[Ip-health] The George Institute for International Health

[Mary Moran]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dear ip-health readers

I wanted to correct the information on the George Institute for
International Health that was posted on 12 June, and perhaps to engage a
bit more closely with those who are interested.

The George Institute is a not-for-profit institute of over 200 staff,
which has conducted large-scale academic clinical trials on chronic
diseases such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension and renal disease,
with a focus on Asia and, more recently, on indigenous health in
Australia. These trials, conducted over the past 10 years, are funded by
public research grants and some also received industry co-funding.
This part of the George Institute does not do policy work and does not
work in the field of neglected diseases, or R&D.

However, the George Institute also houses a Health Policy Division (HPD)
of around 12 staff in London and Sydney, of which I am the Director.
The HPD is a self-funded, independent unit within the George Institute,
and has a different focus to the rest of the Institute.  The HPD
focusses on development of new products for neglected diseases of the
developing world; we only do policy analysis and do not conduct any
clinical trials. The HPD group has never received pharmaceutical company
funding, nor conducted work for any of the groups listed in the
ip-health submission of 12 June.  Our clients include the Gates
Foundation, Wellcome Trust, World Bank, DNDi, IAVI and other, as listed
on our website.

I note, though, that we do not see an issue in receiving funding from
companies, any more than from philanthropists, governments or advocacy
groups - indeed, securing funding from all sectors would seem to be the
best way to ensure neutrality.  No matter who the funder, the researcher
needs to be conscious of maintaining independence from the sponsor's
views; and needs to be equally careful that their own personal views,
beliefs and preferences do not leak into their work.  The Health Policy
Division has rightly gained and maintained a reputation for rigour and
independence on the basis of their ability to carefully and neutrally
review information.

The 12 June posting suggests some people may have concerns about the
Health Policy Division's independence. I remember having similar
concerns, and seeing similar postings on ip-health, when I was Director
of MSF's Access to Medicines Campaign in Australia, so I do feel
sympathy with these doubts.  In the early years of the Health Policy
Division (HPD), similar fears were also expressed by some pharmaceutical
groups, who were concerned that the advocacy and public health
background of many of the HPD staff might bias our findings against
pharma.  Could I therefore propose that anyone having these concerns get
in touch with us to reassure themselves as to the quality and neutrality
of our work?  Also that they check our website, in particular our list
of clients; and the CVs of our staff, who come from a broad spectrum of
backgrounds, including public health, advocacy and consulting, as well
as from both the developed and developing world
(http://www.thegeorgeinstitute.org/research/health-policy/health-policy_
home.cfm ).

I am confident that review of our work, and discussion with our staff,
would quickly put reasonable concerns to rest.  We look forward to
hearing from you.

Cheers

Mary Moran

Dr M Moran
Director
Health Policy Division (HPD)
The George Institute for International Health
Level 7, 341 George St
Sydney 2000 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 (0)2 9657 0309
Mob: +61 (0)414 489 994
Email: mmoran@george.org.au