Lasker/IRRF Report On Restoring Vision

Restoring Vision To The Blind

I participated in the Lasker/IRRF Initiative on Restoring Vision to the Blind in March 2014. It was a great session of research leaders working on various approaches to restore visual function lost by retinal degenerative disease. The purpose of the meeting was to identify the key issues hampering research progress and to develop innovative proposals to overcome these hurdles and accelerate research. The Initiative prepared a report of its findings that ARVO published as a special edition of its online journal Translation Vision Science and Technology. It can be viewed at http://tvstjournal.org/toc/tvst/3/7.

I am attaching the Table of Contents for the report, along with John Dowling’s introduction to give you an idea of the scope of the work discussed by participants.  If you want a pdf of the entire report, you can find it on the Lasker website at: http://www.laskerfoundation.org/programs/images/irrf_15.pdf . A print copy of the report is also available by writing to Meredith Graves as mgraves@laskerfoundation.org

Continue reading “Lasker/IRRF Report On Restoring Vision”

Notable Paper: Reproducibility in Science

Reproducability in Science

This article by C. Glenn Begley and John P.A. Ioannidis is not specifically vision related, but is more generally applicable to research integrity and is well worth a read, in particular the following paragraph:

“What has shaken many in the field is not that investigators are unable to precisely reproduce an experiment. That is to be expected. What is shocking is that in many cases, the big idea or major conclusion was not confirmed simply when experi- ments were performed by the same investigators when blinded to their test samples versus control samples.2 The explanation for this was evident when the precise methodology of the experiments was reviewed. Investigators typically performed their experiments in a nonblinded fashion, so they were able to see what they were anticipating to see, and their research bias was thus able to be confirmed.18 Observer bias has long been recognized to be a problem in preclinical studies and beyond, so this result should not be surprising.19 Confirmation bias in scientific investigation unavoidably makes even the best scientists prone to try to find results or interpretations that fit their preconceived ideas and theories.20,21”

 

Continue reading “Notable Paper: Reproducibility in Science”