THE offensive against pathogenic micro-organisms continues to succeed, and a number of recent articles upon antibacterial substances indicate the widespread interest in them among non-medical workers and also the value of co-operation between scientific men—and especially biochemists—and the medical man. In a leading article last year the Lancet (781, June 19, 1943) discussed the evaluation of wound antiseptics and directed attention to Prof. Garrod's review of the recent advances that have been made (Brit. Med. Bull., 1, 48; 1943). W. A. Altemeier (Surgery, Gynaec, and Obstetr., 75, No. 6; 1942) has published a collective review of the bacteriology of war wounds (see Bull. War Med., 4, 60; 1943). Numerous articles in the British Medical Journal and the Lancet keep us continually informed of progress of research on this subject. Referring to the work in Sydney, Australia, of A. Albert, J. E. Falk and S. D. Rubbo (Nature, 153, 712, June 10, 1944), the Lancet (148, July 29, 1944) discusses the antibacterial action of organic arsenicals such as arsphenamine and neoarsphenamine. Interesting also is the work on sulphasuxidine (succinyl sulpha-thiazole), some of which is hydrolysed in the lower bowel with the release of free sulphathiazole, which is effective in intestinal infections. It is stated in the Lancet (544, April 22, 1944) that E. J. Poth and C. A. Ross (Proc. Amer. Soc. Pharmacol. Fed., Baltimore, 2, 89; 1943) claim that sulphathalidine (phthalyl sulphathiazole) is two to four times more bacteriostatic than sulphasuxidine because it is more completely hydrolysed in the bowel. Combinations of sulphathiazole and proflavine in powder form have been recently successfully used by Prof. J. Macintosh and his colleagues (Lancet, 591, May 6, 1944) and by Major G. Y. Feggetter (ibid., 593). Lieut.-Colonel J. W. Bigger (Lancet, 142, July 29, 1944) records his work on the synergic action of penicillin and the sulphonamides.