Historic College of Pharmacy to Honor Homeopathy Leader

Picture this: it’s Founders’ Day at one of the oldest pharmacy schools in the United States.
Alumni put on their best jackets, the brass plaque out front is polished to a mirror shine,
and the alma mater swells through the auditorium. Then the announcer steps up to the podium
and proudly declares that the college is awarding an Honorary Doctor of Science
to a major leader in homeopathy – a practice modern science largely regards
as, well, highly organized wishful thinking in very expensive bottles of water.

That’s the real-life plot twist that prompted pharmacologist and alumnus
David J. Kroll, PhD, to write a blistering open letter when the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
(formerly the historic Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science) announced its plan to honor
homeopathy leader John A. Borneman III. The move raised uncomfortable questions:
What does it mean for a science-based institution to celebrate a figure whose life’s work centers
on a medical system that conflicts with basic chemistry, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine?

From Snake Oil to Science: The Legacy of a Historic Pharmacy College

The Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science (PCP&S), founded in 1821, holds an important place
in the history of American pharmacy. Its graduates include names tied to the birth of modern drug
companies and to early efforts to replace snake oil with standards, testing, and quality control.
For generations, the school prided itself on pushing pharmacy away from mystery potions and toward
measurable, reproducible science.

Kroll studied there in the 1980s, when “Big Pharma” hadn’t yet become a cultural villain and the school’s
narrative centered on its role in protecting the public from quack remedies. Faculty
taught students how to analyze compounds, evaluate toxicity, and demand real evidence before a substance
earned the title of “medicine.” Alumni went on to shape the U.S. Pharmacopeia and help build the
regulatory frameworks that ensure your blood pressure pill actually contains more than hope and starch.

In that context, honoring a leader of homeopathy feels, to many alumni and scientists, like a
historical plot hole: the very institution that once fought against dubious remedies now putting
a scientific halo on one of the most famous dubious remedies of all.

Meet the Homeopathy Leader in the Spotlight

So who is the homeopathy leader being honored?
John A. “Jack” Borneman III was a 1952 pharmacy graduate of the school and a prominent
figure in the American homeopathic industry. Over a long career, he worked in his family’s
homeopathic pharmacy, helped shape the commercial landscape for homeopathic products, and became a
founding director and long-serving president of the
Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). 

HPCUS is the body that maintains the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, a compendium
that lists homeopathic ingredients and standards. While it sounds impressively similar to the
official U.S. Pharmacopeia, the content is very different: it catalogs substances prepared according
to homeopathic principles such as extreme dilutions and “potentization,” rather than according to
modern pharmacology and dose–response data.

Within the homeopathy world, Borneman was celebrated as a bridge between regulators and the
homeopathic industry. He helped establish the framework that allowed homeopathic products to sit
on drugstore shelves across the United States under a special regulatory carve-out. From the homeopathic
perspective, that’s visionary leadership. From a science-based perspective, it’s a major contributor
to ongoing public confusion about what is and isn’t real medicine.

Homeopathy 101: When “Like Cures Like” Meets Basic Chemistry

To understand why this honorary degree raised so many eyebrows, it helps to review what
homeopathy actually is.

Homeopathy originated in the late 18th century with German physician Samuel Hahnemann.
Two key ideas define the system:

• “Like cures like”: A substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person is believed
  to treat similar symptoms in a sick person.
• The “law of minimum dose”: The more a substance is diluted and shaken (or “succussed”),
  the more “potent” it is thought to become.

In practice, many homeopathic remedies are diluted far beyond the point where even a single molecule
of the original substance is likely to remain. At typical potencies like 30C, you would need
more molecules than exist in all the oceans of Earth to expect even one molecule of the starting
material in your bottle. At that point, what you’re buying is essentially water or sugar pills,
plus belief and marketing.

That’s why major scientific and medical bodies, including national health agencies and toxicology
societies, consistently describe homeopathy as a pseudoscientific system of medicine
that shows no reliable evidence of effectiveness for any health condition beyond placebo.
Large evidence reviews have concluded that homeopathic products do not outperform placebo in
replicated, high-quality trials and should not be used for serious or chronic conditions in place
of conventional care.

The Science-Based Case Against the Honor

In his Science-Based Medicine article, Kroll describes homeopathy as
“highly purified water misrepresented as medicine” and calls it
“the most egregious form of pseudoscience in pharmacy.” He argues that awarding a
Doctor of Science for leadership in homeopathy sends a message that
science and pseudoscience deserve equal celebration under the same institutional banner.

