The mysterious case of the MEP lovers and the disappearing EU pharma report

A report published by an obscure EU panel without legislative powers risks turning into a political powder keg after it was published online and then taken down again — apparently at the behest of two center-right MEPs who are also in a romantic relationship.

Both Pernille Weiss and Christian Ehler sit on the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). In fact, Ehler chairs it.

The fact that the pair are in a relationship risks casting a shadow on the appropriateness of the decision to withdraw the report by a panel that is, in theory, a non-partisan body that commissions external scientists to produce useful research for the EU Parliament.

The report, on Europe’s market for pharmaceuticals, was published on Friday — POLITICO saved a copy here. By Monday it was gone, replaced by a broken link.

POLITICO has been given different reasons for why the study was taken down. What’s certain is that the topic — people’s access to medicines and pharmaceutical innovation — is deeply political and concerns an industry worth billions of euros.

The EU Parliament is currently debating a major overhaul of the rules governing Europe’s pharmaceutical industry. Weiss, a Danish MEP in the European People’s Party (EPP) group, is a leading figure in the discussions. The plans being debated focus on the lucrative incentives system for the pharmaceutical industry and have attracted a storm of lobbying by the sector.

Weiss’s position is close to the industry’s own. The vanished STOA report, however, is broadly unfavorable to pharmaceutical sector priorities.

The dog ate my pharma report

Different people involved have offered a variety of explanations for why the study was withdrawn.

STOA’s non-political secretariat, which helps commission and run the studies, initially told POLITICO its publication was postponed pending a review "at the request of STOA panel members.”

In a follow-up email, a European Parliament press officer in the Directorate-General for Communication contradicted the secretariat. “This is in no way an individual decision of a [panel] Member,” the press officer said. "The publication was erroneously published before finalisation."

Weiss invoked the panel’s rules to her fellow panelists on Friday, after the report was published. In an email seen by POLITICO, she asked for the study to go on hold until the researchers who produced the paper answered her questions.

Ehler, also in the EPP, told POLITICO that in fact there had been no decision to withhold the study. Instead, he said that since he and Weiss had already asked questions about the methodology at a pre-publication presentation on October 19, the default position should be that the study was held until these questions were answered. Publication had therefore been a mistake that was then reversed, Ehler said.

In a reply to Weiss sent on Monday, after the study was pulled, MEP and panel member Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques wrote that any decision to withhold the report would first need to be approved by the panel as a whole at its next meeting. Until then, she wrote, the report should stay up. “I hope that the issues accessing the study ... can be solved as soon as possible,” wrote the Portuguese center-left MEP, who is the panelist responsible for dealing with the report.

When asked by POLITICO whether his intervention was appropriate given his relationship with Weiss, Ehler denied that there was any conflict of interest. “There is as such also no conflict of interest because there are no interests that conflict ... STOA works by consensus exactly to ensure that its studies and contributions are non-partisan. As chair it is my job to maintain this standard regardless of which member raises questions."

Lawmaker Nicolás González Casares from the Socialists & Democrats group, who is also involved in the pharmaceutical reform negotiations, said he intends to contact STOA to find out what happened.

Delicate matters

It’s little wonder that the study may have caused concern.

At a panel hearing to preview the findings in October, the authors — three external health economists from Italy — told the STOA panel’s MEPs that today’s incentives for developing medicines do little to facilitate their access across Europe. Instead they proposed new solutions: upfront payment models, joint procurement and publicly backed research, as well as less generous intellectual property rights for the drugs industry.

Reforms like these are unlikely to be welcomed by the pharmaceutical sector. The position is also diametrically opposed to the priorities that Weiss is pushing in her negotiations over the EU’s plans.

During the hearing, Weiss had five questions for the authors, but said she would have more to come. Among her concerns were queries over how the contributors were chosen. She said it appeared there was “an overwhelming majority” of health care professionals and not so many people with expertise in innovation, the economy, and industry policy.

Weiss also questioned how the researchers had carried out a risk assessment of the quality of their recommendations: “Who is actually informing you, inspiring you to the conclusion?” she asked, suggesting that if these people had a bias, this should be taken into account.

For his part, Ehler queried the methodology. He informed the researchers that further written questions would be sent.

Contacted by POLITICO about these concerns, study co-author Paolo Pertile said: “For each specific policy instrument and each of the four policy options considered, we provide a list of advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages include risks associated with implementation."

In addition, Pertile said the results were mainly based on an extensive review of the literature, including over 230 articles and reports, complemented by interviews with stakeholders. The 24 interviews comprised: five researchers and clinicians, six industry representatives, three patient representatives, eight public health experts, and two public officers.

During the presentation, Leitão-Marques described the report’s conclusions as “difficult ones, but very important, because it’s clear we have a problem and then … you need to experiment (with) new solutions.”

Weiss’s office didn’t answer a request for comment.