Feb 03 2009
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Justification for Scientific Honor of Homeopathic Leader, John A. Borneman, III
To update readers, I posted last week that my alma mater was to offer a Doctor(ate) of Science degree at our Founders’ Day celebration to Mr. John A. Borneman, III, pharmacist graduate (1952), founder of the Board Member, Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States, Southeastern, PA, and Chairman, Standard Homeopathic Company, Bryn Mawr, PA
The university, known prior to 1998 as the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science (PCP&S), has been led by Dr. Philip Gerbino, a gentleman whom I hold in highest regard for his leadership and dedication to pharmacy practice. As I increasingly appreciate the time demands on a university administrator, I was grateful to receive a very prompt response from Dr. Gerbino following the public posting here of my letter of objection last week:
Dear Dr. Kroll,
I would like to thank you for e-mailing myself and our provost, Dr. Russell DiGate, on Jan. 26 with your concerns regarding our Founders’ Day honoree. We most certainly respect your opinion and thoughtful correspondence.
We had no intention of eroding the honorific nature of science with our selection of John A. Borneman, III, P’52, RPh. Instead our objective was to honor a man who is a founder, innovator, and successful entrepreneur. His selection for the Honorary Doctorate of Science degree is not about the rigors of science, nor the appropriate applications of science to homeopathic and alternative medicines, but about a founder who possesses remarkable leadership qualities and who is willing to share some of those with our students.
Mr. Borneman’s selection as our Founders’ Day degree recipient provided a source of considerable discussion internally. I can say that in the end, it was decided that since one of our missions is to provide our students with academic and personal development through intellectual, cultural, and ethical understanding and awareness, Mr. Borneman’s honor would ultimately benefit them on their own paths to becoming future leaders and innovators. As point of emphasis, and in this context, we honor founding, not the field of homeopathic medicine. We honor a founder with entrepreneurial spirit.
Again, we appreciate your interest and comments and value your opinion. This letter is not intended to change your mind. It is provided to offer a better understanding of our decision. A good criticism is healthy and often inspiring. While it is not always necessary that we all agree, the basis of academia is to provide an environment of inquiry, debate, and critical thought where all opinions are respected.
Philip P. Gerbino, PharmD
Again, readers, please keep in mind that I hold Dr. Gerbino in my highest regard. He has been a university leader since I conducted my very first research project at PCP&S in 1984. Knowing what I know of him personally, even considering the unrecognized challenges of being a lead university administrator, I am led to register an even stronger objection to this honor of Mr. Borneman.
At first, I thought it might be more appropriate to acknowledge Mr. Borneman with an honorary MBA from the university. However, even this recognition would honor leadership and entrepreneurship in the absence of ethics by promoting the sale of products with no medicinal value under the guise of health remedies.
Not to be melodramatic, but if I were to collect lawn clippings from my yard and sell them as a cure for cancer with 30% of patients claiming they were helped, would I be worthy of an Honorary Doctorate of Science from my alma mater?
And I also submit that Mr. Borneman’s grandfather, John P. Borneman (1907) was a PCP graduate and promoter of both botanical medicines *and* homeopathics at a time when dose-response pharmacology was first being realized in the United States.
My most serious point is that one cannot, as Dr. Gerbino proposes, separate the business leadership and success of Mr. Borneman from the fact that the business is one of deceptive products marketed in the name of medicine.
Whatever Mr. Borneman offers to my alma mater in terms of business acumen and leadership training, I find his honor highly deficient in ethics and an affront to the principles of authenticity and scientific rigor put forth by the founders of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy.
Unfortunately, my compatriots are graduates of a small college with a small alumni organization. I was graduate number 17,346 since 1821 and the school has only had between 900 and 2,500 students per year in the last 20 years. I doubt seriously that a significant public objection can be mounted against the honoring of Mr. Borneman. I’m sure he is a fine gentleman personally, and I hope to meet him at some point to discuss these issues, but I am disgusted by the imprimatur about to be given to him by the same institution whose academic endorsement hangs above my desk.