Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Harold Ridley permanently implanted the first intraocular lens (IOL) in 1950. The widely accepted narrative is that Ridley and his invention received a hostile reception from Stewart Duke-Elder and other ophthalmic thought leaders. Ridley suffered greatly but was eventually vindicated as later IOL designs were widely accepted. This narrative casts Ridley as a prophetic innovator who suffered and eventually triumphed against the forces of animosity, jealousy and close-mindedness arrayed against him. We argue that this narrative is biased because it was told by Ridley himself and amplified by his biographer and close friend, David Apple. There were good reasons to be skeptical of Ridley's invention. Ridley had not done pre-clinical studies, so his first patients suffered avoidable complications. He worked in secret at a time when openness was the norm. Ridley's IOL had a high percentage of poor outcomes. The cautious approach that Duke-Elder and others had towards IOLs is understandable. The accurate history is a story of a clash of worldviews between an inventor who was focused on innovating quickly to solve a major clinical problem and established leaders who were concerned about the harm to patients from a flawed invention. The skepticism of established thought leaders remains a valuable check on aggressive innovation today.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Cataract Refract Surg

Publication Date

10/12/2024