62 FARRERAS
The laboratory chiefs of all three joint laboratories–Psychology, Clinical
Science, and Socio-Environmental Studies–attended both the basic
laboratory chiefs’ meetings as well as the clinical branch chiefs’ meetings.
By the mid-1950s, public and professional interest in tranquilizer
drugs and research studying their efficacy in relation to mental health
problems was at its height. A conference on “The Evaluation of
Pharmacology in Mental Illness” held in September 1956 resulted in
the establishment of a Psychopharmacology Service Center within
the NIMH extramural program as well as the creation of a Clinical
Neuropharmacology Research Center, situated at St. Elizabeths Hos
pital, within the NIMH intramural clinical research program.^24 Cohen
recruited Joel Elkes in September 1957 to head this center which had
three sections: Clinical Psychiatry, Chemical Pharmacology (Hans Weil-
Malherbe, Chief ), and Behavioral Sciences (Gian Carlo Salmoiraghi,
Chief ). The Center’s purpose was to study the action and mode of
action of drugs on the mental functions of mentally ill patients.
The last branch to be added to the clinical research program was
the Adult Psychiatry Branch. In December 1957, Cohen recruited
David A. Hamburg to head this branch. It focused on therapy for adult
schizophrenic patients in a controlled social milieu at the Clinical Cen
ter.^25 The Section on Family Studies within this branch was headed by
Lyman Wynne and, in 1958, two sections, Psychosomatic Medicine and
Personality Development, were added to the branch.
By 1958, the organizational phase of the clinical research program
was completed. The program now consisted of three clinical branches,
three joint laboratories, five wards in the Clinical Center, a children’s
residential treatment center, a center at St. Elizabeths Hospital, and 189
scientists and staff members.^26 The most significant outcome of the pro
gram was the interdisciplinary nature of the research conducted.^27 The
intramural and extramural programs during the 1950s were small enough
that there was much interaction between members of both programs.^28
Intramural research scientists also had the advantage of being able to con
sult their colleagues from other fields whose offices were within the same
building, and often even on the same corridor. Two notable examples of
such interactions involved the work of three laboratories that led to the