R EVIEW OF DR. SQUIBB'S PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE FUTURE REVISION OF THE U. S. PHARMACOPOEIA, BEING A SPECIAL REPORT UPON THIS SUBJECT BY TH E Committee of National Collcie of Pharmacy on the U. 8. PliarniacoM AND R ESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE J\ATTOMAL COLLEGE OE PHARMACY, WASHINGTON, D. C., At a Special Meeting held May 28/1877. PRINTED BY JUDD A DETWEILER. 1877. Three hundred copies of this pamphlet have been fur- nished the members of the American Medical Association, and any reasonable number of copies will be furnished the organizations and individuals interested in the pharmaco- poeia! question, upon application to either of the members of the Committee of the National College of Pharmacy on the U. S. Pharmacopoeia. RESOLUTIONS. From the minutes of the proceedings of the National College of Pharmacy, at its special meeting, May 28, 1877 : Be it resolved, That the National College of Pharmacy of Wash- ington, D. C., hereby adopt the Special Report of the Committee on the U. S. Pharmacopoeia relative to the proposed plan of Dr. E. R. Squibb for the future revision and control of the Pharmaco- poeia ; and, Resolved, That this College earnestly protests against any propo- sition to transfer the ownership and management of the National Pharmacopoeia from the National Convention for Revising the Pharmacopoeia to any other body ; and, Resolved, That the Special Report referred to, together with these resolutions, be printed and freely distributed among those interested in the preservation of the authority of the Pharmacopoeia of the United States. Correct: JOHN A. MILBURN, . President. Oscar Oldberg, Phar. D., Secretary pro tem. Washington, D. C.,' May, 1877. To the President and Members of the National College of Pharmacy. Gentlemen : Your Committee on the United States Pharmacopoeia, to whom was referred at our Annual Meet- ing in April the question of the plan proposed by Doctor E. R. Squibb for the future management of the pharmaco- poeia! interests of the country, with instructions to report to a special meeting of the College, beg leave to submit the following review and suggestions : There are two principal objections to Doctor Squibb's plan: One is that the American Medical Association is not the proper custodian of the Pharmacopoeia; and the other, that the number of persons (councillors) to whom it is pro- posed to give absolute control over the work, is too small. 'The ownership and control of the Pharmacopoeia should remain with the National Convention for Revising the Pharmacopoeia, and your committee earnestly protest against any attempt to transfer the custody of our national standard to any other body. It would be quite unwise to entrust the ownership and management of the Pharmacopoeia to any body of men other than a convention of delegates from the incorporated colleges and associations of medicine and pharmacy, and those only. It would for obvious reasons be fatal to the National Convention for Revising the Pharmacopoeia to ad- mit delegates from associations, societies, or colleges not regularly incorporated. A convention so constituted, be- sides being unauthorized and without weight, would natur- ally tend to increase to an unmanageable crowd. The statement put forth by Doctor Squibb that the American Medical Association is " very nearly a duplicate 2 of the Pharmacopoeial Convention " would be true if the former did not admit delegates from unincorporated bodies and exclude medical and pharmaceutical colleges, or if the latter did not consist exclusively of delegates from incorpo- rated bodies embracing the colleges just referred to. It is probable that many of the members of the American Medi- cal Association have been accredited as delegates to the National Convention for Revising the Pharmacopoeia; but the American Medical Association has nevertheless no rep- resentation as such in the Convention, and, per contra, Dr. II. C. Wood points out that of the thirty-one bodies repre- sented in the Pharmacopoeial Convention of 1870, only six or seven are entitled to representation in the Association. The incorporated or authorized medical and pharmaceut- ical bodies now entitled to send delegates to the Pharma- copoeial Convention . will not voluntarily surrender their prerogatives and obligations to an association whose mem- bership is made up as that of the American Medical Asso. ciation is, unless, indeed, it should be clearly shown that this body cannot satisfactorily carry out the express object for which it was created, and that, on the other hand, the Association will not fail to accomplish that object with greater success. The Convention is entitled to the belief that it will as certainly as the Association be able to select the ablest and most suitable men to perform the work. It has been notably successful in this respect in the past, and though some of the most eminent men who were called by the Convention again and again to take part in the labor have passed from the field, we fail to see why the American Medical Association should be appealed to for a new selec- tion, as if the Convention had exhausted its resources while the Association has at its disposal a reserve which the Con- vention cannot draw from. If the Association were a dup- licate of the Convention, as we have seen that it is not, it would indicate that, with respect to the Pharmacopoeia, any active participation by it as such is, at least, superfluous. 