JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS to the lessons of history in this field. One of the many facets of this problem is the change in educational background. Not so long ago the physical and biological sciences could be mastered by one person. In recent years, however, specialisation has all too frequently developed a complete cleavage between the two. It is amazing to me that this system can produce so many chemists who know so little biology and biologists with only a smattering of chemistry, and that they all are called scientists. Perhaps it foreshadows the doom of the term "science," unqualified, as a meaningful designation. By some unfailing mechanism progress spawns the mutations essen- tial to the well-being of each parent group. We are all familiar with the chemical engineer and the physical chemist as examples in the physical sciences. There has likewise devel- oped, in keeping with the pace, the indispensable liaison sciences of phy- siology, biochemistry, and pharma- cology, representing function, chem- istry, and alteration of the animal body. These complex disciplines are exacting task masters, for their disciples must master to a workable degree both the physical and the biological sciences. The modern status demands that they also master both the basic and the applied as- pects of their profession. The dis- tinctions between physiology, bio- chemistry and pharmacology are beyond the present scope, but they may be referred to collectively as the chemo-biological sciences. The modern chemist, cosmetic or other, who speaks only to chemists is facing the dead end of progress so long as his objective lies in the direc- tion of human application and usage. Sooner or later he must seek the liaison with the biological aspect of his problem. This can be achieved through the chemo-biological scien- ists who serve as the interpreters and the practitioners. This liaison is most highly developed at present in the pharmaceutical field where, with- in a single large organisation, both the chemist and the pharmacologist work together closely and give mutual assistance toward a common objective. Other fields are also seeking with ever greater clamour the service and specialised training of the chemo- biologicaI scientists. The basic chemical industry, nuclear science, military services, medical. agricul- tural and food chemists, and other groups dealing with the human population, rely ever more strongly on the pharmacologist for guidance in the adequate and safe screening, handling, manufacturing, transpor- tation and use of the particular materials of their interest. Equally important is the co-operative effort toward new product development. In keeping with these demands the chemo-biologists have not only con- tinued basic research, but have developed the methodology of the applied field. Trial and error selec- tion through human usage is no longer compatible witk progress, no matter how well it served in the past. In the first place, such 170

THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND COSMETICS methods are too slow and lack suffi- cient control to permit reliance on them. In the second place, new attitudes on social obligations, both moral and legal, preclude the use of such techniques. If cosmetic chemistry is to make really significant progress toward new and better products, it must turn back to the fork of the road and pick up the biological aspect which it left when it embraced chemistry as all-sufficient, so that the two branches can move forward together. Much time has already been lost, time that cannot be regained with respect to those indus- tries which have more fully learned the facts of life. I am pro'ud to be a part of the cosmetic industry, as evidenced by membership in this Society and associate memberstrip in the Toilet Goods Association. I am equally pleased by the knowledge that basic progress is being made, and that many members of the industry are making solid progress through applied biology. It is quite evident, however, that this progress is only beginning, that much missionary work remains to be done, and that the achievements to be gained far exceed those of the record to date. I firmly believe that the responsibility and the opportunity for future progress rest squarely in the hands of our own group of cosmetic chem- ists. Each has an obligation first to explore and understand the future of integrated research and development, and then to foster it in his own com- pany and sphere of influence. Man- agement, except as each of us may represent it, cannot be expected to take the initiative in this field. I might add that we would not want them to, for initiative in research and development is the function of the scientific staff. One of the big problems of the cosmetic industry is the screening of chemicals for their effects on the skin. In industry to-day thousands of new chemicals are being screened for their various biological actions. By and large, however, they are screened only for their possible deleterious effects on skin, the exception being those relatively few materials which are suspected of having therapeutic effects. Neither deleterious nor therapeutic effects are of fundamental interest, per se, to the cosmetic industry. In your own mind take time to review what you know of systematic screening programmes directed at evaluating chemicals for their bene~ ficial properties on skin. Is it impressive ? My guess is that it is not. Yet this is the type of pro- gramme that has brought such great progress in medicine, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, and many other fields. I would be remiss if I did not point out that lack of such pro- grammes has undoubtedly resulted in retardation of biological method- ology in this field and that biological research is no more a panacea than chemical research. Each has its own limitations and these must be recognised. Quite certainly the applied aspects of dermatology, 171