The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7172 643-649
3 November 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Supervision
  Community pharmacy
  Trials
  Drug safety
  Careers
  Interactions
  Specials
  Tuberculosis
  The Society
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

The Society (3 letters)

Think long and hard about museum's future

From Mr W. A. Jackson, FRPharmS

I was dismayed to learn of the proposed cuts to the museum's budget (PJ, 20 October, p579).

It must be disheartening for curator Caroline Reed and her team, who have worked extremely hard for a number of years to improve the conservation and the displays of the artefacts in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's headquarters. Their success must be evident to anybody who has taken the trouble to pause and examine something that will not immediately put money into their pocket. They have also raised the profile of the museum, and, among many thinking people, that of the Society itself. I have been unable to think of any section of our Society which has been more successful in carrying out its duties.

Bodies that ignore or neglect their heritage usually come to regret this after a period, and it is small consolation to those who still value culture to be able to say, "I told you so."

Many years ago it was an exhibition in Bloomsbury Square of some items from the museum's collection, a collection that is the envy of many professional bodies, both in this country and abroad, that first led to my interest in pharmaceutical history and the artefacts associated with it. I am now too old and decrepit for this matter to affect me personally, but I do advise the Council to think long and hard before implementing this measure.

The decision to withdraw financial support from the British Society for the History of Pharmacy was, to say the least, disappointing. To slash the museum's budget in this way would be disastrous.

W. A. (Bill) Jackson
Manchester

Is our heritage worth nothing?

From Dr J. A. Hunt, FRPharmS

The announcement of a drastic reduction in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's support for its museum, resulting in its closure and the discontinuation of its educational work (PJ, 20 October, p579), should be of concern to all pharmacists. For 160 years we and our predecessors have maintained and developed a museum which safeguards the heritage of our calling. Through our subscriptions to the Society, many of us for several decades, we have built a resource which is managed by highly professional staff and compares favourably with the museums and archives of other professions. This is our resource, as members, and we expect it to be maintained, developed and safeguarded for future generations. It is not acceptable that its work should be cast aside for reasons of short-term financial expediency. It is a duty of the Society, enshrined in its Byelaws, to maintain it.

At a time when the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the British Dental Association, the Royal Veterinary College and the College of Optometrists are all seeking to develop their museum facilities, do we want to be seen as a minor player in the health care business, without traditions to be proud of? When politicians and opinion leaders are invited to our headquarters at Lambeth do we wish to be able to display evidence of our past achievements and traditions in the form of an attractive museum which conveys an excellent impression of pharmacy as a vital component of the health scene, or will they just visit another boring modern London office block which conveys little, and draw their own conclusions?

It should be noted that The Journal announcement referred to above summarises in four points the main objectives of the Council in framing its budget. Two of these four objectives include the words "regulatory framework". We work in one of the most over-regulated professions in an over-regulated society. Every day new regulations are imposed by the Government and by Brussels, reducing our efficiency and our competitiveness. It is accepted that the Society must meet Government demands but should this be a reason in effect, to sell the family silver?

It is to be hoped that the Council will reconsider this matter and that all pharmacists who take a pride in their profession will actively oppose attempts to amend the Byelaws in order to implement such a regrettable decision.

John Hunt
Weymouth, Dorset

Why the museum is essential

From Professor I. Jones, FRPharmS

The decision by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council to cut its museum budget (PJ, 20 October, p579) is regrettable and must be reversed.

The museum is one of national significance because of its unique collection. To put this out of the public domain ends years of highly productive work by the Society to build up the museum which in turn has actively promoted the profession of pharmacy and its long history of achievement. The substantial nature of this valuable collection requires more resource, not less. Reducing the budget by two-thirds must have substantial redundancy implications to museum personnel and so dramatically affects the future viability of the museum and puts it at risk of disbandment.

I am particularly saddened because if the decision is implemented it will deny pharmacy students an educational opportunity. For instance, MPharm students at Portsmouth are offered a history of pharmacy unit in their first year. A key part of this module is a visit to the museum for students to see what is on display, to attend specially arranged demonstrations and to meet and talk with museum staff. If the budget is cut to the extent proposed then such visits will cease, for one thing, because there will be no dedicated staff available. I am a believer that teaching students about the history of our profession helps them to understand the way the profession has developed. The museum provides a unique insight into this.

It appears that the Council in making this announcement is turning its back on history and so supporting the Henry Ford philosophy that "history is bunk" and that having a museum supports that view. Perhaps that is how Council sees things.

I fully support your editorial last week (PJ, 27 October, p584) and the letters of protest in the same issue. It is even more difficult to reconcile this budget reduction when at the same time the membership is being asked to fund a considerable rise in the retention fee for 2002.

Ian Jones
Professor of Pharmacy Practice
University of Portsmouth

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Tuberculosis)
Next Topic (The Journal)
Send your letter to The Editor