[Ip-health] IP-Watch: Report Finds Significant Industry Aff iliation in IGWG ‘NGO’ Comments

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=815

8 November 2007

Report Finds Significant Industry Affiliation in IGWG ‘NGO’ Comments



By Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch
As negotiators gather at the United Nations this week in Geneva to
seek ways to boost innovation on neglected diseases disproportionately
affecting poor people, a new study was released showing that
commentators at the negotiation’s public hearing came primarily from
organisations affiliated in some way with the pharmaceutical or
biotechnology industries.

The study, released on 7 November, was conducted by US nongovernmental
group Essential Action via survey. Commentators registered as an
‘NGO’, ‘Civil Society Group’, or ‘International Organization’ and were
asked whether their group accepts donations from for-profit
corporations or trade associations, and then asked for details
regarding specific companies, amounts donated, and stated purpose of
donations. Essential Action also independently researched funding
sources and affiliations of commentators who did not respond to the
survey.

The results of the study were released during the World Health
Organization Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health,
Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), which is meeting from 5
to 10 November.

Overall in the study, Essential Action found twenty-two of the
comments submitted by NGO/Civil Society groups were from organisations
that had either received money from pharmaceutical corporations or had
representatives from the industry on their board of directors. The
level of involvement ranged from fairly minimal - the Colorado Chapter
of the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, for instance, had
accepted funding for its 2007 conference from several pharmaceutical
and biotechnology firms -to fairly in-depth - the Alliance for Health
Education and Development, for instance is headed by a former health
care industry lobbyist. An additional thirteen trade associations with
overt ties to the pharmaceutical industry joined in the IGWG comments.
Only eight organisations listed as NGOs showed no ties with industry,
though there were also eight academics with no apparent industry ties
who commented.

Reactions to Essential Action’s survey were also mixed. Essential
Action suggested that ties to industry are a helpful way to assess the
value of comments from contributors: clearly those with a strong
financial stake in the IGWG outcome are more subject to bias.

Among survey respondents who said they did not accept donations from
for-profit corporations, there was some agreement with EA’s position.
Thomas Pogge from Incentives for Global Health noted that it “was
clear from many… contributions” that industry donations were being
accepted and thanked Essential Action for its record-keeping. There
was also disagreement, notably from Lawrence Kogan from the Institute
for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, which advocates
strong intellectual property regimes, felt that “to the extent there
are corporate monies donated to support our efforts, all the better.”

Others admitted accepting for-profit monies but did not believe it
affected their ability to deliver honest, qualified opinions. Virginia
T. Ladd of the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association noted
that it “is standard practice in the USA [to] receive corporate and
foundation funds from those entities [with] an interest in the work.”

Robert Weissman of Essential Action said in a statement:
“Understanding an organisation’s ties is helpful in assessing the
merits of comments submitted.”

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.