Editorial

ANN OPHTHALMOL. 2006;38 (3) ..................................................167

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION?“…Scientist go forth and search for truth; and be prepared to lay down your life to defend the truth!”

—Unknown ancient Greek Scholar

Has science truly reached its ultimate peak? Some maysay that it has, and that our current knowledge base is asgood as it is going to get. If we look closely, we may seethat we are not standing on the peak, but rather on theedge of a grand precipice that overlooks a future filledwith infinite possibilities. There is so much in the uni-verse, and even on our own planet, that we still do notunderstand. How we choose to validate new knowledgewill largely determine how future technologies will bedeveloped for the benefit of man.

Perhaps all fields of medicine are still in an infantilestage. There is so much that we have learned, but think ofhow much more there is to understand. For example, theproject called the Fugo Blade™ is now penetrating intomultiple fields of medicine outside of ophthalmology. Itemploys plasma fields to perform surgery. Plasma tech-nology may dramatically revolutionize the way surgery isperformed. Rather than cutting or burning tissue, plasmaallows us to ablate tissue using very low powers and evenallows for portable systems. Plasma offers clean incisionswith non-cauterizing hemostasis and less swelling. Otherchanges in the field of ophthalmology are dramatic. Dr.Daljit Singh has introduced decompression of aqueousfrom the posterior chamber of the eye, which is animmense step forward for glaucoma. These advances ulti-mately benefit the patient. Yet, because no major corpo-rate machine owns the rights to this technology, it is oftendifficult to get the message out.

Outside of medicine, new information presents possi-bilities that could improve the quality of life for mankind.Of immense importance is the growing interest in theconcept of cold fusion. Although most academics feelthat it is invalid, there are other high-ranking academicswho endorse its existence. Those endorsing the conceptbelieve that cold fusion is a realistic method of produc-ing unlimited energy that would result in the reductionof energy costs to a negligible level. Within the pro-coldfusion community, the lack of potential for generatinglarge profits is the general consensus for why there is alack of corporate interest and further illustrates whyenergy related industries seek to suppress and vilify theconcept of cold fusion.

Even scientific and medical publications aren’t immuneto political and financial bias. Who and what gets publishedis thought by many to be biased and oftentimes conclu-sions are found to be inaccurate. Dr. Peter J. McDonaldof the Wilmer Eye Institute points out in an OphthalmologyTimes editorial dated February 15, 2006 that one-third ofthe recent peer-reviewed claims are later found to beincorrect. In the November 2005 issue of the Journal ofthe American Medical Association (JAMA) an articleentitled “Biomedical Journals Probe Peer-Review” dis-cusses disturbing comments regarding the purchase ofopinions by field academics. Then in January 2006,JAMA published an article entitled “Health IndustryPractices that Create Conflict of Interests” that portraysmany disturbing agendas in which financial compensa-tions have slanted the published and spoken commentsof the leaders of medicine. Again in the April 12, 2006issue of JAMA, an article appeared entitled “EffectiveBlinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance” that con-cludes that there exists “…evidence of bias in the openreview of abstracts, favoring authors of the UnitedStates, English-speaking countries outside of the US,and prestigious academic institutions.”

We, as scientists, must promote science. It is that sim-ple. We know that every large corporation with stock-holders, including the medical related companies, has afiduciary obligation to their stockholders to generateprofit. Illustrated yet again in the May 2006 issue ofJAMA, a published article entitled “Protecting SpecialInterests in the Name of ‘Good Science’” states that in2000 the US government passed the Data Quality Act,which allows vested interest groups to suppress objec-tive scientific research. This article serves to emphasizethat the responsibility of retaining an ethical balancebetween industry and science is ultimately in the handsof the scientific community. Will ophthalmology pro-mote good technology that could reduce corporate prof-its? Will scientists allow the corporate powers to dictatewhich scientific facts are acceptable and which are not?Biased and altered data can only serve to retard the pro-gression of our understanding of science.

All of those commentaries mentioned above inesteemed journals are disturbing. What have we notbeen told regarding advances for AIDS, diabetes, orcancer? Therein lies the true dilemma in the role playedby corporate America when it collaborates with science:the fiduciary obligation toward the stockholders is often

paramount to scientific truth. If this is true, then the goalmay not be to cure disease, but to keep the patienthealthy enough to prolong life so that they may purchasean increasing number of expensive drugs. A cure mayequate to a loss in profits and that simply may not beacceptable for some corporate giants.

How science will find its way back to the path of com-plete transparency and truthfulness in order to keepknowledge moving forward remains unanswered. If sci-ence is unable to move forward, it will stall. Business-men may attempt to lead science away from the truth, but

it is up to the scientist, whose feet should be grounded byethics, to keep science on the forward-moving path. Theresponsibility for use or misuse of science rests squarelyon the shoulders of the scientists. Each of us must do ourpart to promote true science. Science is not a job, ratherit is a very responsible profession carrying with it greatobligations to mankind. Tampering with the truth willsurely rob mankind of its golden opportunity to gaze outbeyond the edge of the grand precipice that overlooks afuture filled with infinite possibilities.

Richard J. Fugo, MD, PhD

ANN OPHTHALMOL. 2006;38 (3) ..................................................168