Date: 31 January 2011
Source: Intellectual Property Watch
Think tanks can be a godsend for reporters with a looming deadline.
Almost invariably, they are staffed with articulate policy specialists,
adept at summarising complex issues in a few quotable sentences.
Frequently, too, the think tanks have neutral-sounding names, so a reader
or viewer of news reports can easily believe that they are independent of
vested interests.
Closer inspection reveals that many of these “independent?” bodies are in
fact heavily reliant on corporate donations. This is especially the case
for a number of think tanks working on intellectual property.
In late January, the European Centre for International Political Economy
(ECIPE) held a conference dedicated to trade and IP issues in Brussels.
Most speakers at the event endorsed the broad thrust of the European Union`s
external trade policy, which advocates that standards of IP protection
applying within the EU should also be applied throughout the world.
A paper written for the event [1] by Frederik Erixon, ECIPE`s director,
argued that enforcing patents in foreign countries should be a priority.
“This is the area where the big policy problems are for European firms,”
he wrote. “They encounter insufficient IP laws and regulatory frameworks
in many countries, especially emerging markets.”
Asked why he had not invited speakers from anti-poverty organisations
concerned about the possible impact of patent enforcement on such matters
as public access to medicines in developing countries, Erixon said:” We
are sceptical of having campaign groups [at our events]. We are more
interested in having people from parts of the world with different views.
For example, we have had people from Kenya and South Africa in the past.”
Erixon said that the centre had a budget of about €1
million last year. Its “base-funding” comes from the Free Enterprise
Foundation in Sweden, while a number of companies have made financial
contributions to its work. They include Pfizer, Nokia, Unilever, Siemens,
Nestle, Nike, Google and BP.
Hugh Pullen, a representative of the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly, said
his firm had given “two one-off grants” to the centre for projects related
to IP issues. “The work they do is their work,” said Pullen. “We had very
little influence on the direction in which it goes.”
Dieter Plehwe from the corporate watchdog LobbyControl estimates
that there are 60 think-tanks in Brussels, as well as several others in
the national capitals of EU states that publish material relating to
the Union`s policies. Plehwe noted that corporate-funded think
tanks generally do not have to publish their accounts in the same way
as foundations (such as those linked to political parties) who
receive public subsidies.
“Private think-tanks have mushroomed and have now developed a strong base
in Brussels under no such regulations,” he said.
ECIPE is one of several think-tanks that have not signed up to a register
of lobbyists and “interest representatives” run by the European
Commission. “We find the idea that a think tank should register as an
interest [representative] insulting,” Erixon said. “Our role is to produce
analyses and evaluations, not to lobby.”
Whereas it is mandatory for pressure groups trying to influence lawmakers
in Washington to detail their activities on a similar database, the EU`s
register is voluntary.
Michael Mann, a European Commission spokesman, said that a new category is
being established for that register to cover groups who are reluctant to
be considered as lobbyists. “Some think tanks, religious organisations and
law firms do not like being labelled with the nasty “lobbyist”
word,” he added. “The idea of a joint register is to make it more
attractive for people to sign up.?
The revised register will serve both the Commission
and the European Parliament. The two institutions have stated that they
wish to have their common register established by June this year.
In October last year, the International Policy Network in London published
a study [2] contending that high IP standards can be beneficial for
developing countries. The paper was authored by Douglas Lippoldt, a staff
member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
in Paris.
Lippoldt said there was no conflict of interest between his work for the
OECD, a public body, and the IPN, a corporate-funded think tank, as the
paper made clear he was writing in a personal capacity. “What is important
is to always include the standard disclaimer,” he said. I am quite
observant about that.”
Julian Morris, the IPN`s director, said that his network is “downsizing”
and no longer works on IP issues. “We are funded by a broad array of
organisations, some of whom do have an interest, none of whom has any say
over what we do,” he added. “That is all I can say really.”
IPN`s London office does not disclose which companies fund its work. Yet
it has run public relations campaigns in defence of the pharmaceutical
industry in the past. In 2004, a group called the Campaign for Fighting
Diseases was formed. Run out of IPN?s office, it sought to counter arguments
from anti-poverty activists that enforcing patents on drugs in developing
countries reduces the availability of medicines at prices affordable to
the poor. “Stronger intellectual property protection in poor countries may
stimulate innovation by multinationals to serve local needs (e.g.
developing drugs to combat tropical diseases),” an IPN paper published in
2005 stated.
Meanwhile, the Stockholm Network presents itself as an alliance of
120 different “market-oriented” think-tanks across Europe. Among
the network`s publications is a newsletter on intellectual property
issues called Know IP. In 2008, the network ran a campaign against calls
by British members of Parliament for the greater use of generic
medicines in the country`s health service.
Helen Disney, the network`s director, did not
respond to a request for comment from Intellectual Property Watch. In a
letter to the British Medical Journal last year, she wrote: “We are funded
by memberships
and research grants from a range of companies, foundations
and individuals. Not only do we not hide this but we list all sponsors
on our website and in our annual reports.”
Her letter was prompted by criticism from SpinWatch, a group monitoring
the public relations industry. SpinWatch stated that while drug-makers
such as Pfizer, GSK and Merck are known to have given money to think
tanks, the Stockholm Network does not say how much it receives from each
company.
Tido von Schoen-Angerer, director of the Campaign for Access to Essential
Medicines run by the humanitarian aid group Medecins sans Frontieres
(Doctors without Borders), said that pharmaceutical firms
have been financing research by think tanks in order to influence
the debate on the patenting of medicine. Such think tanks should
be required to declare their sources of income, he said, adding: “Part
of the problem is that this issue stays concealed.”
Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog
URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/01/31/are-european-think-tanks-corporate-lobbying-by-another-name/
URLs in this post:[1] paper written for the event: http://www.ecipe.org/value-for-money-getting-europes-trade-and-ipr-policy-right
[2] published a study: http://www.policynetwork.net/creativity-innovation/publication/do-stronger-iprs-deliver-goods-and-services-developing-countries
[3] European Officials Eye Pan-European Passport For Collective Copyright
Licencing: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/08/european-officials-eye-pan-european-passport-for-collective-copyright-licencing/
[4] European Broadcasters Call For Easier Copyright Clearance For
Online Content: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/17/european-broadcasters-call-for-easier-copyright-clearance-for-online-content/
[5] European Parliament Votes To Rein In Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/10/european-parliament-votes-to-rein-in-anti-counterfeiting-treaty/
[6] : http://ow.ly/3Nluo
Keywords: think tanks / IP / European
|