[Ip-health] The George Institute for International Health

Thu Jun 18 05:27:02 2009

I don't understand how a division of an institute that is funded by the
pharmaceutical industry can be "independent" in any imaginable way.
Furthermore, when you say the division is "housed" by a
pharmaceutical-industry-funded Institute, that seems inconsistent with
your claim two sentences later that the institute "never received
pharmaceutical company funding." Either the division is  "housed" by the
pharmaceutical industry or its proxies, or it is not, but you cannot have
it both ways. If you want to be independent of the pharmaceutical
industry, you should do so, but sending emails that you are independent
hardly makes that true.

Finally, accepting funding from a diverse set of interested parties does
not make you neutral, it simply makes you beholden to more funders. When
we select juries, we do not take six criminals and six clergymen and call
that "neutral." Sometimes even a little protest is just a bit too much.

Mickey Davis

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>

--
Mickey Davis
_________________________________
Prof. Michael H. Davis
Professor of Law
Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
1801 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
(mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
216-687-2228
_____________________________________________________________
Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
Office Reg.No. 45,863

Peace, Love, and Vegetable Rights!
Eat Meat and Save the Plants!