Page:The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-ItsFirstCentury.djvu/283



Within a month after the guns of the Second World War were stilled, Surgeon General Norman T. Kirk asked the National Research Council to study the situation and prospects of the Army Institute of Pathology and recommend the most advantageous use of its facilities, "both for the Army Medical Department and for the medical profession as a whole." Dr. Lewis H. Weed, chairman of the Division of Medical Sciences of the National Research Council, to whom the request was addressed, turned the assignment over to the Committee on Pathology of his division, of which committee Dr. Howard T. Karsner of Cleveland was chairman and nine other distinguished pathologists were members. 1

On 1 December 1945— less than 3 months after receiving the assignment — the Committee filed its report with The Surgeon General of the Army. Approximately half of its 37 specific recommendations were to the effect that the Institute continue what it was doing, while the remainder represented new activities, or modification and strengthening of those already undertaken. These recommendations were divided equally between those having to do with increases in staff and with innovations in methods, such as, for example, the use of machine-accounting procedures in coding and filing.

"Today," said the report, "the Army Institute of Pathology is truly the central laboratory of pathology and medical illustration for the entire United States Army. The extraordinary amount and variety of material at the disposal of the Institute is unmatched elsewhere in the world. This material offers unlimited opportunities for the study of structural tissue changes and correlation with clinical observations. With proper development of facilities and personnel, the Army Institute of Pathology can become a guiding force in the furtherance of pathology in this country and the world."