WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/99 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission. Malaria vaccine.
Date: 1999-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, infectious disease, vaccine

C 203 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

Further on in his reply to written question no. 26 with a view to his hearing before the Committee on
Budgetary Control, Mr Kinnock pointed out that, should he be appointed, he would propose that (cid:145)persons
who are the subject of OLAF investigations are removed from their posts if the necessary minimum of
evidence has been established and if there is an evident risk that inaction could endanger the investigation(cid:146).

Having regard to the indisputable facts identified by the independent experts in their report with regard to
this (cid:145)clear-cut case of favouritism(cid:146)
(cf. point 8.1.35 of the report), and given that the administrative
authorities responsible within DG XII are still in place in that directorate-general, does Commissioner
Kinnock envisage immediately suspending the senior officials concerned from their posts if they were to be
the subject of the inquiry currently being conducted by OLAF?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1999)

The Commission confirms that OLAF is conducting an internal enquiry into the Berthelot case.

The Commission further confirms its intention to consider the removal of any persons who are the subject
of OLAF investigations from their posts and, in such cases, various options exist:

Where the necessary evidence has been gathered and failure to remove the persons in question from their
posts would endanger the OLAF investigation, it would be possible to suspend the persons in question
from their posts by opening disciplinary proceedings prior to receipt of OLAF(cid:146)s final report. In some cases,
however, the main source of necessary evidence will obviously be OLAF reports, and the measures taken
(cid:129) including disciplinary proceedings (cid:129) will, therefore, largely depend upon the content of such reports.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the suspension of an official is a time limited
measure which can last up to four months and include the withholding of up to 50 % of the official(cid:146)s
salary under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations. Under the Staff Regulations, that action can only be taken
by the competent appointing authority if an allegation of serious misconduct is made against the official.

Finally, the Commission would point out that the definitive removal of an official from his or her post,
that is the ending of his or her relation of employment with the Commission, can only take place after
disciplinary proceedings have come to an end.

The Commission assures the Honourable Member that if any OLAF reports contain allegations of serious
misconduct against officials, all necessary measures will be taken without delay.

(2000/C 203 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/99

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Malaria vaccine

Developing countries are in great need of a malaria vaccine. However, the pharmaceutical companies are
not very interested, because they would not make enough money from selling their medicines to
developing countries.

Could the Commission, as part of its development policy, present a proposal aimed at getting EU Member
States to commission pharmaceutical companies to develop a malaria vaccine and to undertake to pay a
certain price per dose of vaccine? Such a proposal could result in a vaccine being developed.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The Commission agrees with the analysis presented by the Honourable Member, but is not necessarily
convinced the solution proposed is possible or even effective. The Commission includes below some
potential elements for a more feasible strategy.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/49

Malaria kills more than a million people a year and is heavily concentrated in the poorest countries and
populations. Recent advances in biotechnology point to a possible malaria vaccine. One would think that
this would be high on the agenda of both the international community and the private pharmaceutical
firms but for a long time it was not. A recent study found for example that only around US $ 80 million a
year is spent on malaria research, and only a very small fraction of that on vaccines. However, malaria and
the lack of public and private investment in the development of a vaccine have come more to the fore,
thanks to several
initiatives of the World health organisation (WHO) and also in the context of the
Community(cid:146)s Fifth framework programme for research.

The lack of investment in the research and development of a malaria vaccine is mainly due to the fact that
investment in research and development of new technologies is overwhelmingly directed at rich country
problems because these countries have the largest profitable markets. A similar situation has also been
observed in relation to the lack of investment in an Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) vaccine
adapted to the developing world strains or public health systems.

The evidence points towards an important challenge, as yet mainly unrecognised, related to the lack of
mobilisation of global science and technology to address the crisis of public health in general, and malaria
and AIDS in particular, presently confronting the countries with the poorest populations. Therefore
creativity and new partnerships are needed to bridge the huge discrepancy between human need, scientific
effort and market returns. A beginning of such an approach is presently being discussed within the
Community in relation to an AIDS vaccine for developing countries but similar strategies could (cid:129) and
should (cid:129) be adapted for malaria. The strategy followed for the AIDS vaccine has several components
working in parallel rather than consecutively to gain time, and also to mutually reinforce each other. Some
of the main components used at the Community are creating incentives for private industry to invest more
in AIDS vaccine research and development for example through the incentives proposed in the orphan
drug regulation presently discussed in the Parliament; creating a more credible market in developing
countries by ensuring provision for existing vaccines in the national budgets and in the Community aid
budgets; creating (together with our main partners) a potential market for the future by pledging financial
support for countries to purchase the new vaccine once it becomes available; and increasing support from
public sector finance for the research and the development of an AIDS vaccine appropriate for developing
countries.

The Community is presently only at the beginning of this approach for AIDS and,
if successful co-
operation proves possible and fruitful, other initiatives could be envisaged. As indicated by the Honourable
Member there is good reason for initiatives of this kind also concerning malaria.

The Commission would add that in the case of malaria, the Community recently increased its support for
research and development in the Fifth framework programme through the publication of two calls for
proposal (for the constitution of a cluster of Research and development projects on malaria vaccine and
for specific research proposals in developing countries). In addition, the Community is also presently
financing a demonstration clinical trial in the Gambia in partnership with a pharmaceutical firm.

(2000/C 203 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1791/99

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Arms exports

In the light of the recent debate concerning the export of arms by Britain and other EU Member States to
countries perpetrating in human rights abuses and involved in serious conflict e.g. Indonesia and the East
Timor Crisis, does the Commission plan to tighten legislation on the sale of arms in future?