text, it would not attempt draft language for a treaty text nor would > it propose a particular treaty format. It would not at this point, for example, > include all of the detail on proposed mechanisms, but instead to emphasise > the purposes of the various sections. It would in effect be 'just a few steps > short' of the treaty text. > > 4. Ongoing technical work on the various mechanisms that might work to advance > the objectives and purposes of the framework. > > 5. Papers/studies/evaluations of technical aspects, evaluation of proposals, > and ongoing consideration of the appropriate format of a treaty (as per suggestions > from Carlos Correa). > > To set a good example, I volunteer to help with 1,2, and 3. > > Hope this helps! Thanks again to CPTech for organizing a great meeting. > > > > With best wishes, > > > Carolyn Deere > > > Chair, Board of Directors > Intellectual Property Watch > Ph: +41-79-318-2021 > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd From james.love@cptech.org Fri Oct 29 10:48:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 50F5329B45 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18310 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2004 14:48:48 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 29 Oct 2004 14:48:47 -0000 Received: from 63.111.165.22 ([63.111.165.22]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 29 Oct 2004 14:48:47 -0000 Message-ID: <4182584F.6080201@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Cc: Gregor Wolbring , carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] RnD Meeting Follow Up References: <412EB75E001ABBFB@mssazhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> <417EF604.7040904@ucalgary.ca> In-Reply-To: <417EF604.7040904@ucalgary.ca> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Oct 29 10:50:20 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:48:47 -0400 Greg and others, I appreciate very much Carolyn's note and the various offers to contribute. I would like to express some thoughts on the process. So far we have structured the first Bellagio and the follow-up Geneva meeting as expert consultations on proposals for a new trade framework for R&D. The input from these and other meetings (such as the two Columbia events with Jeff Sachs, the various panels at Rio, Penang, and many others) and other inputs, including this listserve, have been very valuable. We are looking to find person who are interested in working more on this. Certainly the group in Geneva was very much in favor of some explanatory work products. They also raised a number of substantive concerns about the earlier drafts, both in terms of the mechanisms and the presentation, which require some reflection and thought. There was also the suggestion that people might want to think about working on specific features of the proposal, such as dispute resolution, technology transfer, accounting, global coordination of efforts, evaluation, etc. Each of these and many other issues raise lots of different issues, and papers, comments or suggestions on these issues are quite helpful. There is a separate agenda concerning evaluation of alternative incentive or funding mechanisms for R&D, such as the prize model, competitive intermediators, or various collaborative open source models. In this area, there will probably be a major US meeting on the prize fund next spring. For those who are new to this process, some might think about working on some of the individual issues, before taking on the final edit and packaging or PR campaigns, on a project which is moving ahead, but not really complete yet. We need to broaden the number of people contributing to the project, but we also need to avoid excessive confusion over the "message" regarding both the content and the status of the project, and we have to work closely with some groups and individuals whose involvement is quite important for expanding "buy-in." For example, we are quite keen to listen carefully to several public health and development NGOs, US consumer interests (like CI, CFA, AARP, BAM, etc), well known academics, UN agencies, and various government officials, to mention a few obvious groups. I am now working on a draft letter which will be shared for feedback, that is an appeal for groups to "engage and evaluate" the proposals for the new R&D framework. This should be available in draft form by Sunday. Daniel Berman of MSF suggested a private meeting on the R&D framework for the Mexico R&D summit. Who is going to that event? Jamie Gregor Wolbring wrote: > of course I help where my help is desired/requested > > I could work on 1,2,3,5 > > I also think Richard Jefferson from Cambia and his www.bios.net > initiative might be a nice assett to this group > Cheers > Gregor > > > > > > > Dr. Gregor Wolbring > webpage: http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org > blog: http://wolbring.blogspot.com/ > Phone 1-403-2108710 work > e-mail gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca > > Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO > > Chair: Disabled People's International Bioethics Taskforce > > Biochemist at the Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of > Medicine University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor for bioethical issues at the Dept. of > Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies Faculty of Education > University of Calgary, Canada > > Adjunct Assistant Professor with the John Dossetor Health Ethic Center, > University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada > > Founder and Executive director of the International Center for > Bioethics, Culture and Disability Founder and Coordinator of the > International Network on Bioethics and Disability > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bioethics/join > > > > > carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> To inspire us all to continue working collectively together on the RnD >> project, >> I've typed up the "To Do" List that we came up with at the end of Sunday. >> Of course, there are many, many more things "to do", but these >> appeared to >> be some of the most immediate ones on which we might focus our attention. >> Shall leave it to each Jamie and Tim to recruit various ones among us >> for >> different tasks, but imagine they would also be grateful for volunteers. >> >> >> To Do List >> >> 1. 1 page summary of the concept (an outreach piece with the basic >> message >> of why, what, who, how). >> >> 2. 4-page explanatory note for various constituencies (This is basically >> a longer version of #1 above). It could be organized in a Frequently >> Asked >> Questions (FAQ) format. >> >> 3. An elaboration/reformulation of the existing treaty text that presents >> the idea as a framework and which focuses on setting out clearly the >> objectives, >> the scope of issues it would include, and the purposes of each of its >> various >> components. So, while it would elaborate on many of the sub-headings >> in the >> treaty text, it would not attempt draft language for a treaty text nor >> would >> it propose a particular treaty format. It would not at this point, for >> example, >> include all of the detail on proposed mechanisms, but instead to >> emphasise >> the purposes of the various sections. It would in effect be 'just a >> few steps >> short' of the treaty text. >> >> 4. Ongoing technical work on the various mechanisms that might work to >> advance >> the objectives and purposes of the framework. >> >> 5. Papers/studies/evaluations of technical aspects, evaluation of >> proposals, >> and ongoing consideration of the appropriate format of a treaty (as >> per suggestions >> from Carlos Correa). >> >> To set a good example, I volunteer to help with 1,2, and 3. >> >> Hope this helps! Thanks again to CPTech for organizing a great meeting. >> >> >> >> With best wishes, >> >> >> Carolyn Deere >> >> >> Chair, Board of Directors >> Intellectual Property Watch >> Ph: +41-79-318-2021 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bellagio-rnd mailing list >> Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > > -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From nicolettadentico@libero.it Mon Nov 1 19:36:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from smtp2.libero.it (smtp2.libero.it [193.70.192.52]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEA129B58 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:36:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (172.16.1.83) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 40C7347601E16EFC; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:36:57 +0100 Received: from libero.it (172.16.1.87) by smtp1.