SCIENTIFIC DATA IN COSMETIC PATENT PROGRAM 81 that adequate patent protection cannot usually be obtained in cosmetic cases without experimental evidence furnished by the cosmetic chemist. 6. I• RETROSPECT It is my opinion that the cosmetic industry has wasted a lot of money in connection with attempts to obtain U.S. patents because it has not, gen- erally speaking, met the need for experimental evidence. This is one of those dicta which is in the same category with predictions as to what is going to happen 100 years from now. No one can disprove such a statement because no one is in possession of or can obtain all of the facts upon which a considered opinion can be based. Nevertheless, I think the statement is a valid one, being based not only on my own experience but that of a num- ber of colleagues, and I daresay that this view is shared by many of the Ex- aminers dealing with cosmetic cases in the U.S. Patent Office. 7. I•r PROSPECT The question for the cosmetic industry posed by this paper is a simple and clear-cut one: Should the industry continue to expend sums of money on patents and either not obtain in many cases any patent at all or in other cases obtain inadequate protection, or should it meet the requirement for more technical facts ? An easy way out would be to forget about patents entirely and rely upon keeping the new findings secret. It is understood that there have been some notable examples where this secrecy has been practiced successfully. One might mention in this connection a well-known bitter ingredient of some well-known cocktails. Also, I remember reading once that a family handed down from genera- tion to generation certain secrets in connection with the handling of births so as to minimize deaths resulting therefrom. After the last of the family died it was just too bad for society until the medical people developed tech- niques which resulted in the fine record in this connection existing today. Generally speaking, the trouble with keeping matters secret is that it just doesn't work out that way for very long. For one thing, while the law will protect you in your rights to a trade secret as long as it is a trade secret you have absolutely no protection against someone else finding out the same thing independently. When one considers that different people in the cos- metic and other industries think more or less alike and more or less on the same problems the chances of independently made identical findings are rather appreciable. Another weakness of the trade secret method is that there is considerable turnover in personnel. The trusted people who have the secrets today may be with competitors tomorrow. According to one study the annual separation rate of research engineers and scientists in 1951 was over 16 per

82 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS cent on the average for all industries (13). In other words, on the average, there is a 100 per cent turnover among research engineers and scientists every six years in American industry. Ponder this fact when tempted tc keep the matter a trade secret. Another factor to consider in this trade secret question is your standing in the event that a competitor hits upon the same invention and obtains a patent on it. While the law has not yet crystallized in clear fashion on this question, the least that can be said is that you will have some mighty uncomfortable and perhaps expensive moments in attempting to evaluate your rights as compared to the rights of your competitor-patent owner. It might be well also to contemplate the effect of any changes in the Fed- eral Food Drug and Cosmetic Act which would require the listing of new cosmetic raw materials on labels. While the present law does not make this requirement, I understand that there is reason to believe that the Delaney hearings may result eventually in legislation making such a requirement. There is another factor which is not often recognized. There is much to be gained by a dissemination of information quickly and fully. The en• tire industry benefits by such a procedure. Witness the petroleum indus- try in this country. This industry is an outstanding example of one which makes early and full disclosures by way of the patent and scientific literature and its growth and earnings records do not appear to have suffered. It may be of more than incidental interest to note that the separation rate of research engineers and scientists in the petroleum industry is the lowest of all industries covered by the study referred to, the rate being about one- half that of the average for all industries. There may be a natural reluctance on the part of the cosmetic industry to accept the implications of the foregoing statements. The keen competi- tion and the small economic units comprising most of the industry seem to be two factors which mitigate against the industry as a whole going over- board on the full and early disclosure policy. There are hopeful signs, how- ever, that a period of transition is already so far advanced in the cosmetic industry that the time is not far off when such a result can be attained for the industry in general. Indeed, the very existence of your organization appears to be a long step in the desired direction. Your Society could not exist without the interchange of technical ideas. That you as chemists rec- ognize the value to your profession of contributors to the literature is also strikingly shown in the mere enumeration of the outstanding people whom you have honored to date with your medal awards: Bogerr, Evans, deNavarre, Kunz, and McDonough. It may well be that someday when the history of the cosmetic industry has unfolded considerably more than is presently the case, the date of the creation of your Society may be taken as marking the beginning of the most productive era of your industry, both scientifically and economically.