AmseJp°tur"i92iarm'}     High-Lights  in  History  of  Phila.  C.  of  Phar.  617 
We  must  have  better  research  work,  because  research  is  the  life- 
blood  of  education  and  practice.  As  Dean  Charles  H.  LaWall 
writes  me,  "The  future  development  of  pharmacy  is  largely  de- 
pendant upon  the  stimulation  of  research,  especially  its  inculcation 
in  the  student-body.  The  work  of  the  College  in  the  past  has  been 
of  the  highest  character,  but  it  has  been  done  unsystematically,  and 
was  largely  a  matter  of  chance  that  it  was  done  at  all.  Men  like 
Maisch,  Procter,  Remington,  Sadtler,  Kraemer  and  others  have 
simply  bubbled-over  with  initiative,  and  their  efforts  have  enriched 
pharmacy  and  made  it  better.  Today,  however,  the  output  is  limited, 
because  every  member  of  the  faculty  is  driven  full-speed  in  taking 
care  of  his  teaching  and  accessory  work.  To  overcome  such  a  han- 
dicap, the  teachers  should  have  more  assistants  for  instructional 
work.  The  progress  of  any  department  of  the  College  could  then 
be  measured  not  only  by  its  instructional  results,  but  also  by  the 
quality  and  quantity  of  original  work  it  turns  out,  and  the  College 
would  have  a  standing  among  other  scientific  schools  that  instruction 
alone  could  not  give.  Furthermore,  students,  graduates,  members  of 
the  College,  and  others,  would  be  inspired  to  follow  the  example  of 
the  faculty,  and  the  field  of  research  would  be  developed  and  co- 
ordinated." And  as  if  in  anticipation  of  such  a  possibility,  the  Board 
of  Trustees  of  the  College  has  recently  established  a  sub-committee 
on  research  of  its  Committee  on  Education  to  systematically  pro- 
mote research  work  in  pharmacy  and  correlated  science. 
And  the  field  of  research  is  practically  unlimited.  As  John  Uri 
Lloyd,  a  Master  in  Pharmacy  of  this  College  (1897),  and  one  whose 
research  work  in  pharmacy  for  the  past  fifty  years  stands  out  like 
a  beacon-light  at  home  and  abroad,  writes  me :  "In  my  opinion,  the 
field  of  research  is  as  yet  scarcely  invaded.  Whoever  enters  it  should, 
with  each  subject,  as  a  foundation,  have  his  feet  on  the  work  others 
have  accomplished,  then  with  open  mind,  raise  his  eyes  to  the  blue 
sky  above.  He  should  start  with  a  hypothesis  gained  from  study  or 
experience  with  related  products,  and  yet  expect  to  fail  in  whatever 
thought  had  speculatively  advanced.  Disappointment  brings  then  no 
pain.  He  should  be  so  bold  as  to  question  orthodox  theoretical  rules 
and  formulae,  and  in  the  face  of  'authority'  create  images  and  plans 
of  procedure  of  his  own.  And  yet  he  should  be  so  timid  as  to 
shrink  from  personal  criticism  of  others,  realizing  that  his  own  self 
will  rise  before  him  as  perhaps  the  one  most  subject  to  criticism  un- 
