278 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS work involving three guinea pigs was also described. This report became the basis for tremendous publicity in the scientific and lay press that left ,the readers with the inevitable suspicion that hair sprays were harmful and might even cause cancer of the lung. Think of this--out of the female population of this country, two women plus one experiment with three guinea pigs--involving, incidentally, no control animals--and suddenly a •cosmetic product is rendered medically suspect! A product whose safety has been established not only by the cosmetic scientists who de- veloped these products and the suppliers of the raw materials involved,but by the exposure of millions of women, billions of times, to this preparation. The price that the cosmetic scientists in industry and government had to pay, in time and effort, trying to find some factual basis for this hair spray allegation, was tremendous. All of the laboratory facts growing out of this mighty effort now confirm what the original tests and human experience so clearly established hair sprays are remarkably safe products! This is }ust one case, and I could cite many, where the industrial scientist is forced ro defend his product against the grossly unfair charge. And, less I be misunderstood, let me make it very clear that all scientists have the right, and in fact the duty, to call attention to a potential health problem in connection with any product, be it a food, drug or cosmetic. I submit, however, that when a serious question of medical safety is raised about an established product---one having an impressive safety record based on widespread human experience--I would urge the greatest caution. Facts, the foundation of all science, and not speculations based on inade- quate data and inadequate perspective, should be the hallmark of any charge that an established commercial product may endanger public health. The most difficult assignment that confronts the cosmetic scientist from a protection of public health standpoint, lies in the chronic toxicity direc- tion. When are such studies indicated? Should we carry them out on all preparations? Are animal tests a realistic guide to the exposure of com- pounds and products that may be carcinogenic in man? What do we do when established products are found to contain compounds that are car- cinogenic in animals, when overwhehning human experience tells us they are safe? In the answers to questions such as these lie great confusion with, I suspect, government, food, drug and cosmetic scientists, all holding somewhat different views. ' In the past year or so, under considerable political pressure, I feel we have all been "had." We have permitted animal test results to become the criteria by which the "guilt" or "innocence" of any product or compound is established. Lipstick dyes, are now "guilty" and no longer should be used. Imagine, after billions of lipsticks have been used for many years after billions of human exposures to these products and in the complete absence of any real human evidence that these dyes, as used in lipsticks,

ROLE OF COSMETIC SCIENTIST IN PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH 279 pose any significant health problems, we have declared them guilty based on animal test evidence. I am a great believe• in the scientific way of life. I would not think of marketing a cosmetic product without carrying out many tests, including animal tests. They are a very important part of any medical screening program. I have lived long enough to know, however, that the extrap- olation of any animal test results to human experience is a difficult exercise. It becomes a reckless exercise, in my judgement, when these extrapolations fly in the face of human experience. As Dr. Jonathan L. Hartwell, (4) of the National Cancer Institute, in the Introduction to his "Survey of Compounds Which Have Been Tested for Carcinogenic Activity" states: "... there are pronounced differences in the response of different (animal) species to the action of compounds carcinogenic in the case of the mouse" "... some compounds which were negative in the mouse can induce tumors in other species . . ." "... in the mouse itself, it is abundantly evident that different tissues r,espond differently to the same compound." ' . . . in the monkey, none of the powerful carcinogens has been shown to produce tumors." In view of these basic species problems in view of such known influences as dosage (carcinogenic effects in animals can be lost by using too much as well as too little), mode of administration, the vehicle used, the sex, strain and age of the animal, the diet--I can only conclude that we have a long way to go in the development of animal tests that will predict the suscepti- bility of man to particular carcinogens and, indeed, his susceptibility to many far less complicated medical afflictions. Cancer has become the medical scare word of our day. It conjures up in the lay mind a terrible fear of a dread disease. The irresponsible use of this word can cause legislative panic buttons to be pressed, buttons that will put the food, drug and cosmetic industries in scientific shackles into the indefinite future. It is the scientist's responsibility to make clear the limitations of his scientific methods, the methods the legislators would use as a basis for interpreting proposed public health legislation. We should admit that we cannot yet deliver the scientific guides needed for such legislation. Above all, we should admit that no tests conceived to date, or those about to be in the foreseeable future, will ever be anything but a second best substitute for human experience. In spite of the "coincidence factor," in spite of' the limitations of his methods, in spite of the unfair charge against his product, in spite of bad laws--but hopefully, with the support of good ones--the cosmetic scientist, along with his counterparts in Foods, Drugs, and Government will: 1. Continue to improve the contributions of cosmetics to human welfare.