In Service to American Pharmacy
The Professional Life of William Procter Jr.
The position of the pharmacist in the structure of health care in the United States evolved during the middle half of the 19th century, roughly from the founding of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy in 1821 to the passage of meaningful pharmaceutical legislation in the 1870s. Higby examines the professional life of William Procter, Jr., generally regarded as the “Father of American Pharmacy,” and follows the development of American pharmacy through four decades of Procter’s professional commitment to the field.
“Professor Higby successfully brings together the professional career of William Procter and the emergence of American pharmacy as a profession.”—Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
“A masterful professional biography and a significant contribution to our understanding of the history of American pharmacy. . . .Higby provides an exegesis of Procter’s professional life, placing him within the context of the development of American pharmacy during the middle decades of the 19th century. He portrays Procter as part of an urban elite that sought to raise American pharmacy from a common trade to a profession respected by physicians and the public alike.”
—Stuart Galishoff, Georgia State University
“Gregory Higby has written an excellent biography of William Procter, Jr., an outstanding figure in American pharmacy during the heart of the 19th century, who played major roles as practicing pharmacist, scientific investigator, champion of drug quality, editor, professor, and organization leader. The book makes substantial contributions to the history of pharmacy, medicine, science, and the professions.”
—James Harvey Young, Charles Howard Candler Professor of American Social History Emeritus, Emory University
"No individual was more important to the development of a profession of pharmacy in the United States than William Procter, Jr. An assessment of his professional contributions has long been needed, and Dr. Higby's excellent study now fills that major gap in the pharmacohistorical literature."
—John Parascandola, Chief, History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine