The board members involved in overseeing the regulator’s “strategic direction” also have financial interests in companies, including US and Saudi drug giants, and companies with ambitions to penetrate the UK healthcare market. Some offer consulting services, while others help manage or own shares in pharmaceutical and medical device companies, according to official transparency records. There is no evidence of offense, but the findings have raised concerns about perceived conflicts of interest between senior members of the Drugs and Health Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), an executive of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare that is responsible for regulating drugs and medical devices and ensuring that it is safe. The MHRA said that “in order to be an effective regulator” it had to “gather the right know-how from across the industry, academia, the public and beyond”, adding that board meetings are held by its public and non-executive members. Board of Directors. potential conflicts – are not involved in “any work or decision related to the regulation of any products”. However, critics have expressed concern about the possibility of bias – or perception – and called for stricter conflict of interest rules for those working in the pharmaceutical industry. The board is responsible for assisting in setting strategic priorities and advising on policy implementation, potentially giving members access to information that could be useful in their positions in external organizations. David Rowland, director of the Center for Health and Public Interest thinktank, said regulators needed to be “whiter than white” in order to maintain “absolute public confidence” – especially when they are responsible for “licensing young people and potentially innovative products and appliances “. “We have seen many people during the pandemic question the reliability and safety of vaccines and other treatments,” he said. “Once people start thinking that there are potential financial benefits to be achieved, it is very difficult to regain that trust.” Of the 16 board members, six have declared financial interests in drug or medical device companies or companies working for them, according to an Observer analysis of official transparency records released in February. All but one of the six joined the board in September and each of the appointments was signed by the Ministry of Health. Dr. Junaid Bajwa, chief medical scientist at Microsoft, is also the non-executive director of Ondine Biomedical, a Canadian biosciences company, and Nahdi Medical, a Saudi pharmaceutical company, according to the diaries. He also owns shares in the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp and Dohme and is a paid consultant to the Swiss company Novartis. Dr. Paul Goldsmith is a shareholder and director of Closed Loop Medicine, which develops hypertension and insomnia products, according to its website. It owns shares in Summit Inc., a drug discovery and development company, and Ieso, which plans to seek approval for its standalone digital tools – artificial intelligence therapy – in the future. Raj Long offers paid “consulting access” services to Huya Bio, a Chinese company that aims to enable “faster, more economical and lower risk drug development in global markets”, and is a shareholder in Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. while Amanda Calvert, who has been the non-executive director of the MHRA board since 2019, is the director of Quince Consultancy, whose clients include drug companies. Haider Husain, appointed to the MHRA board as “associate non-executive executive director without voting rights”, is the CEO of Healthinnova, which provides consulting services on “how to get the most out of investing in digital health”. Meanwhile, Professor Graham Cooke, vice chairman of the MHRA board, is a paid consultant to two medical technology companies and an unpaid consultant to a third – DnaNudge, which offers DNA-adapted food products, as well as a fast Covid provider. 19 tests The MHRA has a strict conflict of interest policy for staff and is currently reviewing its rules for advisers to its expert committees, such as the Committee on Human Medicines and the Advisory Committees on Herbal and Homeopathic Medicines, to they give us advice is independent and impartial “. However, it said last week that it had no plans to review policies for non-executive board members, which are currently allowed to have links to the industry, provided they have been notified. Other regulators, such as the Gaming Commission, prevent board members from accepting payments from gambling companies or holding shares in companies. And last week, a non-executive board member of the Civil Aviation Authority, whose appointment was signed by the Department of Transportation, resigned over a possible conflict of interest because he owns shares in the parent company British Airways. Harry Keaton, former CEO of the Professional Standards Authority, said it was valuable to have industry members on the board and that he was [be] a crossover level “. “The issue is not ‘Are you on the MHRA board?’ but do you make decisions that are related to your interests? ” he said. But Professor John Abraham, a medical expert and former policy adviser, urged those involved in health regulation to be forced to give up “all direct and personal financial conflicts of interest” in order to maintain public confidence. “The response of regulators for many years is that they have not been able to get the know-how they needed to advise. “This is not very reasonable because there are so many scientists and experts out there,” he said. In 2020, the Independent Safety Inspectorate for Drugs and Medical Devices, headed by lifelong peer Julia Cumberlege, expressed concerns about a conflict of interest in medical regulation and called for a “culture review” of the MHRA. “Steps must be taken to ensure that the patient’s perspective and the public interest always take precedence over the interests of industry,” the review said. The MHRA said the non-executive board members were appointed to provide “constructive challenge and advice on the strategic direction of the MHRA” through an “open and transparent process” run by the Ministry of Health. “Conflicts of interest are considered on a case-by-case basis when appointing and at the beginning of each board meeting,” it added.
