Ann Westmore: So it seems from what you are saying, Henry, that the teaching aspect of the Department was predominant in those early years, compared with research.

Henry Ekert: Most of the teaching was done by the consultants and salaried staff of the Hospital.[45] It had little to do with the University.

Glenn Bowes: May I raise one matter. The affiliation [between the University and the Hospital] wasn't formal at that stage. That came along later, as I understand it.

Peter Phelan: The first real formal appointment was Vernon Collins as Professor [in 1959].

Don Kinsey: Can I just say that when I first came to the hospital in 1976. I'd heard prior to that about the famous Burns Ward of the Hospital under A Murray Clarke, Julian Keogh, Wendy Swift et al.[46] I remember one of the first people to come and see me in my office was Murray Clarke who said "Where can I get some money for our research unit, the Burns Research Unit". On reflection, I feel that the Burns Research Unit was nothing to do with the University, and was run independently in the Hospital but supported by donations, and that burns research was extremely important in terms of paediatrics.

Kester Brown: Correct. One of the problems was probably that paediatrics was a relatively new and small field at the time. The people concerned had foresight. They also knew they had to concentrate their efforts and help set up the [Royal Children's Hospital] Research Foundation.[47] So that when the Department of Paediatrics started, I would imagine that the Research Foundation was functional and had started providing funding to various groups to do research. And until such time as things moved along a bit and people got more involved in research, the Research Foundation had nothing to do with the University.

Having said that, many Departments in the Hospital had done research, and very high quality research. It did not rely on the University Department of Paediatrics or on the Research Foundation. So research went on across the Hospital, regardless of these things. But the quality of research was driven by the Research Foundation.

John McNamara: One has to also add that it was very difficult to obtain funding, not being affiliated to the University. So funding for research was, I think, limited to those doing paediatric sessions.

Pat Phair[48] : I found funding was easier to come by as part of a team. I worked under Charlo Anderson who was very popular with her patients. We always had adequate funding, though we were careful about how it was spent. In the mid-1950s when we worked on cystic fibrosis and other diseases involving abnormal mucosubstances, we were housed in a prefabricated garage with a small attached annexe on the roof of the old hospital. It was very hot in summer and cold in winter. In 1958, when I came back from England - where we were, by necessity, very self-sufficient and economical - we distilled and purified our own solvents and made quite a lot of simple glass apparatus ourselves and thus saved quite a lot of money.

But it was great at the new hospital because we all had a lot of say in the design of the labs in which we would be working, and the end result was terrific.

Ann Westmore: So what was the relationship with the University for a scientist such as you, working on research in the Hospital? Did you ever come up to the University, ever attend seminars, that sort of thing?

Pat Phair: In terms of the University I always felt something of an outsider.

I'd also like to say something about Charlo. I think she had a pretty difficult road to hoe. I think she was a fantastic researcher and fantastic to work for and was always very enthusiastic. I never felt she got her just recognition.

Ann Westmore: What part did Charlo play in the [University] Department?

Pat Phair: Well she would have been a little isolated.[49]

Witness to the History of Australian Medicine