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 40C72ED400DF80D9; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:36:55 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re:[Bellagio-rnd] RnD Meeting Follow Up MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sensitivity: 3 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) From: "nicolettadentico@libero.it" To: "carolyn.deere" Cc: "bellagio-rnd" X-XaM3-API-Version: 4.1 (B27) X-type: 0 X-SenderIP: 82.51.161.94 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at libero.it serv4 content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Nov 2 13:18:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:36:30 +0100 Dear all, I cannot thank Jamie and Tim enough for the intense session they promoted i= n Geneva. It was indeed quite inspiring, and useful. I still feel much of t= he energy the meeting allowed. I am really grateful. =0D Despite my not being a native English speaker, I want to join Carolyn and f= ollow her good example, by volunteering on item 1,2 and 3, if you think I can help at all. I'll also send you the final paper to be published for PLoS, as soon as con= cluded. Thank you Carolyn for your drive, too. Nicoletta Dentico nicolettadentico@libero.it tel. +39 06 86 20 27 56 ---------- Initial Header ----------- From : bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org To : bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Cc : Date : Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:56:59 +0100 Subject : [Bellagio-rnd] RnD Meeting Follow Up > Hi All, > > To inspire us all to continue working collectively together on the RnD pr= oject,=0D > I've typed up the "To Do" List that we came up with at the end of Sunday. > Of course, there are many, many more things "to do", but these appeared t= o > be some of the most immediate ones on which we might focus our attention. > Shall leave it to each Jamie and Tim to recruit various ones among us fo= r > different tasks, but imagine they would also be grateful for volunteers. > > > To Do List > > 1. 1 page summary of the concept (an outreach piece with the basic messag= e > of why, what, who, how). > > 2. 4-page explanatory note for various constituencies (This is basically > a longer version of #1 above). It could be organized in a Frequently Aske= d > Questions (FAQ) format. > > 3. An elaboration/reformulation of the existing treaty text that presents > the idea as a framework and which focuses on setting out clearly the obje= ctives, > the scope of issues it would include, and the purposes of each of its var= ious=0D > components. So, while it would elaborate on many of the sub-headings in t= he > treaty text, it would not attempt draft language for a treaty text nor wo= uld > it propose a particular treaty format. It would not at this point, for ex= ample, > include all of the detail on proposed mechanisms, but instead to emphasis= e > the purposes of the various sections. It would in effect be 'just a few s= teps > short' of the treaty text. > > 4. Ongoing technical work on the various mechanisms that might work to ad= vance > the objectives and purposes of the framework. > > 5. Papers/studies/evaluations of technical aspects, evaluation of proposa= ls, > and ongoing consideration of the appropriate format of a treaty (as per s= uggestions > from Carlos Correa). > > To set a good example, I volunteer to help with 1,2, and 3. > > Hope this helps! Thanks again to CPTech for organizing a great meeting. > > > > With best wishes, > >=0D > Carolyn Deere > > > Chair, Board of Directors > Intellectual Property Watch > Ph: +41-79-318-2021 > > _______________________________________________ > Bellagio-rnd mailing list > Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd > ____________________________________________________________ Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione= . Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it From james.love@cptech.org Fri Nov 5 09:07:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E979329B33 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9395 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2004 14:07:33 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 05 Nov 2004 14:07:33 -0000 Received: from 152.3.4.25 ([152.3.4.25]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 05 Nov 2004 14:07:33 -0000 Message-ID: <418B8928.1060509@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] letter regarding R&D treaty proposal Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Nov 5 09:09:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:07:36 -0500 Like many others, I rode a roller coaster of optimism and then shock and disappointment over the reelection of George W. But, life goes on, and in some ways, the project on the R&D treaty will be perhaps more important now. I've been working of a draft sign-on letter, and while it is a bit late, it should be ready by the weekend. I would like to have a new draft (v.4) of the big R&D treaty text ready by the end of next week, to reflect many of the comments from the Geneva consultation. Based upon the Geneva discussions, we are pretty much abandoning the small treaty as a separate document. There were suggestions to make the big treaty more modular, with separate protocols, and this issue may be resolved later. People should feel free to add comments also to this list. I have also asked a researcher to collect various dispute resolution provisions in other treaties, so we can study some of the alternative approaches. Best, jamie -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From rufus.pollock@okfn.org Fri Nov 5 12:31:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from sm1.matthewlloyd.net (sm1.matthewlloyd.net [67.19.124.106]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23EB29B3D for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from cpc1-cmbg6-6-0-cust94.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([81.104.213.94] helo=[192.168.1.100]) by sm1.matthewlloyd.net with asmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CQ7vA-0001EF-Jy for bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:30:56 -0800 Message-ID: <418BB8AF.3000506@okfn.org> From: Rufus Pollock User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 81.104.213.94 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rufus.pollock@okfn.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on sm1.matthewlloyd.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:06:07 +0200) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on sm1.matthewlloyd.net) content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] draft introduction document to the convention/big treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun Nov 7 09:48:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:30:23 +0000 I have recently produced a draft document intended to provide an introduction for a non-expert audience to the Medical Innovation Convention. A summary and link to main article is available from: http://www.okfn.org/drn/node/3 Any comments, corrections and criticism etc are welcome. Regards, Rufus Pollock From Kevin.Outterson@mail.wvu.edu Sun Nov 7 17:28:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mxv2.wvu.edu (mxv2.wvu.edu [157.182.140.123]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AF229B37 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from WVUGW01.wvu.edu (wvugw01.wvu.edu [157.182.215.110]) by mxv2.wvu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA7MScHm002818 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:28:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Kevin.Outterson@mail.wvu.edu) Received: from WVUDOM1-MTA by WVUGW01.wvu.