He also points out a bitter historical irony. The U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act treats
homeopathic remedies as “drugs” under federal law thanks to a 1938 compromise pushed by
Senator Royal Copeland, a homeopath, not because the products ever passed modern safety
and efficacy standards. In other words, homeopathy’s legal status is largely a political artifact,
not a scientific achievement.

For a college that once championed the fight against patent medicines and unregulated nostrums,
celebrating the architect of a system that keeps unproven remedies on the shelves feels like a
step backward. Kroll’s central objection is simple: an honorary doctorate of science
should reflect contributions to science, not to systems that actively deny how
molecules, doses, and clinical evidence work.

Regulators and Evidence Tell a Different Story

Homeopathic products may look respectable in neatly labeled packages, but U.S. regulators have
grown increasingly wary. The FDA has made it clear that:

• Homeopathic products are legally drugs and are subject to the same requirements
  for approval, labeling, and manufacturing quality as other drugs.
• No homeopathic product has been approved by the FDA for any indication, which means
  none has passed modern standards of safety and effectiveness.
• Because of safety incidents and misuse, the agency has adopted a
  risk-based enforcement policy, prioritizing action against homeopathic products
  marketed for serious diseases, used in vulnerable populations like infants, or made with potentially
  toxic ingredients.

In recent years, the FDA has issued multiple warning letters to homeopathic manufacturers over
quality problems, contamination, and misleading claims. Some products marketed for
conditions like asthma and teething have been specifically flagged for putting consumers at risk,
especially when people use them instead of proven therapies.

Meanwhile, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) at the
National Institutes of Health has repeatedly concluded that there is
little to no convincing evidence that homeopathy works for any specific health condition.
NCCIH also notes that some products labeled as homeopathic may actually contain measurable amounts of
active ingredients and could cause side effects or interact with conventional drugs – hardly benign.

Universities, Degrees, and the Credibility Problem

The Philadelphia incident isn’t the only time a respected institution has flirted with homeopathy
and gotten burned. A number of universities have faced backlash – and even dropped programs – after
offering degrees or research initiatives in homeopathy and other fringe modalities. Faculty and
external scientists have argued that such programs risk turning universities into
marketing props for unproven treatments.

Critics emphasize an ethical concern: when a university stamps its logo on a degree, course, or
honorary title related to homeopathy, it blurs the line between
critically studying a belief system and endorsing its claims. For students,
patients, and the public, that distinction is rarely obvious. They see the crest, the lab coats,
and the word “science” and reasonably assume the content meets the same standards as pharmacology
or anatomy.

Bioethicists have argued that teaching or honoring homeopathy as if it were equivalent to
evidence-based disciplines undermines public trust in academic medicine. It suggests that
scientific rigor is optional – something that can be switched off for certain topics if there
is nostalgia, donor pressure, or market demand.

Why This Matters for Pharmacists and Patients

Pharmacists sit right at the intersection of science and consumer behavior. They are trained
in medicinal chemistry, pharmacokinetics, and clinical evidence, but they also work in spaces
where shelves are stocked with everything from lifesaving anticoagulants to herbal teas and
crystal-infused sprays. Adding homeopathy into that mix creates a distinctive tension.

On one side, pharmacists are among the most trusted health professionals. On the other, many
are required by employers to sell or counsel on products that do not meet the
evidence standards they were trained to respect. Surveys have found that pharmacists
are divided and sometimes conflicted about homeopathy; some feel pressure to sell what the
store carries, even if the science is weak or nonexistent.

When a historic college of pharmacy publicly honors a homeopathy leader, it can feel like
an institutional endorsement of that conflict. It risks telling practicing pharmacists and
students that it’s acceptable to park your critical thinking at the cash register.
That’s not just awkward; it can be dangerous. Patients may assume that “natural” or
“homeopathic” means “proven and safe,” especially when the products are sitting next to
evidence-based medications behind the same counter.

The real-world harm may not always be dramatic poisonings; more often, the damage is
opportunity cost. Time spent using an ineffective remedy is time not
spent on treatments that actually work. For conditions like asthma, depression, or infections,
that delay can have serious or even life-threatening consequences.

How a Science-Based College Could Respond

None of this means a university must erase controversial alumni from its history or pretend
homeopathy never existed. It does mean that a science-based institution should
be careful about how it engages with those legacies.

Here are ways a college of pharmacy could turn this kind of controversy into a meaningful
teaching moment:

• Set clear criteria for scientific honors. Honorary doctorates of science should
  reflect contributions consistent with modern scientific methods and evidence thresholds.
• Teach homeopathy as history, not as validated therapy. Homeopathy’s rise and fall
  in medical practice is historically important. Present it as a case study in how ideas persist
  despite – and sometimes in defiance of – data.
• Support pharmacists in evidence-based counseling. Provide guidance on how to talk
  with patients who use or ask about homeopathic products without endorsing unsupported claims.
• Align institutional messaging with regulatory reality. If the FDA has not approved
  any homeopathic product and warns about specific risks, a science-based college should not create
  the impression that homeopathy is a scientific success story.

