Charles Richard Drew was an American surgeon and medical researcher whose doctoral work showed that blood plasma, separated from whole blood cells, could be preserved far longer than whole blood, making large-scale blood banking practical. He directed the Blood for Britain program in 1940, organizing the collection and shipment of plasma to British forces before the United States entered the Second World War, and he became the first director of the American Red Cross Blood Bank in 1941, where refrigerated mobile collection units he helped develop, later called bloodmobiles, greatly expanded blood donation. He resigned from the Red Cross in protest of its policy of racially segregating blood donations, a practice he held to have no scientific basis, and he remained an outspoken critic of segregation in blood banking for the rest of his career.
Facts
Connections
Specialist In
Charles Richard Drew pioneered blood plasma preservation and large-scale blood banking.
In the Other Atlases
Sources
1. Wikidata: Charles Richard Drew
- Wikidata Q1065848, class allow-list match (w-wdresolver-0926)
- Wikidata P569 (w-bbfill-medicine3-0926)
View the Source2. Charles R. Drew, Wikipedia
Lead sentence, birth year
June 3, 1904
Lead sentence, death year
April 1, 1950
Lead sentence, birth date
June 3, 1904
Lead sentence, death date
April 1, 1950
View the SourceFrequently Asked Questions
What was Charles Richard Drews role in blood banking?
He showed plasma could be preserved for long periods, made blood banking practical, and led the first Red Cross Blood Bank.
Charles Richard Drew was an American surgeon and medical researcher whose doctoral work showed that blood plasma, separated from whole blood cells, could be preserved far longer than whole blood, making large-scale blood banking practical. He directed the Blood for Britain program in 1940 and became the first director of the American Red Cross Blood Bank in 1941. He resigned from the Red Cross in protest of its policy of racially segregating blood donations, a practice he held to have no scientific basis.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.