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

JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS histology, cytology, tissue culture and other biological measurements require further development. Addi- tional experience in evaluating animal experiments in terms of human experience is urgent. These problems, however, will inevitably be resolved once there is sufficient incentive. This search for the new is perhaps the greatest and most promising opportunity facing the cosmetic chemist. It is a long-range objective with many problems to be overcome. In the meantime, there are countless day-to-day problems with which the chemo-biologist can assist a great deal more than may be fully appre- ciated. Many of these problems have been discussed on this and similar programmes in recent years. The objectives and procedures of co-operation have been outlined. Many of the biological methods have been discussed, including some of those used in regulatory enforcement. The problems of research, product development, regulatory activity and promotion can be expedited both economically and chronologically if we, as cosmetic chemists, would: 1. Educate ourselves concerning the contributions of the bio- logical sciences. 2. Seek the biological viewpoint and background early and con- sistently. 3. Make no change in product without biological evaluation. 4. Rely on biological studies to delineate our interest in new chemicals, new formulations, and new processes. 5. Remember at the beginning that it is the biological action that counts at the end. 6. Fully appreciate that biology, not chemistry, is the basis for safety evaluation and, there- fore, regulatory action. 7. Let the pharmacologist evalu- ate your regulatory status be- fore it becomes a problem. 8. Realise that it is much more prudent to prevent injury than to attempt the correction of it. Since. regulatory activity is now receiving so much attention, it may be worth while to evaluate some of its implications from the cosmetic chemists' point of view. If there had been no cosmetic chemists and hence, for practical purposes, no new products, there would have been practically nothing on which legisla- tors and officials could have hung their investigative hats. The very fact that there may be some basis for new legislation may, therefore, be laid on our doorstep. But have we taken time to realise and to acquaint our industry with the equally significant fact that if com- petent biological investigations had been carried through from beginning to end, there would have been even less on which to hang the investiga- tive hat ? The cosmetic industry is not alone in this position, let me hasten to add. The responsibility for adequate evaluation resides with the manu- facturer of the finished product, notwithstanding recent industrial views to the contrary. Food and Drug administrators cannot be ex- 172