[governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism

[parminder]

A news like " Possible WHO-Industry Conflict of Interest on Pandemic Flu 
Under Investigation"

(see 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/07/possible-who-industry-conflict-on-pandemic-flu-under-investigation/ 
)

 looks to be an anachronism from an old bygone era for those in the 
brave new world of information society discourse.

One wonders why should there be so much uproar about the simple fact of 
industry players with clear vested interest in policy outcomes being 
involved in giving policy advice.... Is that not what 
multistakeholderism is all about.

    "A report by the BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism
    <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912> found that
    WHO guidelines for handling a pandemic originally drawn up in 1999
    were prepared in collaboration with the European Scientific Working
    Group (ESWI), funded by Roche and other drug manufacturers and
    staffed by scientists who had participated in creating marketing
    material for Roche and also in trials testing the efficacy of a
    Roche-owned influenza treatment."

Apart from actual participation of interested actors in policy advice, 
why would anyone bother with anything as innocuous as who funds what.... 
After all, even the IGF is funded by private players. UN - GAID has 
actually made announcements which more or less ties advisory positions 
in GAID with contributing funds. There has been considerable talk of 
multistakeholder funding (read, private sector funding) of policy 
forums/ bodies, in this (civil society) list, in some recent official 
government statements etc...


 It is not important whether the allegations in the above WHO related 
news item are true or not. It is about the discourse (and normative 
frameworks) of public interest and public policies. See how WHO defends 
itself against the allegations. Its spokesperson asserted that

    "WHO has all of its expert advisers complete a declaration of
    interest and if necessary recuse themselves from discussions."


What a stupid idea really!! How would it work in a multistakeholder (MS) 
system, I wonder.  Would it not be so impolite to ask all the private 
sector players sitting on a policy advice body to declare their 
interests, and opt out if they have any.... So terribly old fashioned !! 
Isnt MSism actually about having interest in a policy decision; so what 
is all this ruckus about.

Apologies for the ironic tone, but i do think it is really quite ironic 
how the contemporary discourse in global health policy arena should be 
so much bothered with issues that in another arena - which, 
unfortunately, may be the pointer to the future - are considered simply 
meaningless, and perhaps absurd.

Maybe, it is time, before it gets too late, to give some thought to what 
the new 'governance think' in IG, and perhaps all of information society 
arena, means to the long cherished ideals of public life - to democracy, 
equity, rights etc.....

Parminder


    / /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/3707fab5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t