The CMAJ recently reported that a Pfizer VP has been appointed to the governing council of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). Here are a couple of the criticisms raised over the appointment, as taken from the CMAJ article (I would encourage you to read it in its entirety):
“The appointment is “very surprising and quite inappropriate,” said Dr. Patricia Baird, university distinguished professor with the department of medical genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
“Many governments, medical journals and health organizations are becoming much more aware of issues of conflict of interest, so for this appointment to be made in this climate, when people are so much more aware, is surprising,” said Baird, who has served on the Medical Research Council and the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.
“The appointment “can only open the CIHR itself to suspicions of conflicting interests,” Abby Lippman, professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and occupational health at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, wrote in a letter to CIHR President Alain Beaudet.
…Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said pharmaceutical company representatives “do not belong at the table setting policy, directions and strategies for publicly funded research. . . . The interests of the pharmaceutical industry are not aligned with the interests of the public.”
If the governing council wants input from the pharmaceutical industry, it can invite representatives to meetings to make presentations, said Downie, who holds a Canada Research Chair in health law and policy.
In defense fo the decision,
“Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Liberal MP for the Toronto, Ontario, riding of St Paul’s and a member of the health committee, said in an email that she was assured by governing council members that “because part of the mandate of the CIHR is getting research to market . . . expertise from the business side was important to fill out the skill set and expertise of the governing council.”
It’s hard to imagine what was going through the minds of committee members who made the choice of a Pfizer exec, especially given the highly problematic track record Pfizer has regarding research ethics.
The decision will be reviewed by the Federal Health Committee on November 30.
UPDATE (Nov., 26 2009): An electronic petition to block Dr. Prigent’s appointment is being circulated. You can find a link to the petition here.
(+2 rating, 2 votes)
Loading ...
Twitter Updates
It's not as contrversial as it seems. He is one vote of 17, and adds some element of market expertise to the group. Most of the Governing Council are university professors/researchers, so he can be resoundly overruled by his colleagues were he to get too out of line. As well, I believe the Scientific Council makes decisions on research ethics; the GC makes strategic decisions and decisions related to corporate infrasturcture and finance, so his effect on the conduct of research will be minimal.
This is just my own political philosophy, but I think it is helpful to have a variety of viewpoints around the table of such a notable research funder.
I take your point regarding the market/business experience. My understanding is that the board is required (though maybe in a loose sense) to have the kind of expertise he brings to bear.
However, I have to echo Downie's concerns about the choice of a Pfizer exec. Pfizer has recently been found guilty of very serious ethical transgressions, having to do particularly with the manner in which they conduct their research (e.g. misleadingly manipulating results to make their drugs appear useful when the data does not support it), and bring their drugs to market (e.g. suggesting they be prescribed for "off-label" uses). These types of transgressions relate directly to the very specific qualifications that an industry representative would be asked to provide to the board.
Given that Pfizer's track record is highly dubious in that regard, it seems a better appointment would have come from another industry leader.