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:28:38 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 From: "Kevin Outterson" To: , Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] draft introduction document to the convention/big treaty Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Nov 8 09:12:18 2004 X-Original-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:28:17 -0500 Thanks for posting this intro. Great work. "I don't think we should describe medical R&D as a public good. It shares some characteristics with public goods, but most economists would not call it a public good. I;ve taken a stab at an alternative wording of the first part: All creators of knowledge have difficulty appropriating the rewards of their inventions (who would produce a $100 million movie without the exclusive rights to distribute the movie?). Once available to the public, free-riders who did not contribute to the creative costs could produce it at the marginal manufacturing cost. This would be a boon to global public health, but may undermine future innovation. The patent law is one possible solution to this appropriation problem, but it comes with significant problems. Patent laws confer temporary monopolies, with many inefficiencies derived from monopoly pricing. Drug companies overspend on marketing, making hay while the sun shines, and focus great resources on extending the effective patent periods through political power and litigation. Marketing drugs with 'intellectual property rights' is not a free market, but a government-created monopoly with severe distortions. One direct impact of this system is excessively high prices for patented medicines, prices so high that millions of people in the US and billions of people worldwide lack access to live-saving drugs. Another is that inappropriate drugs such as Vioxx are aggressively marketed while the patent clock ticks. Nor is this system particularly efficient in supporting R&D; only 15% of the monopoly-induced prices are devoted to R&D. The patent-subsidy-monopoly system is remarkably inefficient and dangerous to public health. The patent system is not the only alternative for solving the R&D free-rider issue ...." Thanks for the opportunity to comment Kevin Outterson Associate Professor of Law West Virginia University 304 293 8282 kevin.outterson@mail.wvu.edu LL.M. (Cantab.) J.D. (Northwestern) SSRN Author Page: ssrn.com/author=340746 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or recipients is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >>> Rufus Pollock 11/05/04 12:30 PM >>> I have recently produced a draft document intended to provide an introduction for a non-expert audience to the Medical Innovation Convention. A summary and link to main article is available from: http://www.okfn.org/drn/node/3 Any comments, corrections and criticism etc are welcome. Regards, Rufus Pollock _______________________________________________ Bellagio-rnd mailing list Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/bellagio-rnd From james.love@cptech.org Wed Nov 10 01:06:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26DE329B5D for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12932 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 06:06:29 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 10 Nov 2004 06:06:29 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 10 Nov 2004 06:06:29 -0000 Message-ID: <4191AFEC.3020705@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Draft sign-on letter to WHO CIPIH on Treaty Proposal Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Nov 10 01:08:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:06:36 -0500 This is a draft sign-on letter for the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Health (CIPIH). Right now it is 1,400 words and 4 pages. It refers to Draft 4 of the treaty (the version which incorporates the comments from Geneva), which is not yet done. Comments are welcome. If we can get agreement on a basic letter, I would like to circulate the text to a wider audience, with some inital signatures. I don't want to do that until I get some feedback on this version, however. Jamie -------- Letter to the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health (CIPIH) Dear Commission Members: The current global framework for supporting medical R&D suffers from profound flaws. A growing web of multilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade agreements and policies focus nearly exclusively on measures that expand the scope and power of intellectual property rights, or reduce the effectiveness of price negotiations or controls. These mechanisms are plainly designed to increase drug prices, as the sole mechanism to increase investments in R&D. Stronger intellectual property rights and high drug price prices do create incentives to invest in medical innovation, but also impose costs, including: 1.=09rationing and access problems, 2.=09costly, misleading and excessive marketing of products, 3.=09barriers to follow-on research, 4.=09skewing of investment toward products that offer little or no therapeutic advance over existing treatments, and 5.=09scant investment in treatments for the poor, basic research or public goods. A trade framework that only relies upon high prices to bolster medical R&D investments anticipates and accepts the rationing of new medical innovations, does nothing to address the global need for public sector R&D investments, is ineffective at driving investments into important priority research projects, and when taken to extremes, is subject to a number of well-known anticompetitive practices and abuses. Policy makers need a new framework that has the flexibility to promote both innovation and access, and which is consistent with efforts to protect consumers and control costs. To this end, a number of experts and stakeholders have proposed a new global treaty to support medical R&D. This effort has produced a working draft (http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty4.doc, not finished yet)) which illustrates a particular approach for such a treaty -- one that seeks to provide the flexibility to reconcile different policy objectives, including the promotion of both innovation and access. The draft treaty would also provide new obligations and economic incentives to invest in priority research projects, and addresses other issues important for the development of new medicines. =09The World is Changing The global trade framework for pharmaceuticals is changing. The pace of change is accelerating; the direction is toward higher prices and rationing of access, and the target of policy is the often elimination of basic government interventions to protect consumers. Most important, the world is increasingly locked-in to a rigid and increasingly controversial approach to financing R&D. It is thus urgent to propose and evaluate alternative trade frameworks. =09The Draft R&D Treaty Project The current draft R&D treaty seeks to stimulate discussion. It is a work in progress, representing a collaborative effort, with contributions from several persons over the past two years. The discussion below concerns draft 4.0, and some provisions will change in later drafts. The objective is to establish an international system that (1) ensures sustainable investments in medical innovation, (2) provides a fair allocation of the cost burdens of such innovation, (3) creates mechanisms to drive R&D investment into the areas of the greatest need, and (4) provides the flexibility to utilize diverse and innovative methods of financing innovation while protecting consumers and ensuring access. =09Obligations to finance R&D At the core of the Draft Treaty is an obligation to finance Qualified Medical Research and Development (QMRD). This obligation is tied to country GDP. In Draft 4.0, two different methods of determining the fraction of GDP for QMRD are presented. Alternative 1 uses different rates for each of four income groups (high, high medium, low medium, and low). Alternative 2 is a graduated rate. QMRD would include (1) basic biomedical research, development of biomedical databases and research tools, (2) development of pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, medical diagnostic tools, (3) medical evaluations of these products, and (4) preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge, There is a separate obligation to finance Priority Medical Research and Development (PMRD), and two alternative methods of setting benchmarks for PMRD. In the current draft at least half of PMRD investments must be targeted for neglected diseases. =09Methods of financing R&D While virtually all of today=92s trade agreements focus exclusively upon purchase of medicines at high prices as the sole method of financing R&D, the Draft R&D Treaty takes a much broader view. Acceptable methods of finance include such items as direct public funding, tax credits or other expenditures, philanthropic spending, research funded by businesses or non-profit organizations under government mandates, purchases of relevant medical products (to the degree that such expenditures induce industry investments in R&D), and innovation prizes (to the degree that such prizes induce industry investments in R&D). =09Benefits of Meeting Obligations to Finance R&D Members who sign the treaty agree to forgo dispute resolution over intellectual property or pricing issues relating to the products covered by the agreement. This includes all multilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral intellectual property and trade agreements. =09Tradable Credits for Investments in Certain Public Goods In addition to the basic obligations outlined above, the Draft treaty creates a system for assigning credits for projects that are considered socially important. Member countries may use these credits to satisfy treaty obligations. Similar to the Kyoto climate treaty, credits can be traded across borders -- countries that exceed benchmark obligations can sell excess credits. The credits will be