Okay.
Dr. Prigent might be involved in a conversation about whether a better governance system for research is needed, one with stricter conflict of interest guidelines and transparency rules. Such measures have to some extent been opposed by industry.
Conflicts will also particularly arise in the governance of the new drug safety and effectiveness network, hosted by the CIHR, which promotes much-needed independent research on the safety and effectiveness of marketed products. This research can lead directly to the withdrawal of a drug from the market, with billion-dollar consequences for pharmaceutical companies. Governing council might have to discuss the need to expand its mandate, increase its funding, or improve its connections with other CIHR initiatives.
Dr. Prigent will have to excuse himself, as has been pointed out, from discussions and decision-making in a large number of these areas, or CIHR's governing decisions will be tainted by conflicts of interest
In summary, the confirmation we received last week of Dr. Prigent's appointment is worrisome rather than reassuring. This appointment reflects a lack of appreciation of the very divergent roles and interests of industry and CIHR. It can affect the ability of this organization to carry out its mandate and threatens to undermine public trust in medical research in Canada.
I congratulate the members of this Committee for wanting to hear from researchers and medical practitioners, health policy experts and members of the public of whom more than 3,600 have signed the petition opposing this appointment.
I would like to mention that I have personally been contacted by many researchers I did not know who represent patient groups. Following this, I gave an interview in which I raised questions about this appointment. I think members of this Committee need to realize that the concern is shared not only by lawyers but also by many medical and health policy experts.
Thank you.