Re: [ox-en] Report: Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 05:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
I created http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Alternative_Incentives_for_Health_and_Pharma
It is part of a new P2P wiki thematic area on policy making, at
As usual, I'll add the proviso that any additional material and suggestions to enhance this resource are more than welcome,
Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Earlier this year the "Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH_)" founded by the WHO created a
report. From the FAQ_:
6. What does the report say?
Intellectual property rights are a general incentive provided by
governments to promote innovation in all fields. In respect of
public health, they are embedded in a set of other incentives which
influence the pattern of innovation. They need to be looked at as
part of a bigger picture.
In particular, because the market demand for diagnostics, vaccines
and medicines needed to address health problems mainly affecting
developing countries is small and uncertain, the incentive effect of
intellectual property rights may be limited or non-existent.
Because intellectual property rights may not be an effective
incentive in this area, there is a need for other incentives and
financial mechanisms to be put in place and for collaborative
efforts between different stakeholders.
Without access to the products of innovation, there can be no public
health benefits. Defining the conditions by which products can be
accessed is therefore an important aspect of the report.
There has been significant progress in recent years, in particular
initiatives taken by different stakeholders to promote innovation in
health-care products e.g. increased funding by foundations and the
formation of public-private partnerships for product development.
This momentum for change is welcome but is insufficient.
More needs to be done. There are unsettled and debated issues in
intellectual property for example the effectiveness of the recent
amendment to TRIPS in increasing access to medicines in countries
without manufacturing capacity, the impact of data exclusivity laws
and the impact of intellectual property provisions in bilateral
And there is a need to ensure enhanced financing on a sustainable
basis of innovation and access and promote synergy between the
Ultimately it is a responsibility that governments must accept if
these objectives are to be achieved.
It is appropriate that WHO should now take the lead in promoting a
more sustainable and better-funded effort and addressing unresolved
WHO should accordingly develop a Global Plan of Action to secure
enhanced and sustainable funding for developing and making
accessible products to address diseases that disproportionately
affect developing countries.
The report_ contains policy suggestions. There are a few which are
particularly interesting in our context (page numbers refer to the
2.12 Public research institutions and universities in developed
countries should seriously consider initiatives designed to
ensure that access to R&D outputs relevant to the health
concerns of developing countries and to products derived
therefrom, are facilitated through appropriate licensing
policies and practices. (p. 198)
3.7 Practical initiatives that would motivate more scientists to
contribute to this field through "open source" methods should
be supported. (p. 200)
4.13 The Doha Declaration clarifies the right of governments to use
compulsory licensing as a means of resolving tensions that may
arise between public health and intellectual property, and to
determine the grounds for using it. Developing countries should
provide in their legislation for the use of compulsory
licensing provisions, consistent with the TRIPS agreement, as
one means to facilitate access to cheaper medicines through
import or local production. (p. 202)
4.14 Developed countries, and other countries, with manufacturing
and export capacity should take the necessary legislative steps
to allow compulsory licensing for export consistent with the
TRIPS agreement. (p. 202)
Of course suggestion 3.7 is the most interesting one. It is an active
furthering of OpenAccess by an institution reporting to the WHO :-) .
.. _CIPIH: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/
.. _FAQ: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/documents/thereport/questions/en/index.html
.. _report: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/documents/thereport/en/index.html
Mit Freien Grüßen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de