These aren’t anti-alumni measures; they’re pro-science measures. They recognize that history is
complicated, but the standard for scientific honors should not be.

Reflections and Real-World Experiences with Homeopathy in Academia

The uproar over honoring a homeopathy leader at a historic pharmacy college resonates with
a familiar pattern on campuses around the world. In private, faculty often tell similar stories:
a donor who loves “natural healing,” a popular course in “energy medicine,” or a department chair
who quietly wonders why there’s a homeopathy elective listed next to pharmacology.

One common experience is the awkward hallway conversation. A student corners a
professor after class and asks, “If homeopathy is just water, why do we sell it in our campus
pharmacy?” The professor, who just finished a lecture on dose–response curves and receptor
binding, now has to explain that the same institution that teaches rigorous pharmacology also
rents shelf space to remedies that don’t contain pharmacologically meaningful doses of anything.
It’s a teachable moment, but also a jarring one.

Another recurring scene plays out in faculty meetings. Proposals appear to launch new “integrative”
programs or continuing education modules featuring homeopathy alongside acupuncture, herbs, or
mindfulness. Some faculty support these moves, arguing that patients use these products anyway and
that pharmacists should at least understand them. Others worry that the branding will drift from
“know your patients’ choices” to “endorse everything under a wellness umbrella”.

The most constructive experiences often come when institutions confront the tension openly.
For example, when a university pharmacy program sponsors a panel featuring both a homeopathic
practitioner and a clinical pharmacologist, the conversation can be surprisingly productive.
Students hear first-hand how homeopathy frames illness and healing, then immediately compare it
to randomized trial data, placebo effects, and regulatory standards. The goal isn’t to stage a
debate with a winner and loser; it’s to show what evidence-based reasoning actually
looks like when confronted with strongly held beliefs.

In some countries and states, universities that experimented with full-fledged homeopathy degrees
eventually shut them down after external reviews found the evidence wanting. Those closures were
not just about science; they were about protecting the credibility of the degree itself.
A diploma that mixes solid pharmacology with unsupported claims risks devaluing all of the students’
hard work and confusing employers about what a graduate actually knows.

Alumni reactions, like Kroll’s, are another powerful part of the story. When former students who
have built careers in toxicology, pharmacology, or clinical practice speak up, they remind
administrators that a school’s reputation is a shared asset. Many alumni describe feeling proud
to see their institution take a firm stand on evidence – and deeply disappointed when the school
appears to trade that stance for feel-good press or donor relationships.

Patients, too, bring real-world perspectives. Some say they tried homeopathic remedies and felt
better – and those experiences are genuine and deserve respect. But when clinicians gently
unpack the role of placebo effects, natural disease course, and regression to the mean, many
patients appreciate learning how the brain and body can create “improvement” even in the absence
of an active drug. Framing homeopathy as a lesson in critical thinking rather than
as forbidden magic helps people feel informed rather than scolded.

Ultimately, the experience of watching a historic college of pharmacy flirt with honoring homeopathy
is a reminder of how fragile scientific culture can be. Institutions don’t have to be perfect,
but when they choose their heroes, they send a loud signal about what kind of work really matters.
For students and pharmacists who want to base their careers on solid evidence, that signal
makes a difference.

Conclusion: Honors Should Follow Evidence, Not Nostalgia

The controversy over a historic college of pharmacy honoring a homeopathy leader
isn’t a petty turf war between conventional and alternative medicine. It’s about what we expect
from institutions that claim to stand for science.

Homeopathy has historical and cultural significance. It has passionate defenders and satisfied users.
It also has a towering pile of data showing no reliable benefit beyond placebo for any specific
health condition, and a regulatory trail that increasingly treats it as a risk to be managed
rather than a solution to be celebrated.

A college of pharmacy can absolutely teach homeopathy as history, as a chapter in the story of
how medicine evolves and how myths persist. It can even invite homeopathy’s leaders to speak,
as long as it also gives the microphone to skeptics and scientists. But when it comes to
conferring a Doctor of Science, the bar should be higher than charisma,
tradition, or successful lobbying.

In the end, the simplest standard is also the most powerful:
honors should follow evidence. When a science-based institution remembers that,
it protects not only its own reputation, but also the patients and communities who trust its voice.