74 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS Two trained beauty operators conduct our experime. nts. I am often asked how we find these girls who must be somewhat above the rank and file in intelligence. The best way, I've found, is to advertise for an experiended beauty operator, trained in all.branches, to do cos- metic research. I mention the hours--9 to 5 through a five-day week. During the war applicants were scarce, but I kept the ad run- ning until I got the girl I wanted. I sort out applicants by personal interview and by work tests. I pre- fer girls who have moved around a bit, preferably with some experience in other states. They have fewer prejudices to root out they are . not wedded to one line or one way of doing things. I look for the skeptical, observant, experimental type. I avoid the born saleswoman. She won't be objective enough for us. Taking skill and conscientious performance for granted, this qual- ity of objectivity is the most im- portant one to look for. The work of beauty operators, of course, is supervised. Some one who has a clear idea of the problem and the questions to be answered must plan the tests and judge the results. I know of one manufacturer who engaged a hairdresser t[ test his shampoos, but neglected to set up a definite procedure to be followed. The hairdresser, naturally enough, at first did just what he would do for a beauty shop customer--used wave set, brilliantine, and hair lacquer and in other ways so confused the results that they were c.ompletely. worthless. In our work we have three funda- mental questions to answer. Is this cosmetic good for the purpose for which it is designed? Are the direc- tions for its use accurate and clear ? Are the claims made for it true ? . In planning tests we follow the line of common sense, keeping con- stantly in mind how the average woman will use it and what she will expect from it. People sometimes ask me, "How do you measure the shine 6f a girl's hair?" We measure it as a consumer would--by eye- sight. If the difference in the gloss given by two products is so slight it can't be seen by the naked eye, it won't matter to a consumer and it doesn't matter to us. Here's another example of this common-sense approach. Recently we were asked to study two formu- las for improving a soap shampoo-- both supposedly designed to work well in hard water. In the labora- tory both shampoos gave heavy pre- cipitation, but a practical use test showed a decisive difference. We washed half the hair of our subject with one formula, and half with the other. Then we checked the re- sult, as a woman would, by noting the gloss on each side and by brush- ing. We brushed each side with a clean, black-bristled brush sixty times. One brush was coated with a heavy white film. The other still looked black and clean, showing that the formula used on that side rinsed out well in hard water and left no objectionable' scum. That

OPERATING A COSMETIC CLINIC 75 side, of course, was obviously more lustrous. In planning tests, whenever prac- ticable, we arrange for some kind of control. It sharpens observation and brings out points that might otherwise be missed. In many cases--nail polish, for example--the control may be a similar cosmetic with which we are thoroughly familiar. In checking a hand cream, we may use an untreated hand as a control for a treated one. In the case of an emollient face cream• we may take careful ob- servations of the skins of a group of testers, and after two weeks' daily use of the cream, examine the skins again. To make certain that judg- ment is accurate and unbiased, the final examination is often made by two persons--the one who super- vised the study, and some one who has not seen the notes taken of the skin condition before the cream was applied. This examination by a neutral party helps us to resolve some difl•- cult questions. Some time ago, the laboratory, in reporting on a cream shampoo, commented that the label included the claim, "Contains lano- lin." The amount it contained was very small. We were doubtful that such a small amount of lanelin was significant enough to warrant its mention as an active ingredient on the label. We decided the point by practical test. The manufacturer made up some of the product with- out lanolin. We shampooed six subjects, using the shampoo with- out lanolin on one side and with lanolin on the'other. Then a woman who did not' know what had been done was asked to tell which side of the hair was softer and smoother. She ran her hands over each head, and, to our surprise, in all six cases picked out the side washed with the product containing lanolin. In another instance, we wanted to know whether a hand lotion used before washing dishes really pro- tected the hands and helped to keep them soft. We co-ordinated our study with a dishwashing study the Institute was making, in which a number of girls washed specially soiled dishes twice a day for five days. Before each one tackled the dishes, we rubbed one hand with lotion, taking care always to treat the same hand. At the end of the test, two men--engineers in the Institute--were asked to tell which hands were softer. As you might expect, these men made interested and excellent judges. Their ob- servations agreed with those of the test supervisor, and we had elimi- nated any possibility of bias, again proving the usefulness of a neutral party. A question that arises immedi- ately in planning a test is, "How many subjects do we need?" That depends entirely on the type of product and what we are trying to find out. If the product is new, as cake make-up was a few years ago, more testers are necessary than if the product is a familiar one. If the ingredients are now and un- tried, as soapless shampoos were some years ago, many more testers