Stop George Washington U from being a pharma front

George Washington U needs to stop fronting for industry-sponsored training in India

Universities are non-profit institutions that should share evidenced-based knowledge. 

Unfortunately, George Washington University (GWU) has been acting as a front organization for pharma and industry as a whole by hosting industry-sponsored seminars in India.  Indian policy makers and judges who regularly make laws and rule on cases involving pharma are invited with the belief that a university is providing unbiased information.  However, the seminars are largely sponsored by industry - many of whom have active cases in India trying to defend patents and expand their monopoly powers.

Universities too often forget that the have a mission wholly different from pharma and GWU needs to stop acting as a front for industry and if they do continue this program, offer a balanced, evidence-based view. 

Join us in taking action today!  Working with Knowledge Ecology International and other non-profits, we'll submit the petition formally on June 2, but you can continue to sign on after that date and we'll continue to update GWU.

Background on the many problems with GWU's program is below.  You should also read the earlier blog post about it from Knowledge Ecology International.  But don't forget to GO HERE to sign onto an open letter asking GWU to stop their current program.

If you'd like to get more involved, please email us at info@essentialmedicine.org.

Background to Open Letter to George Washington University Law School to Cease Industry-Sponsored Intellectual Property Training in India 

George Washington University’s (GWU) India Project holds annual summits in India that purport to be independent academic exercises but, in fact, represent a heavily biased industry agenda.  GWU receives heavy industry funding and the summit presentations reflect these sponsorships.  GWU must cease these inappropriate industry-sponsored activities and stay true to its academic mission to further knowledge.

India, as a key supplier of generic—and thus more affordable—drugs to the developing nations, plays an essential role in promoting world health.  For example, over ninety-percent of people living with HIV/AIDS in low- or middle-income countries rely on generic drug treatments, largely created in India.  Furthermore, India’s research and development system, which largely addresses the needs of people in developing nations, may be necessary to address neglected diseases.  The current intellectual property (IP) regimes in the developed world often drives corporations to develop medicines for the wealthy and largely ignore those diseases disproportionately afflicting in low- or middle-income countries.  For example over one billion individuals, amounting to one-sixth of the world’s populations, suffer from one or more neglected tropical diseases.[1]  Less than ten-percent of research dollars go toward developing solutions to diseases that affect the poorest ninety-percent of the world.[2]  Because corporations in the developed world tend to focus on development of drugs for the wealthy, it may fall to pharmaceutical companies in countries such as India, which has a history of developing generic drugs for developing countries, to work on solutions for neglected diseases.  India’s IP regime therefore has deep implications not only within India itself, but also for the developing world as a whole. 

GWU ostensibly created the “India Project” with the intent to bring together academics, government officials and business leaders to discuss IP issues including the international and domestic aspects of patent law.  GWU’s stated purpose in its annual summits is “to enhance education in the field of intellectual property (IP) law.”[3]  Additionally, Dean Lawrence noted that GWU holds these annual symposiums to promote dialogue about IP issues between Indian and American government officials, industry and academia.[4]  Despite these objectives, in practice, GWU’s India Project has failed to present a balanced discussion on IP issues.  Instead, the Project receives funding from multinational pharmaceutical corporations and software companies while presenting the industry agenda as an independent academic exercise.  GWU, as a non-profit institution, is presumably driven by noncommercial goals including providing a public service, educating students, and improving the academic culture.  Furthermore, many academics do not support industry agenda because many corporations fail to fully take into account public health issues and alternative mechanisms for distribution of products.  By comparison, industry possesses a strong for-profit motive and agenda heavily focused on increasing revenue.  Because the missions of the university and industry stand in stark contrast to one another, GWU cannot present the agenda of pharmaceutical and software corporations as its own.  

The fact that multinational pharmaceutical and software corporations fund the summits, provide speakers and offer presentations essentially affords these companies the opportunity to lobby Indian officials and judges behind the cover of academia that GWU offers by virtue of being an academic institution.  By presenting these summits as an independent academic exercise for debate and discussion misleads Indian decision-makers. 

Failure to Present an Independent Academic Exercise

The GWU India Project has received funding from numerous major corporations, many of whom have substantial IP interests in cases before courts as well as the patent office in India.  For example, the 2009 India Summit received sponsorship from Novartis, PhRMA, Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft and Qualcomm, among others, as well as the law firms representing these corporations in patent cases before Indian courts.[5]  Furthermore, the grand sponsor is US-India Business Council (USIBC), a lobbying group that has campaigned against certain provisions in existing Indian patent law.[6]  USIBC has, for example, published a report attacking Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of 1970 which limits patent protection and provides that only medicines that represent actual inventions should receive IP protection.[7]  Similarly, corporate sponsor Novartis challenged Section 3(d) in court[8] and has recently instituted new legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of India aimed at weakening this provision of the Patents Act of 1970.[9]  Multinational pharmaceutical corporations have brought these suits, as well as others, against the government of India in an effort to prevent the domestic production, registration and export of essential medicines by Indian generic manufacturers.  These sponsors have consistently pushed India’s courts and government to adopt standards beyond the mandatory levels required by TRIPS.  These sponsors thus not only have a theoretical interest in Indian IP outcomes, but hold actual, vested interests as well.

In addition to receiving funding from major pharmaceutical corporations, the summit also featured one-sided presentations from a selected group of experts.  The industry-sponsors not only helped fund the symposium, but also sent delegates and provided speakers.[10]  Significantly, GWU does not address the perspective of academics or civil society members who can address India’s prominent role in providing access to essential medicines.