given for a variety of projects including: =95=09R&D for neglected diseases and other priority research projects, =95=09=93Open public goods,=94 such as free and open source public database= s, =95=09Projects have involve the transfer of technology and capacity to developing countries, =95=09The preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge, =95=09Exceptionally useful public goods, =09Promotion of Open Access Publishing The treaty provides for adoption of a best practices model for the support of open access publishing of biomedical research, and obligations that articles based upon publicly funded research enter public domain archives. =09Equitable Access to Publicly Funded Inventions Member countries would be obligated to provide equitable access to publicly funded inventions. =09Changes in Intellectual Property Laws The treaty provides for minimum exceptions to patent rights for research, and a novel agreement to not accept patent applications for inventions that are based upon data from certain open public goods databases (like the HapMap Project). =09Global Norms / Decentralized Control of R&D Spending While the Treaty proposes global norms regarding obligations to invest in R&D, and tradable credits as incentives to invest in certain types of R&D projects, the management of specific R&D outlays is decentralized, and controlled by Member countries. Members are free to embrace a diversity of management approaches to support R&D, including the direct funding of profit or non-profit research projects, market transactions such as purchases of medicine that provide incentives for research and development, payment of royalties to patent owners, tax credits, innovation prizes, investments in competitive research intermediators, mandated research and development obligations on sellers of medicines or other alternatives that have the practical effect of either directly or indirectly financing medical R&D. =09Transparency and Measurement Members agree to adopt consistent approaches to measuring R&D flows and outcomes. The measurement of investment flows will follow three principles. (1) No double counting (mechanisms to finance R&D are complex, involving mixed sources of finance and transnational flows of products and investments, but each investment will only be counted once). (2). Source of finance rather that location of investment. For example, if products are purchased in one country but R&D is performed in another, the country that paid for the products would receive credit for funding the R&D. The county that performed the R&D would not. (3) Evidence based estimates. In cases where measured investments are based upon estimates of the relationship between outlays on products (or other incentives) and actual R&D investments, the estimates shall be based upon the best empirical evidence of such relationships. =09Engage and Evaluate Proposals for New Global Frameworks to Support Medical R&D We call upon the WHO CIPIH to engage in debates over the appropriate global framework to support medical R&D, and to evaluate the Draft R&D Treaty proposal. This initiative seeks to refashion global policy to better fulfill the objective of providing =93access to medicine for all.=94 It recognizes the importance of ensuring sustainable sources of finance for innovation, including R&D for neglected diseases and other public health priorities, and it provides opportunities to experiment with new and promising mechanisms to finance R&D, such as prize funds, competitive intermediators, compensatory liability regimes, or open collaborative projects such as the Human Genome Project. We are at a key moment in history, as we rapidly create new rules that will long determine the nature, costs and distribution of benefits of medical knowledge goods. It is essential that we create the best possible system. Sincerely, -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 From cwagner@bukopharma.de Wed Nov 10 04:59:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mailin1.hostsupport.de (mail.mail-fach.de [213.131.230.86]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5B529B19 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27583 invoked by uid 64014); 10 Nov 2004 09:59:35 -0000 Received: from cwagner@bukopharma.de by qmail with qmail-scanner-1.01 (. Clean. Processed in 0.137842 secs); 10 Nov 2004 09:59:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO diamant) (cwagner@bukopharma.de@217.255.146.83) by mail.mail-fach.de with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 09:59:35 -0000 From: "Christian Wagner" To: "Bellagio Mailingliste (E-Mail)" Cc: "James Love (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] Draft sign-on letter to WHO CIPIH on Treaty Proposal Message-ID: <001c01c4c70c$ff829760$0406a8c0@pharmis.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Nov 10 14:34:00 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:50 +0100 Dear Jamie, the draft letter is fine, but in the introduction I would underline in what sense we want a change of the system. For this I suggest using two keywords: - health as a human right (including access to medical treatment) - science in the public interest (in difference to the actual shift towards science in the private interest) Otherwise of course we will sign the letter as BUKO Pharma-Kampagne (Germany). All the best Christian ------------------------- Dr. Christian Wagner BUKO Pharma-Kampagne August-Bebel-Str. 62 33602 Bielefeld Tel. +49-(0)521-60 550 Fax. +49-(0)521-63 789 e-mail: cwagner@bukopharma.de www.bukopharma.de From rob@essential.org Thu Nov 11 12:59:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8982E29B19 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E6A5FD0B for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27925-01-4 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5335FD05 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:59:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4193A892.6060002@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] WHO report on health systems Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Nov 11 17:15:01 2004 X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:59:46 -0500 The World Health Organization has just released its World Report on Knowledge for Better Health Strengthening Health Systems. The topic of the report is far broader than medical technologies. But there's stuff of some interest in the report. This from the conclusion: 2. Financing health research: As first proposed by the Commission on Health Research and Development in 1990, countries should allocate at least 2% of national health expenditure and 5% of health project assistance to health research. This should include an effort to monitor health research spending within national health accounts (NHA). Countries also need to explore more innovative ways to finance health research. Some countries have introduced a =93sin=94 tax which allocates a proportion of tax revenue from gambling, alcohol and tobacco sales to health promotion and research. On a global level, major supporters of health research must renew their commitment to reduce the 10/90 gap. 3. New diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics: There is a need to continue to promote the role of public-private partnerships and other innovative approaches in addressing the neglected diseases that mainly affect the poor. The development of priority diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics should be a priority. Consideration should also be given to analysing issues such as tax relief schemes and other financial incentives within the existing patent system. Other novel approaches such as the "open source" approach to research should also be evaluated. From peters@earlham.edu Thu Nov 11 17:11:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF9929B19 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pds.earlham.edu (dpc691946073.direcpc.com [69.19.46.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iABMBLTI090220; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:11:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from peters@earlham.edu) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20041111165759.03146a08@pop.earlham.edu> X-Sender: peters@pop.earlham.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: Peter Suber Subject: Re: [Bellagio-rnd] letter regarding R&D treaty proposal In-Reply-To: <418B8928.1060509@cptech.