Am6Jt°oberP1i9i7 '  ^     Research  in  Pharmacy  Colleges.  449 
century  makes  the  delver  truly  humble.  Are  we  "  doing  our  bit " 
as  did  Parrish  and  Proctor  and  Squibb  and  Rice  and  Maisch  and 
Trimble,  to  say  nothing  of  the  many  retail  pharmacists  of  that  day 
who  suggested  improvements  of  manipulation  that  they  dug  out  of 
their  routine  practice?  A  truly  interesting  study  would  be  an  in- 
quiry as  to  whether  the  decline  of  professional  pharmacy  is  due  to 
a  decline  in  research  work  or  whether  the  transition  of  pharmacy 
from  an  art  to  a  mere  bartering  has  stifled  the  research  spirit,  but 
that  is  not  the  object  of  the  present  paper. 
What  we  of  the  Conference  should  discuss  is  the  query :  "  Are 
we  doing  our  bit?"  A  careful  comparative  study  of  current  and 
past  pharmaceutical  literature  leads  me  unwillingly  to  the  conclusion 
that  we  of  the  colleges  have  not  been  doing  our  share,  of  research  ; 
that  too  large  a  percentage  of  pharmaceutical  research  of  the  past 
decade  has  been  done  outside  of  our  colleges.  The  pharmacopceial 
work  of  Beringer,  the  retail  pharmacist,  the  research  work  of  the 
score  or  more  chemists  in  pharmaceutical  houses,  the  fine  investi- 
gation of  anaesthetics  by  Baskerville;  the  remarkable  adsorption 
work  of  Lloyd,  the  painstaking  study  of  alkaloidal  separation  done 
by  Beal  and  Lewis  in  the  chemistry  department  of  the  University 
of  Illinois  are  types  of  work  that  should  have  been  done  in  the  labo- 
ratories of  our  pharmacy  schools,  and  we  of  the  faculties  are  the 
poorer  for  not  holding  up  our  end  of  the  line  with  sufficient  work  of 
similar  character. 
But  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  find  fault.  The  facts, 
distasteful  though  they  may  be  to  some  of  us,  are  stated  merely  to 
ask  why  these  conditions  should  obtain.  Every  one  of  us  here 
knows  why.  Few  of  us  are  in  a  position  to  frankly  state  the  reason. 
In  fact,  until  his  appointment  by  President  Lyman  upon  the  Com- 
mittee on  Research  of  this  Conference,  the  writer  hesitated  to  speak 
positively  on  the  subject.  But  as  he  has  reached  the  arbitrary  line 
of  demarcation  between  impetuous  youth  and  conservative  age,  he 
feels  he  has  the  right  to  speak,  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  come  after  him.  He  is  one  of  the  group  who,  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century  since,  fitted  himself  for  teaching  in  an  atmosphere 
of  research.  Actually  entering  upon  a  teaching  career,  he  found 
the  three  hindrances  to  research  usual  to  most  of  our  schools  of 
pharmacy :  (a)  a  mass  of  routine  work  apart  from  the  regular  hours 
of  instruction;  (b)  a  meagre  income  that  had  to  be  augmented  from 
outside  sources;  (c)  abundant  opportunity  to  secure  such  profitable 
