David Earnshaw
For being a pharma industry lobbyist playing the “independent expert” at the European Parliament
David Earnshaw, managing director of lobbyists for hire Burson-Marsteller in Brussels, is nominated for posing as an ‘external expert’ advising the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) on public health matters.
Earnshaw is not a scientist, doctor or nutritionist. He is a well known lobbyist in Brussels, having worked for the pharmaceutical multinational SmithKline Beecham, and having played a key role in getting the Life Patents Directive passed in the 1990s.
Earnshaw claims that, during his tenure as expert advisor to the ENVI Committee, he has “never lobbied on behalf of a pharmaceutical company or other interest on this legislation and neither has Burson-Marsteller advised clients on it either.” He maintains that the conclusions of his report do not “correspond with the lobbying efforts conducted by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, NGOs or others.”
Burson-Marsteller’s clients include GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer, all of whom have interests in issues related to the remit of the ENVI Committee. During 2006 Earnshaw produced a report for the ENVI Committee which argued against national bans on advanced therapies regulation – exactly the policy preference of the pharma industry!
At the very least Earnshaw’s role as an expert advisor to the ENVI Committee allows him to pick up valuable political intelligence and build up his contacts and networks. Such contacts are vital for commercial lobbyists and they can be used for commercial return in the future, whilst being paid with tax payers money for the privilege. At worst it represents a serious conflict of interest. Without transparency in lobbying we may never know for certain.
Further Information:
An Insider in Brussels: Lobbyists Reshape the European Union, Elke Cronenberg for CorpWatch.org, 18 September 2006
De verlobbying van Europa, Knack, 13 September 2006
Pharma-industry lobbyists shouldn’t serve as ‘external experts’ for the European Parliament, Corporate Europe Observatory, October 2006
Thomas wrote on 02-11-2005:
How interesting. The facts of the case don't seem to matter here. I hope that those who are claiming an injustice has been done are also being scrutinized over the reliability and truthfulness of their work. I have always thought that due process was a guaranteed freedom in the EU, rather than just claiming Mr Earnshaw is guilty.Lets hope someone sees sense here and looks at what has been said in a private capacity rather than an organizations capacity. Sorry if you can't separate the two, as you must have very dull lives indeed.
Harry Grollt wrote on 02-11-2005:
die werden reicher und wir werden ärmer
John wrote on 01-11-2005:
The comments are as interesting as they are vague. If someone has clients who interests can be served by him serving on a particular committee I would think they should exclude themselves. Maybe all those who are backing him should read more in depth of what big pharma does to convince us that we need their drugs to stay healthy. And supporting the Life Patent Directive is inexcusable.
Lulu Pomeran wrote on 01-11-2005:
I have known David for a long time and think that he is a sweet tender person with an honourable history. I do not believe this allegation.
GP wrote on 01-11-2005:
The nomination is bad not the “lobbyist”!! , Earnshaw is a committed European, probably the best specialist in the European Parliament, previously worked for Oxfam and during his parliamentary period always supporting progressive pressure groups. Yes he worked and advises the pharma industry but we all know that and he won the tender openly. The nomination is cleary vindictive.
Max wrote on 01-11-2005:
Anyone who knows Earnshaw - and most people in Brussels do - would find his nomination for this award laughable. This is man who has worked tirelessly for Europe, is a passionate supporter of the British Labour Party, a strong advocate of the rights of people in developing countries, a champion of patient advocacy and dialogue between the voluntary and commercial sectors. His years working for Ken Collins, when Collins was chair of the EP Environment Committee, means that he is an undisputed expert – which is exactly why the Parliament awarded the work to him. Earnshaw’s nomination says more about the ignorance of the organisers of this fatuous ‘contest’ than the nominees!
Vicky wrote on 01-11-2005:
Earnshaw seems very well qualified to write a report for the EP. He has worked the NGO world (and has attacked the Pharma industry), worked in the EP (and has rebuffed the lobbying of EXXON et al), and has written a very long and tedious report which reads (has any one else on the COE, Friends of the Earth panel read it?) as someone who understands pharmaceutical law and the ethics of biotech in Europe. H
Thomas wrote on 01-11-2005:
Very bizare. Did the EP not ask for his background? Could you add information on whether he was hiding his background?
MARIE-CLAIRE OLIVER wrote on 01-11-2005:
I think you will find he has worked for Ken Collins MEP (Socialist, UK) which would have given him this opportunity.
anonymous wrote on 01-11-2005:
You should also know that David Earnshaw used to work for Oxfam on such issues (after SmithKline Beecham - you conveniently failed to mention this), and that he won the position as an advisor to the ENVI committee in an open call for tender, and due to his experience in the sector (experience counts for something, even if he is not a scientist or doctor).