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.18 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.176 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) x-plaintext: Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Nov 11 17:15:03 2004 X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:08:47 -0500 -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Jamie, These comments are limited to section 12, on open access. From Discussion Draft 3: >[Section 12.1] The CMI will appoint a committee on open access publishing >(COAP). The COAP will adopt best a practices model for the support of >open access publishing. Within 5 years, every member will adopt >procedures to ensure that published articles that are supported by public >sector research can enter open archives within a period of time. (1) I'd still like to drop the word "publishing" from the title of section 12.1 and name of the committee described in 12.1. My reasons are the same ones I gave in my October 14 posting to the list. I can summarize or reprint them if you'd like. On the other hand, this is not critical and I can support the language without this change. I just think the change will disarm irrelevant objections and make life easier during the period when we are trying to win ratification and support. (2) I'd like to change "can enter open archives" to "will enter open archives". This is more important than the previous suggestion. Any article "can" enter an archive. The question is whether public funding agencies will require it or take steps to encourage it. Best, Peter ---------- Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.suber@earlham.edu -- From cwagner@bukopharma.de Wed Nov 24 06:31:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mailin1.hostsupport.de (mail.mail-fach.de [213.131.230.86]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C16529B5F for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7781 invoked by uid 64014); 24 Nov 2004 11:31:17 -0000 Received: from cwagner@bukopharma.de by qmail with qmail-scanner-1.01 (. Clean. Processed in 2.805951 secs); 24 Nov 2004 11:31:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO diamant) (cwagner@bukopharma.de@80.130.190.213) by mail.mail-fach.de with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 11:31:10 -0000 From: "Christian Wagner" To: Message-ID: <001b01c4d219$01016320$0406a8c0@pharmis.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] strong medicine Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun Nov 28 04:21:02 2004 X-Original-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:28:20 +0100 Hi all, what do you think of the concept given in this new book: "Strong Medicine" Michael Kremer und Rachel Glennerster, Princeton University Press 2004. Did anyone read the whole book? Summary of the content you find here: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7830.html Greetings Christian Wagner ------------------------- Dr. Christian Wagner BUKO Pharma-Kampagne August-Bebel-Str. 62 33602 Bielefeld Tel. +49-(0)521-60 550 Fax. +49-(0)521-63 789 e-mail: cwagner@bukopharma.de www.bukopharma.de From james.love@cptech.org Wed Jan 26 11:19:51 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from unity.futurequest.net (unity.futurequest.net [69.5.15.2]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B71629B4E for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:19:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 682 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2005 16:19:49 -0000 Received: from borgwatch.org (borgwatch.org [69.5.16.187]) by unity.futurequest.net ([69.5.15.2]); 26 Jan 2005 16:19:48 -0000 Received: from 200.167.53.243 ([200.167.53.243]) by borgwatch.org ([69.5.16.187]) with ESMTP via TCP; 26 Jan 2005 16:19:48 -0000 Message-ID: <41F7C324.4080107@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Medical R&D Treaty sign-on letter Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Jan 26 11:22:01 2005 X-Original-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:19:48 -0500 This is the sign-on letter asking the WHO to evaluate the R&D Treaty. We are off to a good start with 59 impressive initial signatures. We will close out the letter on Feb 15, when we send it to the WHO. I hope that people can help move the letter in their own communities. Jamie Love http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndsignonletter.html Sign-on Letter to ask World Health Organization to Evaluate New Treaty Framework for Medical Research and Development The following is a sign-on letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health (CIPIH). This body is asked to evaluate a new treaty framework for medical R&D. (http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty4.pdf) This is essentially a substitute for existing or planned trade agreements that focus on patents or drug prices. The proposed Medical R&D Treaty (MRDT) is a 12 page work in progress that has been discussed for more than 2 years by a large number of public heath experts, economists, lawyers and others who are seeking to create a new paradigm for financing medical R&D. It features a number of new ideas for dealing with global R&D issues, including for example minimum obligations for supporting R&D, priority setting mechanisms, and a system of tradable credits for investments in particular projects that promote social or public interest objectives. (Creating markets for public goods.) If you would like to add your name to the letter, send your name and preferred identification to rndsignon@cptech.org, by February 15, 2005. February X, 2005 Open Letter asking the WHO Executive Board and the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health (CIPIH) to Evaluate a Proposal for New Global Medical R&D Treaty Dear Members of the WHO Executive Board and the WHO CIPIH: Dear Commission Members: The current global framework for supporting medical R&D suffers from profound flaws. A growing web of multilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade agreements and policies focus nearly exclusively on measures that expand the scope and power of intellectual property rights, or reduce the effectiveness of price negotiations or controls. These mechanisms are plainly designed to increase drug prices, as the sole mechanism to increase investments in R&D. Stronger intellectual property rights and high drug prices do create incentives to invest in medical innovation, but also impose costs, including: 1. rationing and access problems, 2. costly, misleading and excessive marketing of products, 3. barriers to follow-on research, 4. skewing of investment toward products that offer little or no therapeutic advance over existing treatments, and 5. scant investment in treatments for the poor, basic research or public goods. A trade framework that only relies upon high prices to bolster medical R&D investments anticipates and accepts the rationing of new medical innovations, does nothing to address the global need for public sector R&D investments, is ineffective at driving investments into important priority research projects, and when taken to extremes, is subject to a number of well-known anticompetitive practices and abuses. Policy makers need a new framework that has the flexibility to promote both innovation and access, and which is consistent with efforts to protect consumers and control costs. To this end, a number of experts and stakeholders have proposed a new global treaty to support medical R&D. This effort has produced a working draft (http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty4.pdf) that illustrates a particular approach for such a treaty -- one that seeks to provide the flexibility to reconcile different policy objectives, including the promotion of both innovation and access, consistent with human rights and the promotion of science in the public interest. The draft treaty would provide new obligations and economic incentives to invest in priority research projects, and addresses several other important topics. 1 The World is Changing The global trade framework for pharmaceuticals is changing. The pace of change is accelerating; the direction is toward higher prices and rationing of access, and the target of policy is often the elimination of basic government interventions to protect consumers. Most important, the world is increasingly locked-in to a rigid and increasingly controversial approach to financing R&D. It is thus urgent to propose and evaluate alternative trade frameworks. 2 The Draft R&D Treaty Project The current draft R&D treaty seeks to stimulate discussion. It is a work in progress, representing a collaborative effort, with contributions from several persons over the past two years. The discussion below concerns draft 4.0, and some provisions will change in later drafts. The objective is to establish an international system that (1) ensures sustainable investments in medical innovation, (2) provides a fair allocation of the cost burdens of such innovation, (3) creates mechanisms to drive R&D investment into the areas of the greatest need, and (4) provides the flexibility to utilize diverse and innovative methods of financing innovation while protecting consumers and ensuring access. 