| (i)
Journalist Christina Spencer's article in the Kingston
Whig Standard
(ii) My letter commenting on this.
(iii) Response to my letter from
"Big Pharma."
(iv) My submitted, but unpublished,
response.
Prizer Head Appointed to Board November
24th 2009
| OTTAWA
- A parliamentary committee wants to know why a drug-company
executive was appointed to the board of the independent public
agency that funds health research in Canada. The health
committee's Nov. 30 review comes after NDP health critic Judy
Wasylycia-Leis complained the appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent,
vice-president of Pfizer Canada, to the governing council of the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research is a "potential
conflict of interest."
"Having the drug companies' executives deciding health
research directions is like having the big bad wolf directing
the three little pigs on how to build their homes, " she
said in a statement. CIHR is the main federal funding agency for
health research.
In an
email, Prigent said, "With my many years of pharmaceutical
research and development experience, my appointment will support
CIHR's mission of creating new knowledge and its translation
into improved health for Canadians and a strengthened
health-care system." CIHR spokesman David Coulombe said
Prigent was appointed "for his skills, experience and
personal competencies." |
To Editor, Kingston
Whig Standard November 26th 2009
Interests of 'Big Pharma' don't
Coincide with those of Medical Researchers
| Thank
you for reporting that our top publicly funded medical research
agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), has
appointed the vice-president of a major pharmaceutical company
to its governing council ('Pfizer Head Appointed to Board,' Nov.
24). Quite rightly, a parliamentary committee is investigating
the appointment. Your readers might like a little more
background.
As noted in
my book Tomorrow's
Cures Today? (2000),
despite massive advertising to the contrary, the interests of
industry and those who seek progress in medical research, do not
coincide. The worst nightmare of the president of a major
pharmaceutical company is that a research break-through leads to
the redundancy of a drug in which the company has heavily
invested. It is in the interest of drug companies to maintain
the status quo. They try to ensure that funds for
research are carefully directed - investigators willing to
engage in clinical trials and research to increase the
effectiveness of existing drugs receive a generous bounty. This
draws scarce resources (laboratory space, skilled assistants)
away from those engaged in uncensored creative research where
critical advances in knowledge are more likely to occur. Thus,
potential loose cannons are held in check.
In the 1990s
the pharmaceutical industry argued successfully for legislation
extending the period of patent protection (Bill C-91). This made
it more difficult for generic drug manufacturers to force down
prices. In return, the major companies promised to relieve a
taxpayer burden by providing "matching funds" for CIHR-supported
projects. It soon emerged that "matching funds," to the
extent that the promise was lived up to, amounted to a Trojan
horse. Funding from the CIHR was made conditional on a
researcher first getting industry support. So the industry gained
a major say on which projects would, or would not, get CIHR
support. Protests appeared in the Globe
& Mail (May 5,
2001) from myself, in the journal Science
(June 24, 2005) from 40 of Canada's leading researchers, and
again in the Globe
& Mail (July 7,
2005) from Nobel Prize winning scientist John Polanyi. It now
seems that all this, and the widely publicized struggles of Nancy
Olivieri against "Big Pharma," have been to no avail.
Donald R. Forsdyke,
Kingston. |
Criticism of Appointment is Based on
Innuendo, not Fact November 28th 2009
| Re:
the letter "Interests of 'Big Pharma' don't coincide with
those of medical researchers," Nov. 26). The debate over
the appointment of a seasoned scientist with private-sector
experience to the governing council of the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research (CIHR) is based on innuendo rather than fact.
The criticisms are unfounded and threaten to derail Canada's
efforts to improve health research in this country.
The CIHR
should be commended for appointing Dr. Bernard Prigent to its
governing council. He brings strong international credentials in
the area of pharmaceutical research and development and has been
recognized by his peers in the scientific and academic community
for championing principled partnerships between industry,
academia and governments aimed at improving Canada's performance
in health research. He is eminently qualified for the position.
Furthermore, the governing council of the CIHR does not make
decisions with respect to which researchers or projects will be
funded, as this is the responsibility of the scientific council,
based on the advice of individual peer review panels.
Dr.
Prigent's appointment is also consistent with the CIHR's
mission, which is "the creation of new knowledge and its
translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective
health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian
health-care system." The CIHR and the innovative
pharmaceutical industry have been partnering for many years to
further research in this country. Since 2000, we have together
invested more than $360 million through the CIHR/Rx&D
Collaborative Research Program. This has enabled our best and
brightest researchers in many outstanding universities to
further their scientific investigations aimed at treating and
preventing disease, and improve the live of patients.
Rather than
attacking private sector researchers like Dr. Prigent, we should
be opening doors to develop principled partnerships that
strengthen Canada's research capacity so that we can become a
global leader in life sciences.
Russell Williams
President, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies,
Ottawa. |
Editor, Kingston
Whig Standard (not accepted for
publication)
Criticism of appointment: more
"innuendos"
| "Having
the big bad wolf directing the three little pigs on how to build
their homes" is how the NDP Health Spokesman described the
appointment of a drug company executive to the Council of the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; see Christina
Spencer's report "Pfizer head appointed to board," Whig
Standard, Nov.
24). I gave this statement factual support ("Interests of
'Big Pharma' don't coincide with those of medical
researchers," Nov. 26), However, a representative of the
pharmaceutical industry declared my case to be one of
"innuendo, rather than fact" ("Criticism of
appointment is based on innuendo, not fact," Nov. 28). Here
are a few more "innuendos" masquerading as
"facts."
In the
1990s the industry, hailing the dawn of a new era of partnership
with medical researchers, sponsored full-page advertisements
bearing the names of a medical school dean and several members
of the medical establishment. An analyst in a major medical
journal expressed surprise at their naivete (Wayne Kondro, The
Lancet 1993).
The truth
soon dawned. An article in University
Affairs noted that
"the much vaunted program that is supposed to pump $200
million from the pharmaceutical industry into university
research over five years has fallen far behind
expectations." Indeed, "some academics who went out on
a limb to support the program initially, often against the views
of their colleagues who didn't believe industry would come
through with the money, now feel betrayed" (Peggy Berkovitz,
1996).
Of course,
"Big Pharma" makes important contributions to the
health of Canadians and has talented personnel. But there have
to be checks and balances. For those working at the
"cutting edge" of research, the conflict between
academic and corporate interests continually surfaces. For
examples see a fine article by journalist Anne McIlroy
("Under siege in the ivory tower;" Globe
& Mail, Sept.
8, 2001). She also noted that "it is retired academics --
who no longer fear retribution who are able to speak out. The
younger ones, who are most vulnerable, can't really say
anything." Given the importance of drug company advertising
revenues to the survival of newspapers, we hope that the
Spencers and McIlroys will continue to "speak out" if
only in the form of "innuendos." More
"innuendos" masquerading as "facts" may be
found at the webpage of a retired academic: http://www.queensu.ca/academia/forsdyke/peerrev.htm
Donald Forsdyke, Kingston |
|