SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Experts At WHO Select Eight Projects To Boost Medical R&D For Developing Countries

    Published on 6 December 2013 @ 11:28 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A group of experts summoned to select projects presenting innovative ways to foster research and development of medical products for diseases primarily affecting developing countries at the World Health Organization this week finished their work and selected eight projects out of 22. Civil society was quick to express concern that the selected projects do not propose a new way forward. Now WHO member states must narrow the list down further.

    The Global Technical Consultative Meeting on Identification of Health R&D Demonstration Projects took place from 3-5 December.

    The seven projects which passed examination against a list of criteria are:

    1) Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) Global R&D & Access Initiative (proposed by the Drug for Neglected Diseases initiative)

    2) Multiplexed Point-of-Care test for acute febrile illness (put forward by Translational Health Science and Technology Institute [THSTI], India)

    3) Demonstration of the potential of a single dose malaria cure of artemether-lumefantrine through reformulation in a nano-based drug delivery system (proposed by the University of Cape Town [South Africa], Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Centre for Research in Therapeutic Sciences (CREATES) [Kenya], Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS) [Tanzania], the African Institute of Biomedical Science and Technology (AiBST) [Zimbabwe], et al

    4) Exploiting the Pathogen Box: an international open source collaboration to accelerate drug development in addressing diseases of poverty (submitted by Medicines for Malaria Venture [Switzerland based]

    5) Development of a Vaccine Against Schistosomiasis Based On The Recombinant Sm14 A Member Of The Fatty Acid Binding Protein: Controlling Transmission Of A Disease Of Poverty (put forward by Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Ministry of Health [Brazil]

    6) Development Of Class D Cpg Odn (D35) As An Adjunct To Chemotherapy For Cutaneous Leishmaniasis And Post Kala- Azar Dermal Leishmaniasis (Pkdl) (US FDA and others)

    7) Development for Easy to Use and Affordable Biomarkers as Diagnostics for Types II and III Diseases (proposed by ANDI-African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Innovation)

    An eighth chosen project is the Dengue vaccine development (Health System Research Institute [HSRI] [Thailand]), under different conditions.

    A Step in the Process

    The meeting followed a decision by the May 2013 World Health Assembly (WHA 66.22 [pdf[) for the WHO “to facilitate… the implementation of a few health research and development demonstration projects to address identified gaps that disproportionately affect developing countries, particularly the poor, and for which immediate action can be taken.”

    The authors of the selected proposals have been instructed to provide additional information on specific questions by 15 January. The projects and the answers to the additional questions will be submitted at the WHO Executive Board in January, and subsequently to the WHA in May 2014.

    According to the WHO, the experts have been appointed by the WHO director general, in consultation with the regional directors, as requested by the WHA decision.

    Criteria

    The 22 projects have been evaluated against a set of criteria [pdf] by 19 experts, Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO assistant director-general for health systems and innovation, said in a 6 December briefing. Each region nominated four experts but due to last-minute adverse events, only 19 of them could attend the expert consultative meeting, she said.

    The criteria included three categories.

    Category A criteria requested that the project answer a public health need for the poorest and address a market failure.

    Category B focussed on the scientific excellence, feasibility and timescale of the project.

    Category C criteria looked at how innovative the projects are in terms of support to R&D, including de-linkage of R&D from final product prices and use, open innovation approaches, pooled funding, prizes, and patent pools.

    Clearing Conflicts of Interest

    Kieny also said WHO had a “strict conflict of interest declaration” which was asked from experts, and some of them were asked to refrain from consideration and decision-making regarding the proposals with which they had a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest declared by seven of the experts are disclosed in a document [pdf] posted on the WHO website.

    Scoring of Proposals

    Experts scored each proposal according to the set of questions under each category, she said.

    Proposals reaching 60 percent of maximum score on one category were then shortlisted for the following scoring round, she said. Seven projects met the challenge.

    The eighth project on a Dengue vaccine also met the experts’ approval, according to Kieny, but the project would be developed in a public setting context, answering to the delinking requirement and for which the production would be made by state-owned manufacturers.

    Some sources reported that some member states, such as Brazil and Argentina, insisted on the importance of de-linkage. \

    Additional Questions

    Kieny said that following discussions between member states, proponents of the selected projects should provide more elaboration on the innovative aspects of their proposal. Each of them will be invited to answer a set of six questions by 15 January.

    The questions are the following:

    - How the project intends to delink the price of the final product from the cost of the R&D

    - How it utilises collaborative approaches including open knowledge innovation

    - How it utilises licensing approaches that secure access to research outputs and final products

    - How it proposes and fosters financing mechanisms including innovative, sustainable and pooled funding

    - How it fosters an effective and efficient coordination mechanism amongst existing organisations and initiatives

    - How it strengthens the capacity for R&D and production, including technology transfer in developing countries

    Assessment Criteria Too Late for Some

    According to sources, some member states questioned the fact that the criteria were published only a few days before the meeting. According to Zafar Mirza, coordinator of the WHO Department of Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, the criteria were developed with the help of experts working in the field and involved for a long time in assessment of such proposals through the development of assessment criteria. Those experts were not the experts assessing the proposal, he clarified.

    Once the criteria were developed, he told Intellectual Property Watch, 10 days before the conference, the criteria were shared with all experts of the Global Technical Consultative meeting and they were asked for their input, which was considered and used to add questions in category C.

    Civil Society Mixed Reaction

    Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), delivering a statement on behalf of Health Action International, said the group was concerned “that the recommendations of the Expert Group often favoured rather traditional R&D funding models.”

    “It was our hope that the WHO would be more ambitious as regards testing de-linkage models,” they said. They recommended that when the expert group’s recommendations are considered by the Executive Board, the Board also has the opportunity to review all of the 22 proposals considered.

    According to James Love, KEI director, all the proposals were compelling and the quality and health benefits are not in question, but the choice made “proves nothing about finance systems and delinking.” It gives the impression that there is no need to change the current system, he told Intellectual Property Watch. He also said on a positive note that most selected projects have “decent licensing terms.”

    Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors without Borders) also delivered a statement after the selection process. MSF said that” the current innovation model is failing our patients every single day.”

    The group said that the exercise was “not about funding individual R&D projects,” but about “testing approaches that could demonstrate new ways of conducting R&D in a manner that supports innovation with access for the many patients neglected and underserved by the current innovation system.”

    MSF said it was concerned by the criteria for the selection, which they found “incomplete” and striking “the wrong balance.” For example, they said de-linkage and open collaboration were only used as third-level criteria.

    In addition, they said some proposals “were marked favourably for having concretely identified potential partners to develop as well as to produce the technology.” This is of concern, according to MSF, as such criteria “may actually have actively driven the selection of projects away from proposals that seek to demonstrate new ‘delinkage’ models of innovation.”

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. WHO Board To Discuss Relationship With Industry, Organisations | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] The list of projects is here (IPW, WHO, 6 December 2013). […]

    2. WHO Sets Path For Model R&D Projects, But Doesn’t Rock The Boat | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      […] eight were selected from among 22 overall proposals by a panel of experts in December (IPW, WHO, 6 December 2013). The 22 proposals came from the regional level, and are provided in full detail […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 110.85.74.139