Re: The WHO IGWG Text on Access to Publicly Funded Research Provision, from “Requirement” to “Encouragement”?
One of the outcomes of the Nov. 5-10, 2007 second session of the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG2) is a provision on access to government funded research.
Where did this provision come from, and how did it it evolve from “requirements” to “strongly encouraging” that “all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts,” and what does it mean?
The open access access issue was not in the original July Secretariat draft Global Strategy document. It appeared for the first time in the so called “Rio Text,” that came out of two meetings (one in Bolivia in August and one in Brazil in September) with Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. (WHO Doc A/PHI/IGWG/2/2 ANNEX).
The following was how it was presented in the Rio text:
(2.5) Ensuring access to knowledge and technology relevant to meet public health needs of developing countries
(a) put in place measures that safeguard the public domain.
(b)promote public access to the results of government funded research, through requirements that all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts.
(c)support the creation of open databases and compound libraries, including unrestricted access to drug leads identified through the screening of compound libraries,
(d) encourage developed countries, universities and donors to require that publicly or donor funded medical inventions and know-how be made available through open licensing for use in developing countries on reasonable and affordable nondiscriminatory terms.(e)consider the incorporation of research exemptions in legislation of developing countries to address public health needs, consistent with their obligations, if any, under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
However, last week the IGWG negotiators met, and made changes. The good news is that there is still an open access provision, apparently accepted by consensus. But the “requirements” language has been replaced with a watered down “strong encouragement” language in the version of the text distributed Saturday at the end of the meeting (Geneva Nov.5-10, 2007). (See:http://www.oliver-moldenhauer.de/msf/draftIGWG.pdf, A/PHI/IGWG/2/Con.Paper No.1 November 10 2007).
Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property
Progress to date in Drafting groups A and B. . .
(2.5) Promoting greater access to knowledge and technology relevant to meet health needs of developing countries. (consensus)
a) promote the creation and development of accessible public health libraries in order to enhance availability and use of relevant publications by universities, institutes and technical centers, especially in developing countries. (consensus)
(b) promote public access to the results of government funded research, by strongly encouraging that all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database and electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts. (consensus)
[(c) support the creation of open databases and compound libraries, including [unrestricted] / [promoting] access to drug leads identified through the screening of compound libraries.](d) encourage developed countries, universities and donors to require that publicly or donor funded medical inventions and know-how be made available through open licensing for use in developing countries on reasonable and affordable non-discriminatory terms.
(e) consider the incorporation of research exemptions in legislation of developing countries to address public health needs, consistent with their obligations, if any, under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.]
Apparently, during last week meeting, there was opposition to the “requirement” language by some European countries.
It looks a lot like the “old and failed” NIH non-mandatory policy that the US Congress is trying to change, and may disappoint open access advocates. However, it also means that there is a global, yes, global agreement that government funded research should be open access, and when the IGWG plan of action is designed, it will be seeking to implement this A2K initiative. We will be following this carefully.