[Ip-health] IP-Watch Inside Views: Interview With Howard Zucker, Senior WHO Official On IP

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D505&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0

10/1/2007
Inside Views: Interview With Howard Zucker, Senior WHO Official On IP



posted by Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen @ 4:54 pm



Howard Alan Zucker, assistant director general, health technology and
pharmaceuticals, at the World Health Organization, is among other
things in charge of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public
Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (referred to as =93IGWG"),
which was set up by the World Health Assembly in May 2006, and which
had its first meeting on 4-8 December. The group was asked to come up
with a global strategy and plan of action by May 2008 for how research
and development into neglected diseases may be improved. Intellectual
Property Watch sat down with Dr. Zucker in mid-December to discuss the
mandate of WHO to deal with issues such as IP and trade, the area of
counterfeit medicines that he also oversees, what role IP should play
in such a plan, his first year at the WHO and why he chose to come to
Geneva.

Intellectual Property Watch [IPW]: At the IGWG, the United States
raised the issue of whether WHO should deal with IP and trade at all.
Do you think this whole exercise of the IGWG has become one about what
belongs where?

Howard Zucker [ZUCKER]: Well, the issue is that, there are certain
things that WTO [World Trade Organization] does, and that WIPO [World
Intellectual Property Organization] does and that WHO does, that=92s
within their, I guess, bylaws to focus on. In the areas that overlap we
need to - it becomes a little bit of a partnership in being at the
table when some of these discussions take place. But we are already at
the table. There is a whole issue raised about some of the patent
issues and trade issues, but if you look on the WHO documents, we have
been at those tables. We have discussed those [issues]. But =85 I would
be disturbed if I was over in another agency and people were talking
completely about health, and [I would think]: that=92s a WHO thing. And I
would say it would be very good for them to be in our meetings but this
falls within the health world. And the same way I feel that certain
things fall within the trade world and certain things fall within the
IP world. But WHO should be there for the parts that deal with public
health to hear and to provide their expertise. But we do, that=92s why I
was so confused about that because we do really do do that. And there
are many documents that you pull right up on the web from WTO, [and]
they=92re discussing things that we are invited to.

IPW: I guess there were certain countries that did not want IP to be
part of this IGWG plan? Would it be possible to have a plan which at
least does not change the IP regime?

ZUCKER: I do not know yet. The thing is that [on] intellectual property
as the [WHO] Director General [Margaret Chan] said [in her November
speech], we need to move forward on neglected diseases, we need to
recognise that there are intellectual property issues. The thing is,
you can=92t just say, =92Well, we=92ll disrupt all these systems and just
figure out how to make a new system that works for health when there
are systems in place.=92 We need to work within the systems and
establishments that are there, but with the goal being, how do we get
research and development and innovation into the developing world and
particularly focus on neglected diseases. See, I see this as a win-win.
I see this as, you can do both of them. You can move this forward, you
can figure out a way to get the developing world access, or new drugs
for neglected diseases, and also recognise that there are systems that
are already in place. I do think that it=92s just a matter of being
creative on this.

IPW: I guess there are two questions: Whether IP should be part of the
global strategy and plan of action, and number two, whether it needs to
be a new IP system, because that=92s a different question.

ZUCKER: Well, IP should be part of it because, it=92s just partly the
issue, because all of the member states have raised that they want it
to be part of it and it is one of the eight subsections [of the
progress-to-date paper from the 4-8 December meeting]. And whether we
need new IP =85 I always believe that if you just decide to re-do the
whole, any kind of system completely, you start out and then you spend
years trying to build something. Whereas I sort of said, we have a
system, now how do we make sure that things get tailored to address the
needs of certain areas. I=92m saying there=92s a system already in place
that is working. You know, disrupting systems that address many other
things than just pharmaceuticals=85. But that=92s something I would talk to
WIPO about. I think that our goals are how to to push research and
development forward and that IP is one part of this. But the big issue
is innovation.

IPW: The counter argument, from the people who want the extreme
overhaul, is that there is a system, they would agree with you, but
because it is not working for these [neglected] diseases, it needs to
be changed.

ZUCKER: But you have to look at, how do we get to a solution on these
diseases. That=92s what the whole IGWG and the CIPIH [WHO Commission on
Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health] report [is
about]: How do we get innovation and research moved forward, focusing
on public health, intellectual property, all those things. A lot of
times people come in and they say, =91OK, I=92m going to just change it
all.=92 And it doesn=92t necessarily always work. Now it=92s a year since I
have been here, a little bit less than that, and we have moved things
forward. People on the counterfeit issue say, =92Why don=92t we have a big
convention.=92 And my answer to that is, so you will spend millions of
dollars, three years in the planning and what would we have
accomplished versus the five subgroups of the IMPACT [International
Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce] we have on
counterfeiting that is already moving down the road with legislative
issues, and technology issues, so with the same dollars we have ended
up with some really great [results]. And that=92s why my belief is that
it=92s not always the smartest thing to say, well, let=92s redo the whole
system. Often people say, =93here is another problem, here is another
problem.=94 I always say, tell me what is the solution.

IPW: You have now been here [WHO] for a year. How do you like the work
you are doing on the working group versus the counterfeiting effort.
Some people said at the meeting that counterfeiting does not fit at all
in the plan of action [IGWG].

