the Army Institute of Pathology This deficiency is keenly felt by members of the professional staff who are trained to think and work in broader terms, but who cannot exercise their abilities and tendencies in this direction under the present circumstances. The solution of medical problems is rarely, if ever, achieved by methods employed in morbid anatomy alone, helpful though they may be in pointing toward the right approach. The importance or the Army Institute of Pathology as the national center of pathology would make it mandatory for this Institute to take the lead in pathologic research. This, however, can only be achieved by proving the necessary facilities for all phases of pathologic study and investigation to members of a qualified staff. 20[1]
The Hawley Board
An even broader concept of the place of the Institute of Pathology in the general scheme of military medicine after passage of the National Security Act of 1947 resulted from the appointment and deliberations of the Committee on Medical and Hospital Services of the Armed Forces. This Committee commonly known as the "Hawley Board," was named in December 1947 by James V. Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense, with Maj. Gen. Paul R Hawley, who had served as Chief Surgeon, European Theater of Operations and later as Chief Medical Director, Veterans' Administration, as chairman,' and the Surgeons General of the three armed services as members. The committee was charged with the duty of making a "thorough, objective and impartial study of the medical services of the Armed Forces with a view of obtaining, at the earliest possible date, the maximum degree of coordination, efficiency and economy in the operation of these services." 21[2]
Early in its deliberations, the Hawley Committee approved and recommended to Secretary Forrestal the relocation of the Army Institute of Pathology in such a way as to make it of the greatest possible service to all three of the Armed Forces. These recommendations reaffirmed the points, made by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Institute, regarding the status of the Institute as a self-contained independent unit, the need of facilities for experimentation, and the direct responsibility of the Institute to The Surgeon General of the Army, all of which were "urgently recommended" to the Secretary. The Committee, however, reserved decision on the thorny questions of the name and the location of the proposed new Institute. 22[3]
On 4 February, the Hawley Committee named a subcommittee to study these questions of name, location, and organization. General Dart was chair-
