Since no drug is quite ideal for its purpose, stimulus exists for commercial as well as scientific efforts to develop better drugs than any now in use for a particular clinical effect. Scientifically, such an effort is usually based on some phase of what may be called biochemorphology,1 i. e., the relation between chemical constitution and biologic action. A chemist, after considering, for instance, the biochemorphic aspects of hypnotics, synthesizes a new substance, which is found to have hypnotic action. Commercially there now comes a strong temptation to introduce the new agent clinically without furnishing physicians sufficient comparative scientific data to enable them to judge whether or not it has advantages recommending it over hypnotics already in common use. One would be naive indeed to believe that the pharmaceutic concern developing the new hypnotic could give unbiased judgment on this point. But it is thus that the hopeful good humor of physicians is too often exploited with unnecessary harm or expense to their patients. Four years ago, before the Portland session of the American Medical Association, I tried to outline in a general way the position of pharmacology in the appraisal of drugs suggested for general use in medi¬ cine.2 It was pointed out that clinical trial of a new chemical should be made only after disinterested phar¬ macologie study has estimated in comparison with related agents (a) its possible^'karmful effects, (b) its type or mode of action and (c) me reasonableness of its replacing existing drugs in application to human beings. It was further indicated that the new agent should not be offered for general use to physicians until favorable reports on it had been published from reliable chemical, pharmacologie and clinical sources. Pharmacologie data are more readily accepted from university laboratories than from commercial labora-tories, and clinical information is usually relied on when it comes from a university or independent research hospital. Physicians might place greater con¬ fidence in commercial concerns if they would cooperate with such institutions rather than supplant them with their own. While it is to be hoped that Sir Henry Dale's pious good wishes for American pharmaceutic houses may come true,3 past experience indicates that American physicians must support more fully the judg¬ ment of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Association and insist more strongly on adequate and reliable pharmacologie and clinical data in connection with new drugs if they are to free themselves from exploitation. One need only think of the current situation in local anesthesia and preanesthetic medication to realize the significance of these remarks. It is yet to be satisfactorily demon¬ strated, not only pharmacologically and clinically but also from the standpoint of expense, that for infiltra¬ tion and spinal anesthesia or nerve block a better local anesthetic is available than procaine, that any of the many modifications of barbital surpass it for ordinary p...