3 Obligations to finance R&D At the core of the Draft Treaty is an obligation to finance Qualified Medical Research and Development (QMRD). This obligation is tied to country GDP. In Draft 4.0, two different methods of determining the fraction of GDP for QMRD are presented. Alternative 1 uses different rates for each of four income groups (high, high medium, low medium, and low). Alternative 2 is a graduated rate. QMRD would include (1) basic biomedical research, development of biomedical databases and research tools, (2) development of pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, medical diagnostic tools, (3) medical evaluations of these products, and (4) preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge, There is a separate obligation to finance Priority Medical Research and Development (PMRD), and two alternative methods of setting benchmarks for PMRD. In the current draft at least half of PMRD investments must be targeted for neglected diseases. 4 Methods of financing R&D While virtually all of today's trade agreements focus exclusively upon purchase of medicines at high prices as the sole method of financing R&D, the Draft R&D Treaty takes a much broader view. Acceptable methods of finance include such items as direct public funding, tax credits or other expenditures, philanthropic spending, research funded by businesses or non-profit organizations under government mandates, purchases of relevant medical products (to the degree that such expenditures induce industry investments in R&D), and innovation prizes (to the degree that such prizes induce industry investments in R&D). 5 Benefits of Meeting Obligations to Finance R&D Members who sign the treaty agree to forgo dispute resolution over intellectual property or pricing issues relating to the products covered by the agreement. This includes all multilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral intellectual property and trade agreements. 6 Tradable Credits for Investments in Certain Public Goods In addition to the basic obligations outlined above, the Draft Treaty creates a system for assigning credits for projects that are considered socially important. Member countries may use these credits to satisfy treaty obligations. Similar to the Kyoto climate treaty, credits can be traded across borders -- countries that exceed benchmark obligations can sell excess credits. The credits will be given for a variety of projects including: * R&D for neglected diseases and other priority research projects, * "Open public goods," such as free and open source public databases, * Projects that involve the transfer of technology and capacity to developing countries, * The preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge, and * Exceptionally useful public goods. 7 Promotion of Open Access Research The treaty provides for adoption of a best practices model for the support of open access biomedical research, and obligations that research supported by public funds enter open access archives. 8 Equitable Access to Publicly Funded Inventions Member countries would be obligated to provide equitable access to publicly funded inventions. 9 Changes in laws for patents, copyright and related rights. The treaty provides for minimum exceptions to patent rights for research, and a novel agreement to not accept patent applications for inventions that are based upon data from certain open public goods databases (like the HapMap Project), as well as a best practice for practices model for exceptions in laws on copyright and related rights, including laws on databases. 10 Global Norms / Decentralized Control of R&D Spending While the Treaty proposes global norms regarding obligations to invest in R&D, and tradable credits as incentives to invest in certain types of R&D projects, the management of specific R&D outlays is decentralized, and controlled by Member countries. Members are free to embrace a diversity of management approaches to support R&D, including the direct funding of profit or non-profit research projects, market transactions such as purchases of medicine that provide incentives for research and development, payment of royalties to patent owners, tax credits, innovation prizes, investments in competitive research intermediators, mandated research and development obligations on sellers of medicines or other alternatives that have the practical effect of either directly or indirectly financing medical R&D. 11 Transparency and Measurement Members agree to adopt consistent approaches to measuring R&D flows and outcomes. The measurement of investment flows will follow three principles. (1) No double counting (mechanisms to finance R&D are complex, involving mixed sources of finance and transnational flows of products and investments, but each investment will only be counted once). (2). Source of finance rather than location of investment. For example, if products are purchased in one country but R&D is performed in another, the country that paid for the products would receive credit for funding the R&D. The county that performed the R&D would not. (3) Evidence based estimates. In cases where measured investments are based upon estimates of the relationship between outlays on products (or other incentives) and actual R&D investments, the estimates shall be based upon the best empirical evidence of such relationships. 12 Evaluate Proposals for New Global Frameworks to Support Medical R&D We call upon the WHO CIPIH to engage in debates over the appropriate global framework to support medical R&D, and to evaluate the Draft R&D Treaty proposal. This initiative seeks to refashion global policy to better fulfill the objective of providing "access to medicine for all." It recognizes the importance of ensuring sustainable sources of finance for innovation, including R&D for neglected diseases and other public health priorities, and it provides opportunities to experiment with new and promising mechanisms to finance R&D, such as prize funds, competitive intermediators, compensatory liability regimes, or open collaborative projects such as the Human Genome Project. We are at a key moment in history, as we rapidly create new rules that will long determine the nature, costs and distribution of benefits of medical knowledge goods. It is essential that we create the best possible system. Sincerely [To sign, send an email to rnd-signon@cptech.org, with your name and the way you would like to be identified, including county of residence.] Initial Signatures include: James Love, Director CPTech, Washington, DC Tim Hubbard, Head of Human Genome Research, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK Martin Khor, Third World Network, Malaysia Sir John Sulston, Winner of 2002 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, Former Director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK Dr. Massimo Barra, Vice President, International Federation of the Red Cros= s Ellen 't Hoen, Director of Policy Advocacy and Research, Access to Essential Medicines Campaign, M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res Oxfam International Spring Gombe, Health Action International (HAI) Anna Fielder, Director, Consumers International, Office for Developed and Transition Economies, London Bernard Sanders, Member, United States House of Representatives William W. Fisher III, Hale and Dorr Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard Law School Peter Suber, Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge, Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College HeeSeob Nam, Intellectual Property Left, Patent Attorney, Korea Dr. Christian Wagner, BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, Bielefeld, Germany Ruth Mayne, Oxford Brookes University, UK James Boyle, William Neal Reynolds Professor of Law, Duke Univesity Peter Drahos, Professor and Head of Progam, Regulatory Institutions Network, Research School of Social Sciences, Canberra, Australia Jonathan Berger, AIDS Law Project, South Africa Nathan Geffen, Treatment Access Campaign, South Africa Nicoletta Dentico, President, Global Health Watch in Rome, Italy Jiraporn Limpananont, Ph.D., Chair of Social Pharmacy Research Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Andy Gray, Senior Lecturer, Dept of Therapeutics and Medicines Management, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, Durban, South Africa Joel Lexchin MD, School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Joan Rovira, Director of Research for SOIKOS (Centro de Estudios en Economia de la Salud y de la Politica Social) Barcelona, Spain Frederick M. Abbott, Edward Ball Eminent Scholar, Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law Prof Udo Schuklenk, Chair in Ethics and Public Policy, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Suntaree Vitayanatpaisan, Chairperson, Drug Study Group (DSG), Bangkok, Thailand Charles Medawar, Director, Social Audit Ltd, London, UK Dr. Shyama V. Ramani, Department of Economics, INRA- Universite Pierre Mendes France Donald Light, Visiting Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Talha Syed, Doctoral Candidate, Harvard Law School Dr. Alexander C. Tsai, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Mei-ling Wang, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Social Sciences and Health Policy, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, USA Carolyn Deere, Global Economic Governance Programme, Oxford University Warren Kaplan, Center for International Health and Development, Boston University School of Public Health, USA Leonard Rodberg, Associate Professor and Chair, Urban Studies Department Queens College/CUNY, NY Terence H. Young, Chair, Drug Safety Canada, Ontario, Canada Madeline Boscoe, R.N, Advocacy Coordinator, Women's Health Clinic, Winnipeg, Canada Harriet G. