On April 16, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) asked its members to support an open letter to a World Health Organization committee - the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property - in advance of a meeting where new proposals will be discussed concerning models for supporting R&D for new meds. The issue comes down to patents and accessibility.

“Prize systems, a medical R&D treaty, and compulsory patent pools are being advocated as alternatives to patents and IP protections at the April 28 meeting. These solutions could pose a challenge to our current and very successful system of innovation and tech transfer. This letter will be published as a full page advertisement in a major international newspaper a few days before the IGWG process resumes on April 28.” The letter cited by AUTM was written and circulated by the Institute for Policy Innovation, a conservative think tank that has previously refused to say whether any funding comes from pharma.

The Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, a student group, took to the Internet this past week to denounce the AUTM and to argue “the success of the WHO negotiations is crucial to the health of billions of people. The meetings present one of the few real opportunities for the concerns of people in the developing world to be heard alongside those of rich countries and multinational corporations,” according to the UAEM statement. And Jamie Love, an activist with Knowledge Ecology International, wrote on his blog that the IPI letter was “part of a PR campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to stop the introduction of new models for supporting R&D for new medicines, or more transparency of the system.”

Today, Love reports that the AUTM backpedaled, citing an e-mail sent by Jon Soderstrom, AUTM’s managing director and the director of Yale University’s Office of Cooperative Research. Earlier in the week, Soderstrom told Insider Higher Ed that the criticism was a “gross misrepresentation” of AUTM’s position.

Now, though, he writes that “I want to apologize for a serious miscommunication on our part. The recent note in the bi-weekly update concerning the Institute for Policy Innovation’s open letter to the World Health Organization should not have been included as written. As written, it could be read as an endorsement by AUTM of the positions espoused by IPI with respect to the WHO negotiations. That would be incorrect. The AUTM Board did not take any action to either endorse IPI’s position or sign onto the open letter.

“I believe there is in fact a widespread concern among the AUTM membership about access to medicines in less-developed countries. This concern reflects the fact that the principal goal of universities in technology transfer is the improvement of human welfare. Many universities have pursued innovative approaches to making university-owned inventions available in developing countries, and without a doubt more will do so in the future.

AUTM supports and applauds the creativity and commitment shown by universities. As President of AUTM I can assure you that AUTM is not opposing the exploration of innovative mechanisms nor opposing an open discussion of policies that could lead to important new approaches to research and development for neglected diseases. AUTM in fact, seeks to encourage dialog that includes representation from all stakeholders to ensure the best possible outcome for all parties. As a professional association we seek to draw attention to issues such as these and encourage broad discussion…

“Many members of AUTM, myself included, are working hard to promote better access to drugs for the world’s poorest populations. We hope that
national and international policies will continue to permit institutions to select from a broad array of strategies in determining the approach that will work best in specific circumstances.

“The AUTM leadership is guiding the association in the direction of taking concrete steps to adopt policies regarding the funding and licensing of basic science research that serve the global public good and ensure access alongside innovation. The AUTM Board of Trustees and many of AUTM’s members have signed and actively endorsed “The Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology.” If you have not already signed onto these principles, we encourage to review them and consider joining us. In particular, I call your attention to “Point 9″ which states:

” ‘Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such as those of neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving particular
attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agricultural technologies for the developing world.’ ” In addition, AUTM’s Better World Project serves to illustrate the role of technology transfer and the benefits of academic research to society.

“The mission of AUTM is to advance the field of technology transfer, and enhance our ability to bring the benefits of academic and nonprofit
research to people around the world. In keeping with that mission I hope that you and many others from our global community will continue to
explore solutions to enhancing global health.”

Sincerely,

Jon Soderstrom, Ph.D.
AUTM President