About This CD
Main Menu

Several years ago, when we were in the throes of the original planning stages for a practical series on ophthalmology, it seemed logical to present textbooks on the basic sciences first and have them serve as a foundation upon which a thorough and sound understanding of the clinical management of patients with visual disease would be based.

We altered this game plan for a couple of reasons. My great literary hero, Sir Stewart Duke-Elder, had for all intents and purposes reached the end of his prestigious, creative career, so there was a potential vacuum in the realm of up-to-date clinical ophthalmology texts. Presented with an opportunity to fill this void, we decided to begin our series on the clinical side. I would like to take this opportunity, however, to salute Sir Stewart and to announce that if the opportunity arises after I cross the great divide I would like to spend the first 10 years reading every word he ever wrote for publication. It has always distressed me that if our books caught on it would be at the expense of the greatest single author who ever took pen in hand to describe the eye and its relation to the world of science.

Also, although the publishers were of the opinion that because the basic sciences change so slowly in a field such as ophthalmology a few bound books were all that were needed, my limited experience in the laboratory and with such organizations as the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the National Eye Institute had convinced me that new techniques and indeed entirely new technologies were turning over so fast in the basic foundation areas that the only way to even come close to keeping tabs on them would be with the loose-leaf methodology. Of course, we have no intention of trying to keep up to date by adding and subtracting every new esoteric nuance that is presented in the basic fields. We are not a medical journal. Our goals, which have remained unaltered from the start, are to provide practitioners with an up-to-date, organized, systematic approach to the visual system. We want them to make diagnoses and to understand the etiology and pathogenesis of diseases so that they can institute therapy and adjust the management of the patient in an intelligent and informed fashion. It is true that this process presupposes a thorough knowledge of structure and function in health and disease, and it is this knowledge we now wish to provide, after these many years of delay, through Biomedical Foundations of Ophthalmology. After all, disease mechanisms may be considered to represent the human body's normal reactions to abnormal insults. It isn't just to enable the reader to pass the Boards that we designed Biomedical Foundations, although of course we are aware that many of our readers have that secondary goal hanging over their heads. Alas, there is even a movement for “recertification” in ophthalmology, as has been adopted in some of the other disciplines. Although such a turn of events might sell more of our books, I am personally opposed to this development.

In any event, this whole series is designed with the practitioner in view. We are not presenting a handbook for the future researcher; these are available elsewhere (see the 5-year plans of the NEI). If clinical (or basic) ideas for experimentation occur to the reader, so much the better, and we wish him Godspeed. However, first of all we want the reader to comprehend what is known—in the basic and clinical areas—before venturing into the unknown.

Some of my colleagues needle me and say that all I do is assemble the manuscripts, send them in, and sit back and await the praise and the royalties. My answer to that is as follows. For years in Philadelphia we have been proud of our orchestra. It has been essentially the product of one man, Eugene Ormandy, who years ago was a fair violinist but whose great forte has been the welding together of a diverse group of talented musicians who, combined, produce the “Philadelphia sound.” Now each of these musicians is an expert. Each can play his instrument in a manner that could never be emulated by Ormandy. However, without the maestro it is conceivable that there would not be anything resembling the music that emanates from the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. I don't pretend to be an Ormandy (or a Riccardo Muti). But we do have much ophthalmic talent in this country and in the Western world, and the trick is to pull it all together to produce a publication that will be of help to both physicians and their patients. If we accomplish this, our goal will be attained.

As I stated in the preface to Clinical Ophthalmology, there may be some mistakes and omissions in these volumes. I am fully responsible for these, and I ask the astute reader to call them to my attention.

You will note that a Co–Chief Editor, Edward A. Jaeger, has been appointed. Ed is a private-practicing general ophthalmologist who has also devoted a great deal of time to medical education. He has spent untold hours providing didactic and one-on-one teaching to undergraduate students and residents. This dual role of clinical practitioner and academician provides a broad perspective for his editing responsibilities. Ed has been a Section Editor for Clinical Ophthalmology and has proven himself to be a stickler for editing details, yet at the same time he is able to keep the overall picture in perspective.

I have told all Section Editors to look for similar assistants if they have not already chosen one. These co-editors can provide help and objectivity; in time they may take over as Section Editors, and the transition will be smooth because they will be thoroughly familiar with the ropes.

Since Clinical Ophthalmology appeared there have been some changes. Harper and Row has acquired Lippincott, which is now the Medical Publishing Division of Harper and Row. This has brought together new individuals to work with the former Hagerstown group.

Rene L. Boudreau, the Medical Loose-leaf Editor, has been a tremendous help on a day-to-day basis. Edward B. Hutton, Jr., President of Lippincott, and Bruce Martin, Manuscript Editor, provide enthusiastic management and technical know-how respectively.

We will miss G. David Williams, the previous Medical Loose-leaf Editor, and David P. Miller, former Vice-President and Publisher of Harper and Row, without whom this entire work would never have seen the light of day. I once stated that Dave Miller had been like a father to me, which upset him because I am older chronologically, but he still has a more mature approach to publishing because of his years of experience.

So we are off and running again, and it is our hope that the readers will enjoy and be as stimulated by this new work as we have been. As stated before, if we save eyes, we can ask no more.

September 15, 1982

Thomas D. Duane, M.D., Ph.D.