[Ip-health] World Health Organization (WHO) to hold consultation on report of Expert Working Group on R&D financing

[Malini Aisola]

http://keionline.org/node/760

World Health Organization (WHO) to hold consultation on report of Expert
Working Group on R&D financing

By KEI Staff
January 19, 2010

At the end of a dramatic debate that began yesterday, the Executive
Board (EB) of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to hold a
special consultation on the report of the WHO Expert Working Group (EWG)
on R&D Financing. A face-to-face meeting will be held on May 13, a few
days before the 63rd WHA begins on 17 May. There will also be
opportunities for web submissions on the EWG report. In addition, Dr.
Margaret Chan, the Director General of the WHO, announced an
investigation into the leaks of the draft EWG report and another EWG
internal document to the IFPMA, at one point announcing dramatically
that she was waiving diplomatic immunity for herself and her staff. Chan
also told the EB that she had not yet evaluated the recommendations from
EWG report, and would publish an analysis of the recommendations prior
to the consultation.

During a highly polarized debate, a number of developing countries drew
attention to the inefficiencies in the process that produced the EWG
report, and the content of the report. Amongst the most charged came the
call for an investigation into the leak of the report to the IFPMA, and
the IFPMA's apparent ease of access to experts shaping the reports
recommendations. At one point the Chairman of the EWG, Sir George
Alleyne, defended the process and lashed out at the Lancet, which wrote
about the IFPMA leak, saying there was no proof of influence by the
pharmaceutical industry. Sisule Musungu of IQSensato summed up the
response of several NGOs when he wrote on Twitter, "If what is on
wikileaks is not enough to cast serious doubt on the results of WHO's
work, then what [is]?"

In addition to complaints about the EWG process and the lack of
opportunity to review the work, were detailed discussions of the content
of the report itself. A number of governments criticized the EWG for
failing to address proposals that de-linked R&D costs from prices, and
noted the lack of concern in the report on issues of pricing and access,
the management of intellectual property rights, technology transfer or
capacity building for R&D in developing countries. Several countries
discussed the Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia and Suriname proposals on
prizes and the biomedical R&D treaty, which were rejected by the EWG.
The concerns expressed by several developing countries were echoed by
MSF and HAI, which both criticized the report in comments to the EB. The
IFPMA uncharacteristically declined to speak during the period for NGO
comments.

None of the higher income countries raised any questions of the
pharmaceutical industry influence on the report, and none were keen on
an EB consultation on the substance of the report. Canada sought a
promise that the EWG report would go through to the WHA, regardless of
what emerged during the review and consultation.

There were plenty of surprises during the meeting. During the debate on
the EWG Report, Sir George Alleyne, the Chair of the EWG, said that he
did not think that access to health products was part of the EWG terms
of reference -- repeating a comment he made earlier to NGOs attending
the meeting.

In the beginning, Brazil made a point that they were concerned about the
rejection of their proposal for taxing repatriated pharmaceutical
industry profits to pay for R&D. Other than the discussion of the
pharmaceutical profits tax, which was removed from the EWG following a
covert lobbying effort by the IFPMA, there was very little discussion of
the various tax proposals that were retained in the report, such as the
Internet, banking or arms taxes.

After the EB adjourned for the day, there was considerable speculation
about what might come out of a more extensive analysis of the report.
One WHO staff member said, "wait till they start looking at the poor
quality of the report itself, including the analysis and the writing."
Others saw the report as going nowhere, because many of the
recommendations depend upon money, and the report focus on a global
Internet, banking or arms sale tax seemed to lack support among the
EWG's most sympathetic allies -- the high income countries with a
domestic pharmaceutical R&D industry. But the EWG report does have some
political allies -- the support of the WHO DG and many high income
countries. The discussion at the May WHA may be a heated one and quite
important for the future of the innovation+access reform movement.

One unanswered question: what will be the position of the Obama
Administration?




--
Malini Aisola
Knowledge Ecology International
1621 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20009
malini.aisola@keionline.org|Tel: +1.202.332.2670|Fax: +1.202.332.2673