The WHO makes great sport of taking the pharmaceutical industry to task for its inability to provide everyone in the developing world with the drugs they need. This so-called market failure is being used at negotiations in Geneva this month to bring research and patents under official control, managed by the WHO.
But the WHO has trouble managing itself. Before it pushes on with this agenda, it should make sure it has strong evidence.
In fact, though, it lacks evidence for this -- and many more of its global recommendations.
In the May issue of The Lancet, researchers found that "WHO guidelines do not seem to be closely followed when [the] WHO develops recommendations for member states."
The editor of The Lancet told reporters that this "is a pretty seismic event ... it undermines the very purpose of [the] WHO."
The most sensitive indicator of broad health trends is the infant mortality rate. In September, UNICEF released new data showing that "the global rate for the under-five population fell from 20 million annually in 1960 to 9.7 million in 2006."
But The Lancet published in the same month an article showing "disappointing results in the reduction of child mortality worldwide" and concluded by asking "why should journals trust the research such agencies produce and why should anyone trust their health policies and initiatives?"
The WHO's new Draft Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG) aims to further weaken intellectual property and bring research and development under the control of governments and international bodies. It claims there are too few drugs for the "neglected" tropical diseases found in poor countries and that drug prices -- and the international patent system -- prevent the poor from getting what medicines do exist.
In fact, three of these "neglected" diseases are AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Since 2004, donors have spent an enormous US$41.8 billion on them.
Six tropical diseases, often considered "neglected," account for 0.3 percent of all global deaths -- and all of these diseases have multi-million-dollar research projects underway.
As for the alleged barrier of drug prices, numerous studies -- including the WHO's -- show that the most important barrier to the poor getting medicines is lack of medical staff and infrastructure to administer the drugs. And the biggest factor in the actual price paid by patients is local regulation, taxes and tariffs in poor countries.
So there is plenty of evidence, but the WHO is ignoring it.
Indeed, past evidence, from telephone monopolies to Chinese central planning, shows that nationalizing any business stifles innovation and, in the case of drugs, would hinder future efforts to create drugs for the poorest countries. This is particularly threatening, as drug-resistant strains of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis become more prevalent in these regions.
The WHO wants to bring drug development under official control, replacing the commercial research and development, underpinned by intellectual property rights, that has proved so successful in so many fields. Not only will this treaty undermine innovation, it is supported by false premises and flies in the face of real evidence.
Taiwan, denied participation in the WHO, knows all too well how politics trumps evidence or sense in international organizations. Member states need to knock this treaty on the head at this month's meeting before the WHO does lasting damage to global health.
Jeremiah Norris is director of the Center for Science in Public Policy at the Hudson Institute, a policy think tank in Washington.
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS