A NEW ERA FOR COSMETIC CHEMISTRY By P^UL G. I. L.aU''ER* IN THE past thirty-five years I have seen the cosmetic industry make tremendous progress in the volume of its business, in the variety of products offered, and in the quality of its merchandise. The very size of the SOCIETY oF COSMETIC CHEMISTS at the present time attests recognition on the part of cosmetic management that technical services are indispensable in de- veloping and producing outstanding goods. The few small laboratories maintained by leaders in the industry thirty-five years ago have grown into scores of cosmetic laboratories, and technical staffs counted in the scores are no longer exceptional. Still, as remarkable as such progress has been, I believe we are at the dawn of a new era in cosmetic technology. Great as has been the increase in volume of technical effort concentrated in our industry, most of that effort continues to be expended on control, development, and applied research. Very little time is spent in activity which by any stretch of the imagination can be called basic research. The cosmetic industry is by no means alone in this situation. The United States pharmaceutical industry is spending about $268 million on research in 1962 (1), and the Federal government is spending about $850 million for research on medical and health problems (2). However, just this year a new drug came perilously close to being released for nation- wide distribution before it was realized that it could produce serious de- formities in the offspring of women who had used the drug in the early months of pregnancy. This near catastrophe had wide repercussions, and one result was the adoption of legislation which made more cumbersome the conditions for acceptance of a new drug. However, informed persons agree that the failure to predict the side-effects of this drug was not due to inadequate regulations nor to noncompliance with the regulations. It was due to the fact that nobody knows in sufficient detail how the differentia- tion of fetal tissues is controlled. In spite of the billion dollars a year spent on health research, this fundamental problem, and many other prob- lems concerning the mechanisms of drug action, are getting little study and remain unsolved. The general paucity of information on the effects of chemicals on physio- * CheSebrough-Pond's, Stamford, Conn. 99

100 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS logical processes and structures was recently brought forcefully to the attention of the cosmetic industry. Manufacturers were directed to prove that the dyes they have been using, under the supervision of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for the last twenty4five years, are harmless and suitable for use in cosmetics. To prove this, they have been directed to use cumbersome, lengthy, and costly methods involving mass feeding of animals. Everyone agrees that such methods are primitive, and that the results are inconclusive. however, in the absence of any sound theory there is no alternative to such an empirical approach. The drug and cosmetic industries are not alone in suffering the results of too little basic research. The federal budget for research and develop- ment was $9.6 billion in fiscal 1962, 11.4 billion in 1963, but there was in- creasing evidence that the very small percentage of this effort that had been expended on basic research was inadequate. The Department of Defense, for instance, tended to see its task as that of developing hardware and to leave basic research to the National Science Foundation. In general, short-term urgent needs tended to win out over possible gains to be expected over the long haul from basic research. The Office of Science and Tech- nology was therefore set up in May, 1962, to coordinate and evaluate the research programs of all Government agencies. This Office is expected to increase the program of basic research (3). Comment was recently made on the inadequacy of current Congressional machinery to determine the optimal allocation of funds for research (4). A move for reform of the legislative procedures governing such appro- priations was said to have fairly substantial bipartisan support. Each recent year has seen a rise in the total outlay for research in the United States. In fiscal 1961, public plus private expenditure for re- search and development was 2.78 per cent of the 1960 gross national product. Many leaders in the national research effort have pled for allocation of more funds for basic research, but it has been difficult to con- vince budget makers, public or private, that the long waits involved in reaping results from such research are justified. However, as National Science Foundation Director Alan Waterman pointed out ($), the money spent on basic research will in the long run lessen the total expenditure necessary to reach certain goals, for it will lessen the waste of diffuse and aimless exploration, unguided by adequate theory or principle. Estimates of expenditures on basic research vary, since there is no generally accepted dividing line to determine which projects are basic. One report held that the chemical industry led all others in this respect, with basic research accounting for 11 per cent of the total 1960 expendi- tures of $1.067 billion for research and development (6). Another report, however, indicated that of the $1.2 billion R. and D. outlay by chemical industries in 1961, only about 4 per cent went for basic research (7). Total