In addition to holding these one-sided industry presentations, the audience invitees include senior-level Indian government officials, policy makers, patent officers and judges.  The prominent featuring of industry sponsorship and industry-only perspectives before government officials and judges is highly inappropriate; as noted above, many of the corporate sponsors have vested interests in the patent cases currently before the courts or hold a strong desire to change the current IP regime.   

One particularly troubling presentation at this year’s summit came from Gilead.  The company delivered a presentation on its AIDS drug, Tenofovir.  Gilead had previously applied for, and was rejected, a patent for this drug and is currently appealing the decision with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.  In closing, Gilead announced that “The licensing model—Gilead licenses its patents to generic firms—is at risk and the decision by the IPAB will send a powerful signal about prospects for tech transfer partnerships with Indian companies.”[11]  Gilead’s thinly veiled threat delivered before an audience that includes high-level government officials, policy makers, patent officers and judges could improperly sway decision-making on IP issues.

Similarly, the law firm representing Novartis in the case challenging Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of 1970 gave a presentation at the summit.  Before senior-level Indian officials, policy-makers and judges, the firm not only pled Novartis’ case that Section 3(d) does not comply with TRIPS, but also presented the interpretation that it wants the Indian Patent Office to adopt.[12]

While Gilead, Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies have the opportunity to deliver presentations and essentially lobby Indian decision-makers regarding IP issues, those with non-industry viewpoints are often shut out from the summit.  Although numerous academics and organizations believe that industry’s agenda could harm public world health, the summits do not allow these voices to deliver presentations.  Furthermore, attempts by those opposing industry’s agenda to voice concerns or ask questions “are often ignored, cut short or even shouted down by delegates brought in by George Washington University who have a strong IP enforcement bias.”[13] 

This year’s summit also featured a moot court problem related to the enforcement of IP rights, similar to the issues currently before the courts of India.  The issues presented mirror those brought by multinational pharmaceutical companies, such as Novartis and Bayer.  While moot court usually involve a purely academic exercise for students to partake in, the summit’s moot court moves away from the traditional format and includes practicing lawyers and judges.  The 2010 moot court exercise, for example, involved arguments from current lawyers and sitting judges, including those on the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.  That GWU would attempt cloak these industry attempts to lobby under the veil of independent academic exercise is extremely misleading. 

Furthermore GWU’s India Project Summit’s association with GWU’s Creative and Innovative Economy Center provides further evidence of the one-sided viewpoints presented at the meetings.  The Creative and Innovative Economy Center, funded by numerous pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Wyeth and PhRMA, is headed by Director Michael Ryan whose past work includes promoting multinational pharmaceutical industry interests in developing nations.[14]  Ryan admitted that he has a pro-business bias and believes that multinational companies offer the best solutions for developing nations.[15]  Thus, not only do multinational pharmaceutical and software companies heavily sponsor GWU’s India Project, but the Project’s affiliations also receive similar funding.  GWU’s India Project is heavily influenced by industry and even its supposed independent affiliates appear captured by the same industry sponsorship. 

Summits Appear to Amount to Ex Parte Meetings

The presentations and activities at these summits essentially offer only industry perspectives.  Coupled with the fact that industry speakers interact with judges on the Supreme Court or Delhi High Court at the presentations, these summits theoretically amount to inappropriate ex parte meetings.  As such, the summits improperly position the pharmaceutical and software industries to lobby judges on issues currently presented to the courts.  Given that those supporting India’s current IP regime do not have the same opportunity to voice their concerns, GWU’s India Project provides industry an unfair advantage in litigating IP cases. 

Imposition of U.S. Intellectual Property Regimes

By giving cover to U.S. industry to prepare these one-sided summits, GWU neglects to realize that India has a long history of not only understanding IP regimes and their implications, but of also drafting and implementing progressive patent laws that can appropriately balance inventor rights with the needs of the public.  These meetings are part of a larger attempt seeking to impose United States based IP regimes on India rather than offering an academic exercise or actual debate of the issues. 

GWU must remember its non-profit mission—currently it is acting as an organization captured by its industry funders. India’s IP history demonstrates that the government at times takes greater care than many others to balance the rights of the inventor with that of the public’s need for essential medicines. 

In order to actually adhere to its non-profit mission and provide a true academic exercise with regard to IP issues, GWU must stop cloaking an industry agenda under the guise of independent academic discourse.  GWU has allowed industry sponsors to heavily influence the meeting agenda and neglects to present viewpoints from academia or civil society.  By rejecting views that oppose industry and not allowing these groups to make their own presentations, GWU cannot proclaim itself to be an independent institution when hosting its summits in India.  GWU needs to return to its academic roots, discontinue its strong affiliations with industry, and cease associating itself with these unacceptable industry lobbying sessions.

GWU should carry a more responsible approach toward its summits on intellectual property.  As an independent, academic institution, GWU should take care to provide evidence-based presentations rather than promoting industry agenda.  The university must carefully consider all matters that emerge from IP and access to medicines issues, such as public health concerns.  GWU can only ensure an informed understanding and educational experience by presenting other major issues that surround the IP debate such as the importance of flexibilities in terms of IP in order to protect the public health, the need for access to essential medicines in developing countries, and the lack of innovation for neglected diseases in the developing world.  By addressing considerations beyond that of industry, GWU can present alternatives to the current IP regime and provide a true academic exercise.