Lloyd Library and Museum

Lloyd Scholar

About

Biographical Sketch

Projects/Activities

Publications

 

“Pharmaceutical Legislation: A Historical Perspective” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding . 10 (1): 20-28, 2006. (click on the article title to access the complete article)

Pharmaceutical quality and consistency has been the focus of pharmaceutical legislation in the United States for well over a century. The first such legislative initiative was the Drug Importation Act of 1848. It was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, however, that first brought the issues of drug safety to the attention of the public. This law was the first to designate the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary as standards for quality of drugs prepared in the US . Subsequent legislation and amendments addressed loopholes in this law, but it wasn't until the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938 that fraudulent and misleading claims for pharmaceutical products were addressed. This essay describes each pharmaceutical legislative initiative in the context of pharmacy practice of the time.

“American Pharmaceutical Patents: From a Historical Perspective” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding 8(1):40-45. 2004. (click on the article title to access the complete article)

Congress passed the Patent Act in 1790 and, when the initial system of patent examination proved burdensome, established the Patent Office in 1802. In the ensuing centuries patent laws, and patents, have gone through numerous revisions in order to stay current with changing times.

Although the first patents for medical devices and medicines were not recorded in the United States until 1796, the true formation of the modern industry did not begin until the middle of the nineteenth century. Early manufacturers depended on innovation in manufacturing rather than the discovery of new medicines to grow their businesses. This state of the industry continued through the Civil War and into the early years of the twentieth century.

World War II led the American pharmaceutical industry into the realm of research for new products and the need to patent their discoveries. Certainly, the experience of anticipated wartime shortages was a wake-up call for self-sufficiency. More important, however, was the realization that research would result in better products that would enjoy a period of protection from direct copying and therefore result in increased revenues and profits.

“Cora Dow 1868-1915: Pharmacist, Entrepreneur, Philanthropist” Pharmacy in History 46(3):91-105, 2004. (click on the article title to access the complete article)

Cora Dow was a self-reliant individual who thumbed her nose at conventional behavior when it suited her. She owned and operated more drug stores between 1901 and 1915 than did Charles Walgreen.

Martha Cora Dow was born March 11, 1868 . The family moved to Cincinnati Ohio about 1870. She was educated in the public schools and developed her musical talents. Later she entered the Cincinnati College of Pharmacy and graduated in 1888.

In an 1895 interview in the “Woman's Business Journal,” Cora is described as having “a girlish figure, slight, an attractive face and large, soft magnetic eyes, alert, quiet, accommodating, absolutely neat in appearance, business like but stylish in dress.” When asked the cause of her success, she replied “Tenacity—working day and night, working myself, keeping close and constant watch in all directions.” She also stated that pharmacy is a “business peculiarly fitted for women, its only drawback being the necessity for working evenings and Sundays.”

Cora's business philosophy was quality of product but money was made by virtue of quantity. Therefore, she was one of the first “cut-rate” druggists. This certainly kept her at odds with other pharmacists, the pharmaceutical industry, and wholesalers. Newspaper advertising was a prominent factor in her business as she appealed directly to consumers. She also utilized pamphlets written specifically for doctors to promote the many services of the pharmacy departments at Dow Drugstores. .

One would expect Cora to support woman's suffrage but that was not the case. She took the position that, “no woman needs to vote and no woman needs to insist on her rights. Her sex gives her more than her rights at the hands of honest, upright men.