Ever since Dr. Thomas Parran's time we have known what we need to do to control YD. We have no reason to doubt that he was right in what he said. Our difficulty is not lack of information or lack of means, but an inability to apply what we know, to do for all who need it what we can do for any individual. They are not to be blamed for failure of control. These deficiencies, moreover, are all being looked into. Each of them diagnostic problems with gonorrhea, much more subtle ones with syphilis, the problem of penicillin resistance of the gonococcus is more than likely to be minimized if not abolished before many more years have passed. They represent an attempt to circumvent the intrinsic obstacles on the road to control. The outlook for effective vaccines in the near future is not bright for syphilis, and it is a good deal dimmer for gonorrhea.

What is to be done? Dr. R. R. Willcox of St. Mary's Hospital in London suggested that we could solve the problem if we really wanted to, that we need to put our shoulders to the wheel and push. This is in effect what Dr. Parran said, and what I said myself just a paragraph back. It implies, again, that it is not means we lack but will, or perhaps power. Dr. T. Guthe, chief of the division of venereal diseases of the World Health Organization, seemed to me to be a bit gloomy about the prospects for control. His focus is on the immediate goals of a vaccine for syphilis and a blood test for gonorrhea, and he holds out promise for both. Both, like VD, have technical aspects; and it is likely that technology will play a part in a solution of any of them if we ever find it. But concentration on technical aspects of the question to the exclusion of others was, in my opinion, a principal reason for the failure of efforts toward disarmament after World War II. VD is not, of course, a closely parallel problem. Technology is relatively more important in VD control, but it is still far from being the whole story.