Judge may report drug company executive to attorney general
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A high court judge is considering reporting a senior executive of GlaxoSmithKline to the attorney general after he told an expert witness appearing for the company's opponents in a patent action that the company would not fund any research by him in the future.
Mr Justice Pumfrey, who was last week hearing a patent action brought against Glaxo by a group of generic drug companies over Seretide, its combined inhaler of salmeterol and fluticasone, called Dr Garth Rapeport before him for questioning.
The judge acted after Professor Clive Page, an asthma expert from King's College, London, who was appearing as a witness for the generic drugs company Cipra, gave evidence about a phone call he had received from Dr Rapeport, director of clinical pharmacology at Glaxo. Professor Page said the executive, who qualified in medicine in South Africa, told him that, although his current research grant would continue, he would get no more funding from Glaxo in future.
"He clearly said to me that I could not have the same relationship with Glaxo in the future, and that I was no longer a friend of Glaxo and, therefore, I would not be receiving future funding," Professor Page told the judge.
"At best, it was a fit of pique. At worst, it was an attempt to interfere with a witness," Antony Watson QC, for Cipra, told the judge. Glaxo's counsel, Andrew Waugh QC, said it was "a matter of regret" to the company and "should not have happened."
Dr Rapeport told the judge that Professor Page's participation in the case as an expert witness for Cipra had come as "a bomb-shell." Professor Page had already been invited to a meeting scheduled for last week at which Glaxo's research strategies for the future were to have been discussed, he added.
But Professor Page testified that he was not a consultant to Glaxo; he had a research grant specifically looking at adenosine in the airways. He had not been involved in GSK core strategies in this area and had not at that point seen any information about the meeting.
The judge pointed out to Dr Rapeport that the function of an expert witness was "to assist the court, not to assist any particular party."
Dr Rapeport said: "I accept that I acted inappropriately and I apologise for my action. It will not happen again." He assured the judge that Professor Page's future applications for research grants would be considered on "exactly the same basis as heretofore."
The judge said he now had to consider whether to take the matter further. If he did, he would send the evidence to the attorney general to decide what steps to take.
The attorney general can take proceedings for contempt of court against anyone who attempts to interfere with a witness. Penalties range from a fine to a prison term.
A spokesman for GSK said: "GSK has an existing three year research agreement with Professor Page in the area of asthma biology. GSK at all times has indicated its intention to honour its commitments to Professor Page."(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)
Mr Justice Pumfrey, who was last week hearing a patent action brought against Glaxo by a group of generic drug companies over Seretide, its combined inhaler of salmeterol and fluticasone, called Dr Garth Rapeport before him for questioning.
The judge acted after Professor Clive Page, an asthma expert from King's College, London, who was appearing as a witness for the generic drugs company Cipra, gave evidence about a phone call he had received from Dr Rapeport, director of clinical pharmacology at Glaxo. Professor Page said the executive, who qualified in medicine in South Africa, told him that, although his current research grant would continue, he would get no more funding from Glaxo in future.
"He clearly said to me that I could not have the same relationship with Glaxo in the future, and that I was no longer a friend of Glaxo and, therefore, I would not be receiving future funding," Professor Page told the judge.
"At best, it was a fit of pique. At worst, it was an attempt to interfere with a witness," Antony Watson QC, for Cipra, told the judge. Glaxo's counsel, Andrew Waugh QC, said it was "a matter of regret" to the company and "should not have happened."
Dr Rapeport told the judge that Professor Page's participation in the case as an expert witness for Cipra had come as "a bomb-shell." Professor Page had already been invited to a meeting scheduled for last week at which Glaxo's research strategies for the future were to have been discussed, he added.
But Professor Page testified that he was not a consultant to Glaxo; he had a research grant specifically looking at adenosine in the airways. He had not been involved in GSK core strategies in this area and had not at that point seen any information about the meeting.
The judge pointed out to Dr Rapeport that the function of an expert witness was "to assist the court, not to assist any particular party."
Dr Rapeport said: "I accept that I acted inappropriately and I apologise for my action. It will not happen again." He assured the judge that Professor Page's future applications for research grants would be considered on "exactly the same basis as heretofore."
The judge said he now had to consider whether to take the matter further. If he did, he would send the evidence to the attorney general to decide what steps to take.
The attorney general can take proceedings for contempt of court against anyone who attempts to interfere with a witness. Penalties range from a fine to a prison term.
A spokesman for GSK said: "GSK has an existing three year research agreement with Professor Page in the area of asthma biology. GSK at all times has indicated its intention to honour its commitments to Professor Page."(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)