3 The National Convention is, as nearly as may be, a body of experts in materia medica, botany, chemistry, and phar- macy, which the American Medical Association surely does not claim to be. Further your Committee desire to call your attention to the fact that should the plan proposed by Doctor Squibb be adopted, the pharmaceutical profession will have no voice in shaping the future character of that work which is to them above all others the authoritative guide. In the Phar- macopoeial Convention as at present constituted the incor- porated pharmaceutical colleges enjoy equal representation with the medical colleges and associations, and it seems hardly credible that they should be expected now to abandon their right to representation, and hereafter to participate by courtesy merely, in the face of the fact that in the past a very large share of the real labor in its revision has been done by pharmacists. The latter necessarily discover and develope the greater part of the improvements made from time to time in pharmacopceial processes, and do a large share of the work in the field of pharmacognosy. One of the unmistakable proofs of a high order of civilization is the proper division of labor, which alone renders the greater perfection of details possible. We cannot believe that Doc- tor Squibb would advise that pharmacy as a distinct pro- fession be abolished, and that its functions be remanded back to, and consolidated with those of the medical pro- fession. If the separation of pharmacy from medicine was a step forward, the substitution of the American Medical Association in the place of the National Convention for Revising the Pharmacopeia is, by Doctor Squibb's own reasoning, a corresponding step backward, even if the members of the Association were pharmacists as well as physicians, which we believe is not the case to any great ex- tent. It is true Doctor Squibb proposes that two pharma- cists, as specialists, shall be invited by the Medical Associa- tion to do for the latter that part of the work which can 4 best be performed by professional pharmacists only, but we believe that the best interests of society, and of the medical and pharmaceutical professions particularly, clearly indicate that the pharmacists, whose special practical and theoretical training render them best fitted to perform at least one-half of the work involved in the revision of the National Phar- macopoeia, should have at least an equal voice in its control, instead of none at all. Your Committee, therefore, take it for granted that the proposition made by Doctor Squibb, that the American Medical Association take possession of the Pharmacopoeia and relieve the National Convention of further ownership and control of the same will be rejected. Doctor Squibb's " Pharmacopoeial Council," if his plan be adopted, is to consist of five members. In commenting upon the constitution of the Council, the Doctor says: " various numbers, from three to eight have been thought of, and on an hypothesis of each number, a scheme or theory for the work has been discussed, and the proposition in its present form is the neat result arrived at." We infer from this that Doctor Squibb was so convinced in liis own mind that the number of members constituting the Committee of Revision and Publication of 1870 was too large, that no thought was given to that number as possibly suitable. Although your Committee are of the opinion that a smaller number than fifteen would be sufficient, they regret that Doctor Squibb, who apparently has studied the whole ques- tion very carefully, should have dismissed this important part of it without any reference to the existing-system, other than the remark that in the last Committee of Final Revi- sion, which consisted of fifteen members, a majority of the members failed to attend the meetings, while about five members did the whole work. Your Committee earnestly suggest that a reduction at once from fifteen to five is too sweeping. It is not probable that sufficient care and precaution can be exercised in the 5 appointment ot any committee, to render it safe to rely upon that each and every member of it will perform effective duty. We, therefore, believe that the number of members constituting the Pharmacopoeial Revision Committee should be sufficient to make it reasonably certain that the work committed to it will be accomplished ; and while we would readily assent to a reduction of the present number, we submit that a deduction of two-thirds is not safe. Nine would, in the opinion of your Committee, be a small enough number for effective work, and probably large enough for the proper performance of the " deliberative and judicial duties " required of the Committee of Revision, (or Phar- macopoeial Council, if you please.) These duties, in con- nection with the National Pharmacopoeia, appear to us to be of too great weight to be entrusted to five men, howso- ever these may be selected, in view of the recognized danger that after all only a majority may attend the meetings. Should the members of the Committee be nine, it is reason- able to expect that such a selection may be made that at least five will be present at the meetings to sit in judgment upon the important questions involved. By fixing the number of members to be nine, moreover, an opportunity