WHO

WHO Conflict of Interest Guidelines

WHO has kindly made available its conflict of interest guidelines. Apparently they are not available from the public web page. Attached are two documents:

A few of the many interesting provisions follow:

I. MEANING OF "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"

European members of WHO Executive Board take hard line on nomination of Novartis official to R&D group

At the 128th meeting of the WHO Executive Board (EB), the European members of the board are reportedly taking a hard line on the proposal by Switzerland to have Paul Herrling, an executive of Novartis, appointed to the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group (CEWG) on R&D financing. Our earlier blogs on this controversy are available here and here).

Conflicts of Interest, and the WHO evaluation of the FRIND and the PDP Plus funding proposals by the CEWG

This note provide additional context for those who are just now following the issue of conflicts of interest and the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group (CEWG) on R&D Financing.

The CEWG follows a controversial, flawed and failed effort by an earlier group, the WHO Expert Working Group (EWG) on R&D Financing, to:

CEWG: WHO Consultative Expert Group on R&D Financing

The WHO EB debate over membership of the new R&D Financing consultative expert working group (CEWG)

At the end of the day on Monday, the 128 WHO Executive Board meeting took the agenda item for creation of a new R&D Financing consultative expert working group (CEWG). (Yesterday's blog on this topic is here)

World Health Organization Executive Board to create new consultative expert working group on R&D Financing

Today the WHO is expected to take up the Report by the Secretariat on "the Establishment of a consultative expert working group on research and development: financing and coordination." (link here).

Why does Bill Gates oppose discussions of a medical R&D treaty at the World Health Organization?

1. General opposition to multilateral institutions having a role in setting global norms for medical R&D
9% (22 votes)
2. Sees treaty as threat to tough global norms for intellectual property rights
29% (71 votes)
3. Thinks governments already spend too much on research to develop new medicines
2% (6 votes)
4. Both 1 & 2
47% (116 votes)
5. None of the above
12% (30 votes)
Total votes: 245

European Commission October 5, 1998 note memorandum on the WHO Revised Drug Strategy negotiation

 

European Commission (DG 1) note on the WHO's Revised Drug Stategy

 


EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL 1
EXTERNAL RELATIONS: COMMERCIAL POLICY AND RELATIONS WITH NORTH AMERICA. THE
FAR EAST, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

 

Directorate D -Sectoral trade questions, market access
New technologies, Intellectual property, public procurement


Brussels, 5 October 1998
1/D/3/BW D (98)

 

1998/1999 debate over 52.19, the WHO Revised Drug Strategy

The following are selected documents from the 1998 to 1999 WHO debate of the revised drug strategy.

WHA 52.19, the Revised Drug Strategy

A pdf copy of the resolution is attached to this page.


THE FIFTY-SECOND WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY
WHA52.19

Agenda Item 13
May 24, 1999


Revised Drug Strategy

The Fifty-second World Health Assembly,

Recalling resolution WHA39.27, WHA41.16, WHA43.20, WHA45.27, WHA47.12, WHA47.13, WHA47.16, WHA47.17, and WHA49.14;

Having considered the report of the Director-General on the revised drug strategy[1];

Syndicate content