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.
Taiwan is not an orphan nation in need of someone to adopt it. Taiwan is not a foundling nation wandering the streets of the world looking for a home. It is not even a poor waif of a nation unable to take care of itself in that same big, bad world. Finally, Taiwan is certainly not terra nullius, a nationless land that is open and waiting to be explored and possessed by those who dare. Taiwan is a mid-sized, democratic nation that by GDP, profitability, location and even microchip production punches far above its weight in its region and in international commerce.
When analyzing Taiwan-China tensions, most people assume that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) consists of rational actors. Embedded within this belief are three further suppositions: First, Beijing would only launch an attack on Taiwan if it were in China’s national interest; second, it would only attack if the odds were overwhelmingly in its favor; and third, Chinese decisionmakers interpret information objectively and through the same lens as other actors. These assumptions have underpinned recent analyses — including by Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) — concluding that there is no
Do you remember where you were last year at this time? Do you remember what it was like? Here in the leafy suburbs of Washington, D.C., we were in lock-down mode. The streets were bleak and empty. Schools, offices, malls, theaters, churches … all were closed. The essentials were in short supply. Grocery stores rationed the good stuff. Signs read: “One jumbo pack of toilet paper, two cartoons of eggs per family please!” Some days those signs mocked us from barren shelves. It was a lonely and anti-social time. Families and friends had to weigh the rewards of gathering together to celebrate Christmas
US-based diplomatic observers say that interaction between Taiwan and the US has grown in intensity over the past few months, falling short of establishing official relations. Although the interaction is still below the cabinet level because of Washington’s “one China” policy, these observers see a growing propensity in US political circles, across both sides of the aisle, to support Taiwan’s distinct political culture, the outstanding features of which are its vibrant democracy and respect for human rights, along with a thriving economy. The question often debated in academic and foreign policy research circles is whether the US would put boots on