Editorial

ANN OPHTHALMOL. 2005;37 (1).......................................................1

MUSIC OF THE SPHERESI would like to begin by expressing enthusiasm for thenew relationship between the Annals of Opthalmologyand Comprehensive Therapy with our new publisher,Humana Press (Totowa, NJ, USA). For the past 28 years,Thomas Lanigan (founder and president of HumanaPress) and his professional staff have served themedical/scientific community on a worldwide scale withthe highest quality journals, books, and now e-books viathe internet. This new working relationship will allow ourjournals to rapidly expand in both quality and worldwidepresence. Welcome, Humana Press!

Ancient Greek intellectuals believed that the universeis filled with “music” from heaven. They argued that thehuman ear couldn’t hear “the music of the spheres”because our world is made of a different substance thanthat of the heavens above. In 1965, Bell Lab scientists,Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, proved that the“snowy, fuzzy image” seen on the TV screen of unoccu-pied channels is microwave radiation that originatedfrom the first seconds of the “Big Bang,” when the uni-verse was first created. Yes, the “fuzz” on your TVscreen is actually a radiated vibration that has filled theuniverse from its very inception. So, it appears that theancient Greeks were correct! The universe has been andstill is filled with a rhythmic vibration, which could cer-tainly be called a form of “music.”

By measuring this vibrating radiation, scientists haveattempted to demonstrate the shape of the universe andthe nature of time itself. But each attempt has found itselffirmly entangled in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einsteinchanged science forever with his theory of relativity. Rel-ativity is a doctrine of perception of reality. How do weperceive what surrounds us? Interestingly, measurementswith relativity show that 95% of the matter and energythat exists in nature fails to be perceived by our senses orby our finest instruments. This missing matter and energymust exist, or relativity is “wrong.” We call this unper-ceived material “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Yes,95% of all matter and energy is not being measured orperceived by our eyes or instruments. Hard to believe, butit is true! How is this possible? Can it be that we can per-ceive only 5% of that which surrounds us?

Does this shock you? Not me! Science is really still inits infancy. Think that just four people living to 100years of age represent the time span from the present tothe period when Galileo was being convicted of heresy

for stating that the sun was the center of the universe.Opthalmology still struggles to answer even basic per-cepts about the eye and vision. And, still the scientificcommunity often operates with blinders. For example, itfails to embrace the impressive microanatomy studies ofthe vitreous from Dr. Jan Worst or the conjunctival lym-phatic system from Dr. Daljit Singh.

Science’s best hope lies in unbiased perception by ourmost creative minds, which just happens to be the goalof the Annals. How rapidly we progress in science willdepend on how clearly we focus on the “truth.”

The following is a commentary submitted by Dr.Ravijit Singh of Amritsar, India regarding his perceptionof the value of conferences and scientific meetings. Dr.Singh is a young, rising star in the field of ophthalmol-ogy and is already a master phaco surgeon. It is im-perative that we as professionals listen closely to theperceptions of the rising stars in our field. In this vein,consider Dr. Singh’s thoughts as we all attempt toimprove the lot of science, thereby allowing us to hearthe “Music of the Spheres” more clearly:

“If you ever thought that going to an ophthalmology confer-ence would help you clear your doubts, you could not bemore mistaken. Conferences are no longer a place whereonly honest opinions and personal experiences are pre-sented. Instead, it is now a stadium, where there is a tourna-ment for speakers, who have slick presentations, spreadover many sessions and instructional courses, harping overa subject with the greatest of verbal dexterity, “at nauseum”.

“Though it is mandatory in the international meetings tomention one’s financial interest in the products/machinesunder review, those presentation slides pass off in a hurryor are mentioned in fine print. Mention of products andvendors is made in a matter of fact way, though the mes-sage is clear. New techniques mentioned and advocatedstrongly may not be totally wrong or inappropriate all ofthe time, but one must be careful enough to sniff out “therights from the wrongs.” Gut feeling must not be ignoredin the quest for real facts and should be appropriately fol-lowed up by further review of the literature. It may be verydifficult to dig out an unbiased presentation and originalresearch in a conference, especially for young ophthalmol-ogists. But whenever there is one, it towers above the rest,and is nearly impossible to miss.”

Richard J. Fugo, MD, PhDSenior Medical Editor

Acknowledgment Many thanks to the extensive technical assistance fromJennifer Fugo.