Ideas on WHO Delegates at Odds
By David Brown
The Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health
Organization have reached a compromise on the controversial issue of who
gets to name U.S. government scientists to serve as advisers to the
The trouble is that the two sides have nearly opposite views of what the
WHO has agreed to send invitations to specific scientists through the
U.S. government, rather than to contact the experts directly. This
arrangement, largely a matter of protocol, is one the organization has
with China, Russia and a few other of its 192 member countries.
HHS officials, however, believe WHO has acceded to its request that the
U.S. government be allowed to "identify an appropriate expert who can best
serve both of our organizations" after WHO provides a general description
of the expertise it is seeking.
Among WHO's myriad tasks in global public health is the writing of
policies and guidelines on topics as diverse as lab testing and drug
manufacturing to disease treatment and nutritional advice.
The policies -- which are advice to countries and do not have the force
of law -- begin with the work of expert committees consisting of about 15
scientists from around the world who meet in Geneva for three to seven
days and review the scientific evidence on a specific topic. All the
recommendations are reviewed by WHO officials, and important or
controversial ones are voted on by the organization's member countries,
whose representatives meet annually in May as the World Health Assembly.
In most cases, the people on the committees -- as well as in more hastily
assembled "study groups" formed to address disease outbreaks and
emergencies -- are drawn from a standing pool of scientists who agree to
act as unpaid advisers for a certain period. These include experts at
universities, government research agencies and nongovernmental
organizations. In 2003, there were 1,064 scientists in the pool, in 54
named areas of expertise.
North Americans were 24 percent of that total, although the exact number
of Americans or U.S. government scientists is not readily available. But
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of
Health, and the Food and Drug Administration -- all HHS agencies -- are
among the most important and reliable sources of expertise.
In April, William R. Steiger, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's special
assistant for international affairs, wrote Denis G. Aitken, an assistant
director general of WHO, and requested that when WHO wants a U.S.
scientist for an expert panel that it first "provide us with the terms of
reference and other relevant information." Steiger added that if WHO "has
a specific expert to suggest, we will be pleased to consider that
recommendation," but that HHS will ultimately come up with a name.
Steiger also noted that federal employees "do not and cannot" participate
as individuals but "serve as representatives of the U.S. government at all
times and advocate U.S. government policies."
In a response written earlier this month, Aitken noted that a WHO
regulation requires that members of advisory panels "shall act as
international experts . . . they may not request or receive instructions
from any government." (WHO staff, and people lent long-term to the
organization by governments, must swear a similar oath of independence.)
In his letter of response, Aitken said WHO will "consult with the U.S.
government" on appointments. He said WHO will decide whether to "nominate
a named individual or ask the U.S. government for a specific type of
expertise without naming an individual."
In a recent telephone interview, however, he explained how the
arrangement will work:
"We will write to the government and tell them we would like this
individual to attend. If the government says no, well that's too bad, we
won't take anybody else. We cannot insist on an individual. But what we
can insist on is that anybody who attends [an advisory meeting] not
represent a government position, and we can insist on no substitutes."
On rare occasions, WHO may not know the name of an expert and will ask
HHS for one. But he added: "I wouldn't see it [that option] as a loophole
. . . it should not be overplayed as a norm."
WHO has a similar arrangement with about a dozen countries, including
China, India and Russia. In response to a question, Aitken said he
believes the agreement with Russia dated from the Soviet period.
"We are not treating the U.S. any differently in this regard," Aitken
said, adding that he was awaiting Steiger's response.
Last week, William A. Pierce, the HHS spokesman, said the department
viewed Aitken's letter as an agreement to its terms and had no immediate
plans to contact him.
"Denis said yes. He said okay. No way to get around that," Pierce said.
In the April letter, Steiger gave no reason for the new policy except to
say that WHO's practice of inviting scientists directly "has not always
resulted in the most appropriate selections."
But several government scientists, speaking on the condition of
anonymity, said they believe the policy arose in part from federal
employees' work on WHO's Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and
Health, which was adopted by the organization's assembly in May. Two CDC
researchers and an NIH economist were involved in writing or reviewing
scientific material that undergirded the strategy.
One of the supporting documents summarized evidence on the health effects
of concentrated sugars and recommended they make up no more than 10
percent of a diet's calories. That position was opposed by sugar growers.
The strategy says that taxes and marketing restrictions on junk foods are
possible ways to discourage their consumption. That suggestion was
criticized by Steiger and representatives of the grocery industry, among
Derek Yach, formerly head of WHO's noncommunicable diseases section and
now a professor of public health at Yale University, said HHS officials
questioned the scientific basis of several conclusions about the role of
diet and exercise in obesity even though some of the key underlying
research had been "reported and published by their own scientists."
Pierce said one of the reasons the department wants to name the U.S.
scientists who serve on expert panels is to spread that privilege around.
"This policy will give more of our scientists this career-enhancing
opportunity," he said. The appointments "are good for their careers;
Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
Visit washingtonpost.com today for the latest in:
News - http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=emailarticle
Want the latest news in your inbox? Check out washingtonpost.com's e-mail