Governing Board
Sets direction, reserves material decisions and holds executive management accountable.
ENGAGE MSI Institutional leadership & governance
Independent oversight.
Accountable research.
A governance architecture designed around public purpose, scientific credibility and institutional continuity, with a clear separation between oversight, advice and executive delivery.
Governance framework · Board, council and committee appointments will be announced following confirmation.
Institution-led stewardship
Authority belongs to the institution.
The governance framework places stewardship with a properly constituted governing board, scientific challenge with qualified independent advisers, and delivery with an accountable executive office. No individual, donor or commercial partner would have unilateral authority over research findings.
Scientific & International Councils
Provide scientific challenge and global perspective; advise without exercising executive control.
Executive Office
Implements approved strategy and reports delivery, finance, risk and integrity to the board.
01
GOVERNANCE ROLE · Direction, stewardship & accountability
Governing Board
The Governing Board's remit is to safeguard the Institute's purpose, independence, resources and long-term sustainability. Its legal powers must be established in the governing instrument.
REMIT & ACCOUNTABILITY
Composition
Recommended initial composition: five to seven members, an independent chair and a majority independent of executive management and related commercial interests. Collectively, members should bring research, medicines policy, finance, governance and international experience.
Authority
Reserved matters: strategy and annual budget; executive appointment and appraisal; risk appetite; major commitments; related-party transactions; acceptance of material restricted funding; governance and succession.
Reporting & safeguards
Proposed quarterly meetings, annual effectiveness review and a recorded decision and conflicts register. Independent members should determine executive remuneration and matters concerning the executive's own interests.
02
GOVERNANCE ROLE · Scientific quality & intellectual direction
Scientific & Research Council
An independent advisory council would challenge the research agenda, methods and quality of outputs across MSI's eight domains. Scientific advice would inform, rather than replace, governing-board accountability.
REMIT & ACCOUNTABILITY
Composition
Proposed membership: experienced researchers and practitioners spanning pharmaceutical governance, supply chains, public health, economics, AI, policy and research methods, with disciplinary and geographical diversity.
Authority
Advise on research strategy, methodological standards, external review, evidence quality and research capacity. Funding interests must not determine scientific conclusions or publication decisions.
Reporting & safeguards
Advice, review recommendations and material concerns would be recorded and escalated to the governing board. Council membership would not imply endorsement by members' employers.
03
GOVERNANCE ROLE · Global perspective & strategic challenge
International Advisory Council
A non-executive advisory forum would bring international policy, health-system, industry and civil-society perspectives to the Institute's work.
REMIT & ACCOUNTABILITY
Composition
Appointments should reflect a range of regions and medicines-system contexts. Members would serve in a personal advisory capacity under disclosed terms, with conflicts and external affiliations declared.
Authority
Provide strategic challenge, contextual intelligence and advice on international collaboration. The council would have no fiduciary, procurement, grant-award or executive decision-making authority.
Reporting & safeguards
The executive office would submit recommendations to the board where a formal decision is required. Advisory participation would not confer control over findings or editorial decisions.
04
GOVERNANCE ROLE · Delivery under delegated authority
Executive Office
Executive management would implement the board-approved strategy, organise research programmes and maintain operational accountability. The office would be led by the Executive Director within a documented scheme of delegation.
REMIT & ACCOUNTABILITY
Composition
Capacity should develop proportionately across research leadership, grants and finance administration, operations, data stewardship and communications. Responsibilities must be assigned even where services are outsourced.
Authority
Deliver approved programmes and budgets, oversee staff and contractors, manage agreements and report delivery, financial position, risks and research-integrity concerns.
Reporting & safeguards
The Executive Director would report to the board. No executive should approve their own expenses, remuneration or related-party arrangements.
Board oversight
Proportionate committee arrangements.
Three functions are proposed. At an early stage, the board may retain these responsibilities collectively under recorded terms, with independent specialist support. Separate committees should be activated when membership, competence and workload justify them.
Audit, Risk & Finance
Oversee budgets, financial controls, grant restrictions, procurement, anti-fraud measures, risk management and audit or independent financial review as applicable. Recommend material financial decisions to the board.
Research Integrity & Ethics
Oversee research conduct, conflicts, authorship, corrections, complaints and ethics arrangements. Obtain suitably independent ethics review before relevant research begins; this committee is not itself a substitute for required external approvals.
Nominations, Governance & Remuneration
Maintain a skills matrix, transparent appointments, terms and succession. Oversee board evaluation and executive remuneration, excluding affected individuals from deliberation and decisions.
Public interest & participation
Research informed by lived experience.
A proposed patient and public reference panel would contribute perspectives on access, equity and the practical consequences of medicines insecurity. Participation should be accessible, appropriately supported and governed by clear consent, confidentiality and remuneration arrangements. It would advise without taking on fiduciary or scientific approval responsibilities.
Operating safeguards
Rules that protect institutional independence.
Appointments & succession
Use a published skills matrix, proportionate open selection and documented appointment decisions. Proposed non-executive terms are three years, normally renewable once, with staggered succession and annual independence declarations.
Conflicts & related parties
Maintain a register of interests, require meeting-specific declarations and recusal, and record independent approval of related-party arrangements. Share relevant commercial interests in grant and publication disclosures.
Funding & publication
Assess funding sources and restrictions before acceptance. Agreements should preserve the right to publish, separate funding from editorial control and disclose support, limitations and competing interests.
Evidence & ethics
Document protocols, data access, authorship, external review and correction routes. Obtain the permissions and independent ethics review appropriate to each project before collecting data.
Finance & grant stewardship
Assign accountable budget holders, separate authorisation from payment and reconciliation, maintain project-level records and monitor restricted funds, subawards, procurement and reporting obligations.
Accountability & concerns
Develop confidential reporting routes, independent escalation, non-retaliation and a fair complaints process. Publish an annual activity and governance statement with financial reporting appropriate to legal form and scale.
Executive leadership
David Yusuf
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR · MEDICINES SECURITY INSTITUTE
David Yusuf is a pharmacologist, senior HR and operations executive, and researcher in pharmaceutical governance specialising in medicines security. His work connects scientific reasoning, organisational capability, accountable leadership and the resilience of medicines systems.
As Executive Director, he leads the Institute's executive development and research agenda, bringing together its work in research, strategic intelligence, policy advisory and international collaboration. His research interests include artificial intelligence, pharmaceutical industrial strategy, supply-chain resilience and medicines security.
His executive role sits within the Institute's institution-led governance framework, with a focus on effective delivery, research integrity and long-term institutional credibility.
VIEW EXECUTIVE PROFILE CONTACT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICEContribute to the Institute's next stage.
Expressions of interest in governance, scientific advice and international collaboration are welcome. An enquiry is not an appointment or promise of funding.