A controversy has erupted over the confidential workings of a World Health Organization group, which is supposed to examine financing and coordination of R&D between the public and private sectors for medicines needed to combat various diseases in developing nations. This so-called Expert Working Group (see here), which is studying patent pools, innovation prizes and an R&D treaty, is expected to deliver its report this coming May to the WHO Health Assembly.

But the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations trade group distributed to its members four documents that has riled some advocacy groups: a non-public draft report by the WHO EWG and a non-public Comparative Analysis done by the working group, an IFPMA overview of the EWG’s Comparative Analysis, and an IFPMA summary slide on the EWG draft report, according to WikiLeaks, see the documents here.

There is also this email, which indicates the “overall results are in line with industry positions.” But why are some people upset by this disclosure? The EWG process was supposed to be free from outside influence and the disclosure suggests the pharma industry may be swaying deliberations.

“It indicates that industry had access to documents and could contribute to text of the documents,” says Jamie Love, who heads Knowledge Ecology International, an advocacy group. “It reflects badly on the process and undermines credibility. The process has essentially been compromised…It’s going to be an embarrassment for the WHO.”

“It appears that the brand-name industry is on the verge of successfully undermining the multi-year WHO process meant to propose solutions to solve the intertwined innovation and access challenges facing developing countries,” writes Sarah Rimmington, an attorney at Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project, an advocacy group in Washington, DC.

“Nothing proves how aligned this report is with the status quo better than the leaked comparative analysis of the document from…IFPMA, which indicates it ‘fully share(s)’ many of the key concerns in the report. IFPMA also indicated it is pleased about the ‘many references to the importance of intellectual property as well as quote (sic) from interviewees that reiterate how important IP is to achieve further innovation.’ Why bother setting out a global strategy on public health, innovation and intellectual property if in the end the Expert Working Group is likely going to reject every single solution on the table?”