[Ip-health] Re: The George Institute for International Health

[Richard Mahoney]

Dear Jamie,

Your message is a very clear example of the way in which KEI approaches
problem solving.

I believe that no one is without conflicts of interest.

My interest is to encourage greater funding for health research that will
help poor people in developing countries.  I encourage all parties to engage
in this most important venture.

All the best,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love@keionline.org]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Richard Mahoney
Cc: ip-health@lists.essential.org; Mary Moran; "Michael H. Davis"
Subject: Re: [Ip-health] Re: The George Institute for International Health

Dear Richard.

I think that you are right.  Dr. Moran has done some wonderful work for
the cause of developing countries.  I think that Professor Davis is also
right, she has conflicts of interest, and I think that Mary should
recognize what they are.

One obvious conflict is that her employer, the George Institute, depends
upon pharmaceutical industry funding.  A second, less obvious but quite
important conflict is that her own work is funded by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation.

One thing we know is that many (but not all) pharmaceutical companies
have opposed new paradigms for supporting medical R&D, and in
particular, a number of pharmaceutical companies, including many of the
companies funding the George Institute, oppose incentive systems that
include "asks" to give up IP rights in developing countries, or other
useful access requirements.   We also know that the IFPMA has proposed a
giant subsidy fund for R&D spending that would give big phama company
executives a role in deciding who gets donor funds, increasing their
power over their competitors.

We also know that the Gates Foundation has very specific hard line views
on IPR issues, that they have not been supportive of open licensing of
products, or the medical R&D treaty, and that they have invested in
approaches like AMCs which are designed to keep supply monopolies
intact.

Dr. Moran has in recent years been a strong and vocal supporter of the
measures that have been acceptable to or supported by the pharmaceutical
industry and the Gates Foundation, an more recently has been extolling
the virtues of the FDA priority review voucher, tax credits and
transferable patent extensions, all measures that fail in well known
areas, such as transparency or cost effectivenesses, and which do not
involve important access requirements, and which avoid open licensing of
inventions.

There is no evidence yet that Dr. Moran is will willing to rock the
boat, or support measures that make big pharma or the Gates Foundation
uncomfortable.

For this reason, it is probably not a good idea for Dr. Moran to be
asked to play a central role in the evaluation of the proposals to
change the status quo.  Her views are already well known.

Interestingly enough, the WHO secretariat so far has prominently
featured the IFPMA and the Gates Foundation and Industry/Gates funded
projects in the first secret EWG meeting, will not invite groups with
contrary views to the July meeting, and has lobbied member states and
members of the EWG aggressively against innovation inducement prizes
that feature open licensing, and has lobbied aggressively against
discussing a biomedical R&D treaty -- actions that align perfectly with
the IFPMA and the Gates Foundation.

If Dr. Moran is given a key role in the EWG deliberations, it will be
more evidence that the EWG will only be allowed to recommended more
corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical industry, and it will not
seriously consider anything more challenging in terms of policy changes.
I don't think this is Dr. Moran's fault. The WHO and the EWG itself have
to decide if the IFPMA and the Gates Foundation will be calling the
shots, or if there will be a more independent evaluation of the new
proposals, including those not supported by the IFPMA or the Gates
Foundation.

  Jamie


On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 09:16 +0900, Richard Mahoney wrote:
> I refer readers to
> http://www.law.csuohio.edu/alumnidevelopment/development/donors.html and
> click on "Corporations, Foundations, Law Firms, and other Organizations."
>
> Dr. Moran and her colleagues are doing wonderful work for the cause of
> health in developing countries.  We need to understand levels of support
and
> where more support might have the greatest benefit for the poor.  Let us
> focus on those issues.
>
> Richard T. Mahoney, PhD
> Director, Access
> Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative
> International Vaccine Institute
> Seoul, Korea
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health

--
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile
+41.76.413.6584