[Ip-health] December 6, 2006: Statement of CMC Churches' Action for Health at IGWG

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
  Statement of CMC Churches' Action for Health at IGWG

December 6, 2006



With regarding to R&D, we note that the CIPIH report refers to Type I,
II and III diseases.  The CIPIH suggests there are gaps in funding R&D
for Type II and III diseases, but does not attempt to quantify the
gaps, or identity sustainable sources of funding.  This is a topic that
the IGWG should address.

One has to estimate the target levels for R&D spending, and also new
global norms regarding the obligations of member states to pay for R&D.
   These two exercises go together.  The norms for supporting the costs
of R&D should reflect differences in incomes and levels of development.
  Countries with lower incomes and lower levels of development should
have lesser obligations to pay for R&D.

Here we would like to note our appreciation for the extensive
investments in R&D for Type II and III diseases undertaken by the US
NIH, which now is a major source of government funds for such R&D, and
the important role of certain private foundations, such as the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.  What is now needed is
to broaden and institutionalize the obligations of countries to support
such research, and also to ensure that developing countries contribute
to such efforts both as funders of R&D but also as providers of R&D,
through both the public, and private for profit and not for profit
sectors.

The discussions of technology transfer are helpful.  The suggestions by
the United States regarding the NIH and Universities were useful.
However, we would support a greater focus on the mechanisms or
incentives that expand and strengthen these efforts.   For example, we
note in that in the European Union, the Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development contains very specific
incentives for persons seeking grants in the more developed countries
in Europe to collaborate with countries that are less developed.  This
has stimulated technology transfers within Europe.   Similar mechanisms
or incentives could be discussed among WHO members.    The 24 February
2005 proposal to the WHO EB and CIPIH regarding an R&D treaty, a
document that should be distributed to the delegates here, also
proposed a system of tradable credits that created strong economic
incentives to collaborate with developing countries.

We note also the important role of open databases and new open
scientific journals in promoting technology transfer.  We note that the
proposed treaty on access to knowledge (A2K) has specific proposals for
expanding the global support for such projects, and these could be
considered to also.

With regard to the new document A/PHI/IGWG/1/4 Add.1, that proposes two
new elements to the global strategy and plan of action, there are
several points that should be made.

The section titled "management of intellectual property" seems to
endorse the promotion of intellectual property as if it is an end in
itself.   In fact, as set out in the CIPIH and in many other documents,
there are many areas of controversy in the field of intellectual
property, as they relate to health care inventions.  Many developing
countries want better technical assistance in implementing TRIPS
flexibilities, including for example, simpler systems of issuing
compulsory licenses, guidelines for royalties on compulsory licenses,
methods of using new approaches, such as patent pools, or prize funds,
which are examples of the collective management of intellectual
property rights.

We think it is also quite important to address the growing problem of
national laws that create exclusive rights to rely upon pharmaceutical
test data for drug registration.  Such measures present huge barriers
for access to medicine, but also would require the repetition of
experiments on humans that are unethical.   This group needs to speak
on this issue.  In doing so, however, the IGWG might look deeper into
the issue of the funding of clinical trials.  Are there areas where the
global community should be taking more responsibility for this
activity?  Not only to support R&D for new medicines, but (as many
experts have suggested) to address the evaluation and comparison of
drugs to treat the same disease.  This data should be treated as a
public good, and we should have a mechanism to identify priorities for
certain clinical trials, and sharing the costs of these tests.

We are very supportive of the proposal by the Secretariat to create
databases on patent status for medicines.  Today there is an
astonishing lack of information on the patent landscape for medicines
in developing countries.  This seems to be a very achievable short term
deliverable.

------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
CPTech
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@cptech.org
--