Scientific breakthroughs are not always made in a systematic and logical order. I love the story of the inventor of the original laser wanting to see if he could collimate a beam of light and having no particular use for the outcome. Indeed, uses for lasers came some time afterwards.
You may recall some publicity two years ago surrounding the discovery that the ageing retina shows a build up of the toxic protein beta amyloid, plaques of which developing within the central nervous system are related to dementia states. Much excitement focused on the potential for dementia to be predicted at a very early stage by retinal examination (the amyloid deposits show up under SLO), and optometrists could be key here. However, it was also clear that such early detection of an as yet untreatable disease would only help insurance companies and not be of help, indeed be to the detriment, of the public. Then last week, out of the blue, we saw drug trial results published showing effective treatment of amyloid plaques - so there may be a point after all.
We recently featured Dr Ian Murray’s work on dark adaptation screening, capable of very early maculopathy detection. Again, you might question the benefit of such early intervention, but soon we should be hearing results from the 2RT treatment for dry AMD trials (I believe Professor John Marshall is speaking on this subject in London in January). Research need not always accord to a costed profit and loss plan. The best research usually finds its relevance eventually, even if not of immediate apparent worth to funding sources.