WHO's web-based public hearings: hijacked by pharma?

To promote research and develop ment for neglected diseases and access to medicines in developing countries, the World Health Assembly asked WHO to establish an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights in 2006. A draft global strategy and plan of action was completed after its fi rst meeting in December, 2006. Regional consultations provided 193 member states with opportunities to review the draft strategy. The draft strategy and plan of action were discussed but not fi nalised at its second meeting in November, 2007. To facilitate input from interested organisations, individuals, and the public, web-based public hearings were organised by the IGWG secretariat. On review of the second round of such public hearings, we were disturbed by what we found. The issue that attracted the most responses was intellectual property (IP), which was cited in 43 of 68 submissions. Although we were not surprised to see that 11 of 12 organisations directly affi liated with the pharmaceutical industry supported strong IP protection, it was surprising that 14 patient advocacy groups took a similar position, which in several cases was the only point raised in their submissions; three professional associations also took similar positions. We further investigated the sources of funding of these organisations using publicly available data (organisation websites and internet searches). For 11 of the 14 patient advocacy groups and all three professional associations, fi nancial support had been received from pharmaceutical companies, either directly to the organisation or for activities undertaken by its executive director. For example, a Canadian patient advocacy group whose submission was in favour of IP received fi nancial support from Actelion Pharma ceuticals, Amgen Canada, Bayer, Gilead Sciences Canada, INO Thera peutics, Merck Frosst Canada, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada, Ortho Biotech, Amicus Therapeutics, ApoPharma, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Hoff mann-La Roche, and Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals. Add ition ally, we found near identical phrases or concepts in their submissions. The problem of the pharmaceutical industry compromising patient advocacy groups is not new. In this case, we have serious doubts as to the motives and the credibility of these submissions to the public hearings. We strongly suggest that contributors to public hearings must disclose any confl icts of interest, as required of authors submitting papers to peerreviewed journals.