will be afforded for a proper proportional representation, so far as practicable, of the chief branches of knowledge called into requisition in this kind of work, viz : materia medica, botany, chemistry, and pharmacy, and upon this important ground chiefly your Committee base their selection of that number. The proviso in Dr. Squibb's plan, whereby a majority of the members are virtually given the power to expel the minority, seems to us not only unnecessary, but decidedly objectionable. It is argued that " the income from their work, if it be well done, will, within a moderate time, pay a few men for the time and labor they give, but would not pay a large number of men." This argument, however, is secondary, 6 only, in importance, and, moreover, if the Medical Depart- ments of the Government are invited and requested, as pro- posed, to participate in this labor, the officers selected to represent these departments cannot legally receive any com- pensation other than their official salaries. Your Com- mittee share Dr. Squibb's views in reference to the great advantages which would certainly result from the co-opera- tion of the Medical Departments of the Government as sug- gested, and believe it to be the duty of the Government to contribute their share of the responsibility, labor, and sup- port. (See Doctor Squibb's pamphlet, pp. 50 to 52.) The Army, the Navy, and the [Mercantile] Marine Hospital Ser- vice should, therefore, be alike invited; similar facilities being possessed by them all. In order that all danger of rival pharmacopoeias may be obviated, it appears to your Committee to be of very great importance that Governmental authority be imparted to the Pharmacopoeia published by the National Convention, so far as this is practicable or consistent with the end in view, for which purpose it might well be recommended to the Convention to ask the Congress of the United States to pass a joint resolution requiring the Surgeon General of the Army, the Surgeon General of the Navy, and the Super- vising Surgeon-General of the Marine Hospital Service, each to detail an officer to attend and take part in the proceedings of the Convention and co-operate in the re- vision of the Pharmacopoeia with the committee appointed by the Convention. The organization of the Committee of Revision and Publication (or of the Pharmacopceial Council, if that title be preferable) should be determined solely with a view to the highest attainable capacity for thorough deliberation and effective labor, and nothing should be left undone that tends to insure this result. It is safe to say that should the Medical Departments of the Government be required to participate as here indicated, 7 the aid rendered by them will be of the most efficient character. It appears to your Committee that the National Conven- tion for Revising the Pharmacopceia as now constituted is as truly what its name implies-National-as it is possible to make it, and a committee of which two-thirds are selec- ted by that Convention, and the remaining third by the Government, would, it is conceived, carry national authority with it, such as could not be otherwise attained. The suggestion that an act of incorporation be obtained for the Committee (or Council) might be of real practical value, and the Convention might see fit to so order. The recommendation that an annual supplement be pub- lished by the Pharmacopceia Revisors, we predict will meet with universal favor, the great advantage of keeping pace with the real and substantial progress in medical and phar- maceutical knowledge being self-evident; but if this rec- ommendation be adopted, we are not prepared to support the proposition that the Pharmacopoeia be revised once in jive instead of ten years, believing that such frequent changes of the national standard cannot then be either required or justified. The idea, on the other hand, of producing a Pharmaco- pceia which shall require no commentary or dispensatory, does not appear to us to be practicable, though we would hail with great satisfaction such brief descriptions of the materia medica as will lead to " a clear and complete sepa- ration and identification of that grade or quality of each substance, which, only, is to be used in medicine." To de- fine the essential characteristics of a simple drug so as to remove all doubt as to what the Pharmacopoeia requires, and thus indicate, by exclusion, what it does not sanction, would in the estimation of your Committee be at least use- ful and safe, and of equal utility with the tests provided in that work for chemicals, and such analytical descriptions should be analogous in character to the tests referred to. 8 Your Committee, in conclusion, beg to say that a thorough understanding of the whole question would require a careful perusal of the pamphlets by Doctors Squibb and Wood, in addition to what is herein submitted, and it is hoped that each member of the College who has examined into them, will express his views as to whether any action is required on the part of this College as one of the bodies entitled to representation in the National Convention for Devising the Pharmacopoeia, and directly interested in the question at issue. Respectfully, W. S. Thompson, Chairman. Oscar Oldberg, Phar. D., Prof. Mat. Med. and Bot., in the Nat. Col. of Phar. A. M. Read, Phar. D., Prof, of Theory and Practice in the Nat. Col. of Phar.