Has pharmacy adequately promoted pharmaceutical discoveries to the public?

In summary, twentieth-century British and American cards published by the organisations of pharmacy albeit a limited window into public relations--suggest that relatively little attention was given to offering the public an understanding of the science basis of pharmacy or the nature of pharmacy research. On the other hand, clear hints of this came from industry despite being diluted, some might say tainted, with overt commercialism. Thus it is suggested that the public came to associate industry with pharmacy research, a suggestion that needs to be examined in the light of other approaches to PR. It is, of course, not surprising that PR from pharmacy's professional bodies has focused largely on community practice. However, it is reasonable to ask, What is the cost in terms of professional image when opportunities to promote an understanding of the science of pharmacy are given little attention? Indeed, it seems to me that it was soon forgotten that an emphasis placed on the science base of pharmacy was very much behind the successful efforts in establishing the Pharmaceutical Society and a professional image for pharmacy. I suggest, too, that the pattern of limited science PR contributes, unconsciously, to current concerns over the place of scientists in the new professional society. As is well known, interminable debate exists over what the public sees as 'professional'. Even so, I think few would disagree that an image of science can be more than helpful. Maybe, in the current upheaval for British pharmacy, there is a case for the publication of free cards analogous to those recently produced by the School of Pharmacy, although only so long as they indicate, by way of context, both the science and humanity demanded for pharmacy practice.