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Health and Society Programme, York University, Toronto, Canada Richard J. Brown, MD, Board, Physicians for a National Health Program, NY Metro Chapter Dr Andrew Herxheimer, Emeritus Fellow, UK Cochrane Centre Dr Jillian Clare Cohen, Assistant Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto Richard Stallman, Founder, Free Software Foundation Elia Abi-Jaoude, Psychiatry Resident, University of Toronto, Canada Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA Barbara Mintzes, Centre for Health Services & Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Canada Alan Cassels, Drug policy researcher, School of Health Information Science University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada John Howkins, Director, IP Charter, London David Dudley, Attorney Kevin Outterson, Associate professor of Law, West Virginia University Professor Anil K. Gupta, K L Chair Professor of Entrepreneurship, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India Dr. Ikrame MOUCHARIK, membre d'ATTAC Maroc Gazanfer Aksakoglu, Professor and Head, Department of Community Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey Robert Weissman, Director, Essential Action, Washington, DC David M. Olson, M.D., Medical Advisor, MSF-USA Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, Canada Aidan Hollis, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Calgary Bob Huff, Editor, GMHC Treatment Issues, New York George M. Carter, Director, Foundation for Integrated AIDS Research (FIAR), Brooklyn, NY, USA -- James Love, Director, CPTech, http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176 Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 Mobile +1.202.361.3040 james.love@cptech.org From cwagner@bukopharma.de Mon Jan 31 07:01:44 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mailin1.hostsupport.de (mailin1.hostsupport.de [213.203.205.3]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F65229B0F for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25366 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2005 12:01:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO diamant) (cwagner@bukopharma.de@217.82.82.69) by 213.203.205.3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2005 12:01:37 -0000 From: "Christian Wagner" To: Message-ID: <000a01c5078d$6a04a680$0406a8c0@pharmis.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] strategy meeting Amsterdam 14./15. february Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Jan 31 07:21:00 2005 X-Original-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:07:19 +0100 Dear friends, we would like to invite you for joining our HAI strategy meeting on research politics. It will take place 14/15th feb. in Amsterdam. At this meeting we would like to coordinate our future European lobbying activities (see details given below). Best regards Christian Wagner ------------------------- Christian Wagner BUKO Pharma-Kampagne August-Bebel-Str. 62 33602 Bielefeld Tel. +49-(0)521-60 550 Fax. +49-(0)521-63 789 e-mail: cwagner@bukopharma.de www.bukopharma.de Essential Innovation: Invitation to a strategy meeting - 14./15. February 2005 We invite: * all HAI Europe members interested in work on Essential Innovation within their own country We want to discuss * the background of HAI's work on Essential Innovation and the European Commission's 7th Framework Program for Research * our own common objectives for national and European lobbying * our further strategy for networking, producing campaigning material etc. We will meet * at the HAI office in Amsterdam from 14.Feb 2005 (1pm) to 15.Feb (1pm) Background: In the research and development (R&D) of new drugs there is a lack of real innovation, that is, innovation geared towards a rational and sufficient drug supply for the world population. R&D is mostly driven by profit, not by real need. On the one hand, there is hardly any research into so-called "neglected diseases", infectious diseases affecting mainly people in developing countries. On the other hand, the market in rich countries is flooded with 'lifestyle drugs' and 'pseudo-innovations' without real therapeutic value. Analysed from a public health perspective, the profit-driven private R&D system isn't working. There is an increasing public awareness of the problem. But alternative policy responses have yet to take root. What is clear is that giving more public money to industry as a "gift for innovation" cannot be the solution. Meanwhile, the European Commission plans to launch the 7th Framework Program on research (FP7) in Summer 2005. This represents a key opportunity for HAI Europe's "Essential Innovation" campaign, a chance to inject ideas on alternative models for R&D into international discussions. Targets: We need to raise awareness with: a) scientists across Europe who in many cases ignore the political dimension of their work b) Politicians on the national and European level. HAI Europe and Spring Gombe as project coordinator cover the European dimension of lobbying the European Commission and building partnerships with other multinational organisations. But, for successful work there is also a need for working at the national level in member states. BUKO Pharma-Kampagne from Germany are funded by HAI Europe for coordinating national lobbying activities in 2005. For more information and to express interest in attending the meeting, please contact: Spring Gombe spring@haiweb.org and Christian Wagner: cwagner@bukopharma.de Notice: HAI members interested in joining the strategy meeting are asked to cover costs for travel and accommodation by themselves. The HAI office can't give any reimbursement! From james.love@cptech.org Fri Feb 25 07:58:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from samson.futurequest.net (samson.futurequest.net [69.5.27.3]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68AA029B58 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:58:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1243 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2005 12:58:40 -0000 Received: from cptech.org (cptech.org [69.5.20.130]) by samson.futurequest.net ([69.5.27.3]); 25 Feb 2005 12:58:39 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by cptech.org ([69.5.20.130]) with ESMTP via TCP; 25 Feb 2005 12:58:39 -0000 Message-ID: <421F20FE.7040305@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] FT: WHO urged to evaluate Kyoto-style medical treaty Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Feb 25 08:03:00 2005 X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:58:38 -0500 Today's Financial Times has an article by Andrew Jack on the request by 162 leading scientists, public health experts, NGOs, academics, members of parliaments, government officials and others, asking WHO to evaluate a proposal for a treaty for medical R&D. The letter is on the CIPIH web site at this address: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/submissions/en/CPTech.pdf, and also is available in French and Spanish, along with the actual text of the proposed treaty (also in three languages) here: http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html The proposed treaty addresses the major trade issues concerning medicine, and is an alternative pardigm that could replace TRIPS or various TRIPS plus trade agreements on intellectual property or drug prices, for the covered products. The proposal requires every member country to support medical R&D to a fraction of its GDP, but is flexiable on the mechanisms that would qualify, including not only incentives for R&D from intellectual property protection or high drug prices, but also from public sector R&D, or new open source development efforts. The treaty deals with a wide range of issues, including priority