The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7171 p595-597
27 October 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Community pharmacy
  Travel medicine
  Clinical governance
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society (3 letters)

Museum is an important and integral resource

From Dr P. M. Worling, FRPharmS

I refer to your report on the decision taken by the Council to reduce the amount of funding for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's museum (PJ, 20 October, p579). What you do not report is that the Society has also decided to withdraw financial support for the British Society for the History of Pharmacy. This casual mention of decisions taken in the name of financial expediency does less than justice to what appears to be a significant shift in our Society's policy. This changes the constitution adopted for the museum in 1995 which was approved by the Privy Council and I understand will now require a change in our Byelaws to reverse the situation. It also proposes to bring to an end the association of the Society with the BSHP formed by the Council to safeguard and develop the history of pharmacy.

Apart from the financial implications, these decisions imply an unfortunate lack of interest in the teaching and research of pharmacy history by the Council. The BSHP was founded in 1967 and was developed from the Society's History of Pharmacy Committee. Originally conceived as a membership group, it was separately constituted as a society to allow non-pharmacist historians to be members and to contribute to its work. Its constitution was modelled on that of the Pharmaceutical Society and approved by the Council. It is worth recording that members of the first committee included stalwarts such as Leslie Matthews, George Trease and Douglas Whittet with James Bloomfield as president.

It is obvious that the Council should set its priorities in the spending of its budget, but this decision gives the message that in Britain we put very little importance on the history of the development of our profession. As a result we lag far behind our colleagues in medicine and science in the United Kingdom, as well as in Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world.

The English-speaking countries and many countries in Europe believe that the teaching of pharmacy history is an integral part of the development of a pharmacist. Australia is developing its resources. Germany gives strong academic support to the subject and I am informed there are some hundred PhD students currently working on research there. Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania and Turkey are all more active than we are.

The Society's museum is an important and integral resource, which must be freely accessible to all those interested in historical research and it must be maintained if we are to do justice to coming generations.

This is a subject worthy of greater debate, before final decisions on the future policy of our Society are made. I trust that no action will be allowed to be taken before the expiry of the 60-day period that is required before any Byelaw changes are submitted to the Privy Council. It may be that alternative methods of funding should be considered and other ways of managing and maintaining our historical resources taken into account.

Any society that fails to understand its history puts its future in jeopardy.

Peter Worling
President
British Society for the History of Pharmacy

Pharmaceutical history essential for future understanding

From Professor F. Ledermann and Dr A. Helmstädter

We were surprised to learn from your report on the October Council meeting (PJ, 20 October, p579) that it is proposed to reduce the support for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's museum. We have also been informed that funding for the British Society for the History of Pharmacy is also to be withdrawn.

At present, questions about the role and the value of pharmacists to society are constantly being asked. In response it is undoubtedly of benefit to make clear the usefulness of pharmaceutical services to the general public by as many activities as possible. It is common knowledge in most countries that one of many ways to increase the social recognition of a profession is to focus on its history, in order to make the scope and background of the profession better understood. This is the reason why in most nations the pharmaceutical professional organisations are running a pharmacohistorical museum which is not only open for the public but is also actively promoted and supported. The German museum in Heidelberg, for instance, has been reconstructed recently to demonstrate to visitors (more than 800,000 a year) the value of pharmaceutical services. This was possible by generous support from the German pharmaceutical organisations (mainly the German Pharmaceutical Society), which believe that promoting education and research in the history of pharmacy is essential for an increasing acceptance of pharmaceutical care services, a professional target all of us are trying to reach.

There are other reasons, as well as public relations, why pharmaceutical history has to be supported in Britain. In almost all countries of the civilised world, pharmaceutical history is part of the universities' curriculum. The European Union recommendations for pharmacy education require there to be history lectures. This has more or less been fulfilled in European schools of pharmacy, but (with one exception) not yet in the United Kingdom. We know that our member, the British Society for the History of Pharmacy, is working towards implementing history modules in British schools of pharmacy. Pharmaceutical history in Britain developed significantly differently from that in central Europe. Consequently from an international point of view it would be a mistake if this unique heritage was not properly researched and recorded.

For these reasons, the International Society for the History of Pharmacy, as the world's leading organisation representing people engaged in teaching and research in pharmaceutical history, believes that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should re-evaluate the decisions taken. It would be unwise to cut down on the support for the museum and for the professional organisation caring for the history of pharmacy in Britain. Again, we feel that it would be a pity if the unique British developments were to be underrepresented, if not forgotten, in the future.

François Ledermann
President

Axel Helmstädter
Secretary General
International Society for the History of Pharmacy,
Eschborn,
Germany

In danger of losing its soul

From Mr N. L. Wood, FRPharmS

I cannot allow the announcement of substantial cutbacks in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's museum (PJ, 20 October, p579) to pass without expressing considerable concern. The essence of the proposals appears to be a significant restriction in public access to the museum, while apparently maintaining a skeleton service for members.

Unless members actually visit Lambeth and see the considerable work that has gone into providing an excellent historical display into pharmacy's past, many pharmacists will not realise the importance of the museum, and may be ambivalent about proposed cutbacks. What is not often acknowledged, is the considerable general public interest in pharmacy's past, as well as the substantial contribution to the study of our history made by medical historians, both amateur and professional. Of these, many are not pharmacists, and they will in all probability be denied access to the Society's collections and artefacts in the future. The public relations opportunities as well as the professional recognition and credibility within the historical and museum community are about to be lost at the stroke of a pen.

Many of us are aware that the Society faces difficult financial decisions. One has to recognise that following the disquiet over the handling of recent medical scandals such as that at Bristol, all professions are under scrutiny and are expected to address issues of competence to practise among their members. The Society says it needs the funds to develop its role as a modern health regulator. Yet there is grave danger that the balance between being a regulator and being a membership body, a unique balance nurtured by the Society for very many years, is in danger of tipping decisively away from the role of a membership body. By emphasising the role in regulating the profession (and unlike medicine there is no evidence that it has in any way failed the public or Parliament in this respect), membership issues are becoming secondary, increasing the distance between the current Council and the members.

It is recognised that stimulating and exciting developments could be just around the corner for pharmacy, and the Society must do all in its power and resources to promote the development of the profession. This surely must be an issue of benefit to the membership. Nevertheless, downgrading the museum, also a significant issue for the membership, should not be the sacrifice made to achieve these objectives. Indeed, a society that loses its heritage is in grave danger of losing its soul. Who is going to collect today's artefacts of pharmacy so that tomorrow's pharmacists can see how pharmacy used to work?

The museum's role is currently enshrined in the Society's Byelaws (section XXVI). I would suggest that any proposals to change the Byelaws should be rigorously opposed. We urgently need to find a way to protect our own museum's professional standards. Slashing its budget is not the way to do it.

Nicholas Wood
Brentwood, Essex

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Clinical governance)
Send your letter to The Editor