ZUCKER: They=92re wrong. The counterfeit issue fits into this as much as
anything else. The issue here is, how could you argue access to
medicines, and not argue access to safe medicines, healthy medicines,
good medicines. Counterfeiting is part of our cluster, it is in the
CIPIH report. =85 A medicine is a counterfeit if it has the wrong
labelling, wrong dose, etcetera.

IPW: I guess people mix it up, generic versus counterfeit medicines.

ZUCKER: But the fact is that there are generic drugs out there, they
are not counterfeit, you know what I mean. It depends on how you define
things. But you have to look at counterfeit medicines as one of the
major problems in the developing world. And the issue is getting to the
problem, which I am always looking at, finding a solution to what that
problem is. The concern is that people aren=92t getting good, safe
medicine. Let=92s solve it. One of it is access, one of it is health
systems, one is counterfeits. Now, I don=92t do health systems but
counterfeit part I do, so let=92s solve it.

IPW: But the main thing is innovation, right? And counterfeiting is out
there after you have the medicines and they are trying to make fake
copies of it [while for neglected diseases there are actually no
medicines available yet]?

ZUCKER: But it=92s one of the bullet points of the IGWG [which contains
60 points]. It=92s just one part of this whole [CIPIH] report. But it is
part of the problem. And we got to go after it. And it=92s all only one
part of that. I was actually surprised that somebody was making such a
big issue out of [at the IGWG meeting; read about Brazil=92s
intervention] (see ip-watch.org, 7 December 2006). It=92s not a WTO
issue, it=92s definitely a health issue. I mean, it is part of our
cluster=92s responsibilities.

IPW: Percentage wise, how much are you working on counterfeiting and
how much on the working group?

ZUCKER: Well, I=92m working on it all. I never could break down my time,
I always say I work 90 percent on one, 90 percent on the other and 90
percent on the third. My days are packed, just packed. =85 I=92m the
[director general=92s representative] to the IP issues, innovation and
public health issues, so that=92s that whole court, I deal with
counterfeits, I deal with technology, I deal with access to medicines,
the pre-qualification programme, and I juggle it all. And I=92ve been
doing this my whole career, juggling things.

IPW: How have these jobs been compared with what you had expected?
Also, I understand that you were rising within the Bush administration,
so why did you decide to come to Geneva?

ZUCKER: How did I think this job compared to other jobs or compared to
my expectations? I pretty much thought the challenges that would be
here were exactly what they ended up being, trying to get many, many
countries to agree, trying to get concensus from a lot of parties. I
expected that there would be incredible talent, technical talent,
within the organisation, which there absolutely is, that=92s what WHO
usually attracts, those technical persons. I expected to have all the
challenges of a large organisation, whether it=92s public or private,
although I have never really been with the private sector, so I cannot
really say. But let=92s put it this way, public or academic, as those I
can speak to, whether it is university, national government or an
international organisation. It does have all those challenges. My
approach to most things are; find solutions and make them practical,
and turn theories that people have into real practise. And that=92s my
whole thing. Show me how it helps someone. The real bottom line is, I
left [Washington] taking care of patients who were literally on death=92s
door. Kids who were on death=92s door in intensive care units, where at
the end of the day, my objective was to have a major improvement in
their care, in their health status. I had deliverables with very, very
short [terms]. The long-term deliverables were within two or three
days, to get these kids home and out of the intensive care unit. I have
always looked at things like, =92Where are we going, how can we get there
and what is a really practical solution to this problem, how do we make
people better.=92 So I have just taken that, from those days doing that,
to a national level when I was working in the US, to an international
level now. This is the same thing, you know, how do we get to a
solution, solve the problem. It is probably in my own genetic code. I
gravitated to medical specialties that [involve] very, very, acute
care, high end =85 tangible solutions.

IPW: So do you like this [IGWG] group, then?

ZUCKER: Yes, but solve the problem. So I push everyone to solve the
problem, and they know that.

IPW: And why did you decide to come here?

ZUCKER: J. W. Lee [former WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook] asked me.
The former director general called me one day and said, asked me if I
would consider =85 I=92d never been to Switzerland, I=92d never been to
Geneva, I=92d never been to WHO. And I looked at what they do and said,
=92This is interesting, we can make some changes for the world and let=92s
do it. Go for it.=92

IPW: So is there anything to this article that was from Washington
about your political donations in the US (see ip-watch.org, 19
September 2006) ?

ZUCKER: Well, everything written in that article about whether I gave
money, yes, it is true.

IPW: So Lee just called you out of the blue?

ZUCKER: Lee called me and said there is an area of public health,
medicine =85 you have a background in it =85 come take a look. So I said,
OK.

IPW: So you had the option of continuing in Washington?

ZUCKER: [I ended up staying here], I could have stayed in Washington,
that wouldn=92t have changed =85 [As for secreatary of health], we get
along extremely well. I have not seen him since the World Health
Assembly, when he was here for the election, I mean, he was only here
for two days =85 I don=92t believe sitting in jobs for 10, 15, 20 years is
wise. It=92s just not wise. So, at some point something comes up. And I
also believe that this world has gotten so small that those involved in
health, if they don=92t have sort of an international perspective of this
=85 it provides an extra understanding of the health issues in any nation
when you have the understanding of the international, it just does.
Because we deal with [issues such as] avian flu, AIDS and malaria.

IPW: Thank you.

[To read the progress report on the IGWG sent to the Executive Board,
click here]

Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen may be reached at tgerhardsen@ip-watch.ch.
------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
CPTech
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@cptech.org