Who's funding WHO?
BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39119.519664.BE (Published 15 February 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:338
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
During Benedetto Saraceno's term of office, the budget of the WHO
Division of Mental Health has REDUCED its dependency on funds from Pharma
from somewhat more than half of the total to less than 1%! To accuse him
of cozying up to drug companies is to get it exactly backwards! I'm
appalled at besmirching the reputation of a splendid international civil
servant.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have known Dr.Saraceno for over 15 years, even before he joined the
WHO. His great concern for the mentally disabled in many developing
countries and his friendly, non-patronizing attitude have won him several
friends in this part of the world. He has motivated and inspired the
initiation of several psychosocial rehabilitation programmes for the
chronic mentally ill. His dealings have always been straight and
forthright and many of us here are pained that the conclusions drawn by
the author are rather hasty and unjust.
Dr.R.Thara
Director
Schizophrenia Research foundation
Chennai, India
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Regarding: "Who's funding WHO?" published in the BMJ 15 February
2007
The World Health Organization categorically rejects the allegations
made in a recent story in the British Medical Journal which imply that
WHO solicits money from the pharmaceutical sector through independent
organizations by circumventing its own rules.
As the BMJ correctly reports, WHO has clear guidelines against
seeking or accepting funds from commercial enterprises or through third
parties where there would be a conflict of interest.
When WHO does accept donations or funds from pharmaceutical
companies (for example, donations of vaccines or medicines), those
donations are clearly accounted for and transparently reported.
In this specific case, Dr Benedetto Saraceno was very clear. He had
never asked that funds be solicited from the pharmaceutical sector, and
he declined the funds that were offered.
WHO is concerned about the BMJ's depiction of Dr Saraceno. He is a
professional of deep personal integrity. In the ten years he has been with
WHO, Dr Saraceno has tirelessly worked to highlight the public health
consequences and grave inequalities faced by the millions of people who
are affected by mental, neurological or behavioural disorders.
Christine McNab
Acting Director of Communications
World Health Organization,
Geneva
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
BMJ goes for the glitz
Ethical questions about inappropriate pharmaceutical funding of
doctors and health research are among the most important issues now
confronting public health and clinical medicine. They have a huge impact
on health systems and society. Consequently, it is unfortunate to read
this story sensationalizing an ethical non-event, because it diverts
attention from real events that really matter. Here we find a story in
which the protagonist, Dr. Benedetto Saraceno, neither requested nor
received the funds in question. Framed with colour photos and callout text
boxes to call attention to itself, the tale presents a cartoon caricature
celebrating the lofty ideals of a pharmaceutical funder standing up to the
money laundry at WHO.
There may be a story in the events this article reports and lessons
to be learned by reflecting on it, but not the one we read here. Polishing
GSK's image based on this account discredits the BMJ and serious efforts
to rethink and fix problems resulting from the influence of pharmaceutical
money that is too often pernicious. Are we really supposed to congratulate
GSK, as the author implies, for ensuring tansparency and preserving their
lofty moral stature because they withdrew funds that weren't requested by
a fabricated culprit? It is especially sad, because the values and
reputation of Dr. Saraceno are so completely at odds with the picture
presented in this article.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests