Proposition 54K2796

Projet de loi insérant un paragraphe 4 dans l'article 29 de la loi portant création de Sciensano (II).

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 7, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

health policy research body public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Siegfried Bracke (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms Els Van Hoof, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Block decided to find a way to turn gold into lead. It has a unanimous will at its disposal to better support federal scientific research institutes, to increase efficiency and efficiency, and even to employ the new financial resources they need. Everybody is agreeing! It creates a more coherent, more structured health research system as requested by the Court of Auditors. Everybody is agreeing!

Then she puts on the table a project with the aim of bringing together, within Sciensano, the ISP, the CERVA but also, eventually, the KCE and the Higher Health Council, a project that has so many holes or negative orientations that we were entitled to a white paper signed by 70 scientists, including the director of the KCE, who denounced the direction taken by the government, in general, and by Minister De Block, in particular.

My excellent colleague Daniel Senesael explained this long and pertinently in the Health Committee, supported by our excellent President today, André Frédéric. I would simply like to raise a few concerns. We have concerns – it’s heavy – about the composition and political designations of Sciensano’s main management bodies; concerns about its missions that may be carried out for insufficiently defined third parties, as well as its sources of funding that may be national, international, public but also private. What should we understand by “private funding sources,” Mr. Daerden?

Why are there no clear labels in the law? How, then, can the independence of the experts be guaranteed if they can carry out work for the tobacco industry, if they can be funded by the agro-food industry, such as Monsanto for studies on the Roundup, or what do I know?

We have concerns about the planned and insufficiently framed processing of personal data, as the State Council itself stressed. Finally, we have concerns about the staff that will be employed within Sciensano. Deciding to remove the institution from the Public Service Act, giving it this hybrid status, the government provides different statutes for staff, which are insufficiently specified. In short, they are all worried, which is obviously not good for the work to be done in these research institutes.

This is what I wanted to say, in summary. This is a project on which we could have worked well, having an unanimity in favor of scientific research which is a guarantee of economic development of our country. For all these good reasons, we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, the merger of the WIV and the CODA in Sciensano is responsible by the Minister for the need for a more efficient functioning of the health institutions, on the advice of the Court of Auditors and the Council of State.

According to the World Health Organization, the one-health principle states that what is harmful to humans is harmful to animals and vice versa. It is a noble principle, but there are reasons to be concerned about the independence and objectivity of the selection of surveys and opinions that can be conceived in this new institution. For example, there is the general council of Sciensano, which must consist of at least fifteen members, of which ten members from government agencies that are politically appointed. The Board of Directors is controlled by this general council and the general council may at any time object to the decision of the board of directors. Also the members of the Scientific Council, who are selected outside of Sciensano in the field of science, will still be appointed and dismissed by the Board of Directors, which in turn consists of members of the General Council and is thus appointed by the politicians.

It is better to aim for a board of directors such as that of the KCE, where there is a balanced representation of public authorities, the main actors from the healthcare sector, health funds and patients. In Sciensano, the primacy of political appointments will be much heavier and the door will be opened for potential pressure from various interest groups on the policy and thus also on the choice of the studies and the direction of the opinions.

In addition, it also provides for the possibility of allowing Sciensano to participate in private companies, which could potentially also harm independence. Furthermore, as described in Articles 25 to 27, other branches may be established abroad, which may operate fully autonomously.

Conversely, Sciensano will be able to receive private funding. What worries us even more is the following passage in the bill: "Because of the nature of its activities and assignments, Sciensano is market-oriented and must be able to react smoothly to changing market conditions." It cannot be for us the intention that a public science institution should prioritize our health. Health needs should be central to Sciensano, not what the market dictates at a given time.

Industry is the main bias of the evidence-based medicine. There are stacks of studies, comments and findings in the big five, the five major journals, including The Lancet and New England, which say that the main threat to evidence-based medicine is the evidence-based marketing of the pharmaceutical industry.

Study designs are manipulated, results are manipulated, negative studies are not made public, positive studies are enlarged or published multiple times. Sponsored studies are four times more likely to have positive outcomes when researching the effects of the same drug than independent studies.

That is why the concept of conflict of interest in the discussions within the biomedical sciences is so important and so current. It is absolutely impossible that a government-subsidised institution which is supposed to serve the public interest and public health, and which is supposed to be able to operate in full independence, is made dependent, or even can be influenced, by the market, read by big pharma. This is really unseen, dear colleagues.

Finally, we also have reservations regarding the new statuut sui generis of this institution and its impact on the recruitment and recruitment of personnel. Thus, Sciensano will become a government agency but no longer a state service, which means that no more recruitment is required through Selor.

Which objective, neutral recruitment mechanism will then be replaced, we ask ourselves.

For all these reasons, dear colleagues, we will vote against this law, mainly because we are not convinced that independence and neutrality within Sciensano will be guaranteed because of the possibility of political direction and because of the financing and participation of Sciensano in the private sector and vice versa, which is a step in the wrong direction. I thank you.