setting, the preservation and dissemination of traditional medical knowledge, technology transfer and capacity building, and the creation of public goods, such as open scientific databases like the Human Genome or the HapMap project. It proposes a new system of "Kyoto-style" credits that researchers/companies/countries could earn by investing in projects of particular priorty need or public interest. This is the URL and the text of the FT article. James Love http://news.ft.com/cms/s/67e10ff8-86d4-11d9-8075-00000e2511c8.html WHO members urged to sign Kyoto-style medical treaty By Andrew Jack in London Published: February 25 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 25 2005 02:00 Countries around the world should sign up to a Kyoto-style treaty designed to boost medical innovation and affordable treatment, according to a petition submitted yesterday to the World Health Organisation by non-governmental organisations, academics and politicians. Member states should pledge to invest a percentage of their gross domestic product in medical innovation, and would be allowed to trade "credits" with others through a mechanism similar to that in the Kyoto protocol designed to reduce environmental emissions. They should also consider redirecting funding away from a traditional model based on intellectual property protection, and encourage the use of open sourcing to stimulate the sharing of information among medical researchers. The letter, which draws on a draft medical research and development treaty drawn up over the past two years, is part of a broader debate on how to boost innovative research and development at a time when the "pipelines" of new medicines of the large pharmaceutical groups have been drying up. It is also designed to address concerns that the current system does not have the incentives to encourage research into finding treatments for many "neglected diseases" in the developing world, which affect millions of people with only modest means to pay for medicines. The treaty is supported by organisations including the International Red Cross, Oxfam and M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res, as well as leading medical researchers and intellectual property specialists. Those involved in the lobbying effort are discussing an initiative by member countries within the WHO to raise the issue at the World Health Assembly in May. Jamie Love, head of the Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC, one of the originators of the idea, said the current emphasis placed on intellectual property protection of drug patents by the World Trade Organisation did little directly to find new cures. "The aim of this treaty is to refocus the debate away from drug prices and patents, and towards innovation and access," he said. "We want to shift more attention to the priority-setting process." He said large pharmaceutical companies opposed the idea of the research and development treaty. -- James Love, Director, CPTech, http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176 Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 Mobile +1.202.361.3040 james.love@cptech.org From james.love@cptech.org Fri Feb 25 08:02:48 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from samson.futurequest.net (samson.futurequest.net [69.5.27.3]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F68229B77 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16191 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2005 13:02:48 -0000 Received: from cptech.org (cptech.org [69.5.20.130]) by samson.futurequest.net ([69.5.27.3]); 25 Feb 2005 13:02:47 -0000 Received: from 69.143.161.214 ([69.143.161.214]) by cptech.org ([69.5.20.130]) with ESMTP via TCP; 25 Feb 2005 13:02:47 -0000 Message-ID: <421F21F6.1020903@cptech.org> From: James Love User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: 7bit content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] June 13-14, NYC Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Feb 25 08:04:01 2005 X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:02:46 -0500 The plan to have a USA TACD meeting (in Washington, DC) on the R&D treaty proposal in Mid April has been changed, because that is the week that WIPO will have its meetings on the development agenda. The meeting will apparently be rescheduled for June 13-14, in NYC, although that is not quite confirmed yet. Jamie -- James Love, Director, CPTech, http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176 Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 Mobile +1.202.361.3040 james.love@cptech.org From nicolettadentico@libero.it Tue Mar 1 04:12:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from mail1.apop.allenpress.com (mail1.apop.allenpress.com [65.245.134.223]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0559729B0F for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from BLADE5 ([172.16.15.205]) by mail1.apop.allenpress.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 03:10:13 -0600 To: Bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org From: nicolettadentico@libero.it Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2005 09:10:13.0315 (UTC) FILETIME=[79F9D930:01C51E3E] content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Article from PLoS Medicine Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Mar 1 10:59:01 2005 X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 03:16:03 -0600 Nicoletta Dentico has sent you an open-access article from PLoS Medicine. The sender added this: I thought you would find this article interesting. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D The Courage to Change the Rules: A Proposal for an Essential Health R{{amp}= }D Treaty Nicoletta Dentico, Nathan Ford (2005) The Courage to Change the Rules: A P= roposal for an Essential Health R{{amp}}D Treaty. PLoS Med 2(2): e. Read the open-access, full-text article here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020014 PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org) is an open-access journal = published monthly by the Public Library of Science (http://www.plos.org). A= ll works published in PLoS journals are distributed under the terms of the = Public Library of Science Open-Access License, which permits unrestricted u= se, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original wor= k is properly cited (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=3Dg= et-static&name=3Dlicense). Sign up for issue alerts, and we'll email the table of contents to you each= month: http://www.plosjournals.org/register.html From rob@essential.org Thu Oct 20 17:07:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [65.222.222.35]) by lists.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F8729B33 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179155FDFA for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from milan.essential.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (milan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21685-02-2 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.222.222.253] (osage.essential.org [65.222.222.253]) by milan.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD6E5FDF3 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <435806DE.2090502@essential.org> From: robert weissman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: [Bellagio-rnd] Internationalization of R&D; WIR Sender: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: bellagio-rnd-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: bellagio-rnd@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Oct 27 17:21:01 2005 X-Original-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:06:38 -0400 UNCTAD's 2005 annual World Investment Report is focused on "transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D" http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=3D6087&intItemID=3D2068&= lang=3D1&mode=3Dhighlights Part Two assesses the implications of the recent surge in R&D internationalization by TNCs. R&D activities at growing levels of complexity are increasingly being established in selected developing countries. In contrast to past experience, this R&D often goes beyond local market adaptation and involves highly complex activities targeted on global markets. The Report discusses the driving forces behind this trend and considers how host as well as home countries are affected. Finally, the Report analyses the need for active government policies to enhance development benefits from TNCs=B4 internationalization of R&D. The Report underlines the importance of coherent policies in order to create an environment conducive to fruitful interaction between the R&D activities of TNCs and those of domestic firms and institutions. A final chapter outlines the role of international agreements in this area.