Priorities of Ophthalmic Research

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to examine critically several of the fundamental considerations regarding research, focusing on ophthalmic research. Time and resources are limited. Paradoxically, they appear to be increasingly so. In such an environment it would seem to be important to perform research that is “ useful.” Who is best suited to decide what is “useful?” Does limiting the freedom of investigators to study what they wish result in dampening creativity? Who should determine – if anybody – priorities of research? Methods Historical and literature review, with personal opinions informing (or biasing) the conclusions. Results The concept of “academic freedom” has long been protected by academic communities, more vigorously in some cultures than others. On the other hand, limits at least since the time of Socrates have been placed on research and commentary; these limits have been imposed by cultural mores, and by communities such as various religious groups, by economically powerful people and industries, and governments. The medical and scientific communities also have imposed limits. Who should set these? How responsible has the medical community been? Conclusion Freedom is most likely to be allowed when that freedom leads to outcomes the community considers in their best interest. Critical reappraisal of the appropriateness of deciding priorities of research is needed. Is the concept of the “clinical an/scientist” viable? Suggestions will be given as to how to preserve or increase the creativity of research and yet promote the study of issues that are useful, relevant and likely to lead to a “better world.”