Guest Editorial: Agenda Driven Research Dominick M. Maino, OD, MEd, FAAO, FCOVD-A Professor of Pediatrics/Binocular Vision Illinois College of Optometry; Lyons Family Eye Care, Chicago, Illinois Last summer I was present at a meeting hosted by the School of Optometry at the University of Waterloo. This meeting was attended by the best and the brightest of Europe’s researchers with expertise in pediatric eye problems, amblyopia, strabismus, and issues adversely affecting vision development. I decided to attend the Child Vision Research Society’s meeting for a number of reasons including the outstanding keynote speakers. Another reason I wanted to attend was that one of the attendees was an individual that I had collaborated with on a project whom I had never met in person. She was delightful to work with and was also a very well-known and respected researcher. Researchers, faculty, clinicians, and orthoptists from New Zealand, Nepal, Korea, Israel, the UK and the USA were in attendance. Besides the great keynote speakers (Drs. Susan Cotter, Professor, Southern California College of Optometry; Daphne Maurer, Professor, Department of Psychology, McMaster University; Saint-Amour, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology at the Université du Québec a Montréal), this exceptional program featured various paper and poster presentations. The final day we were all bussed to The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto for additional lectures and tours of the facility. I soon realized that this particular meeting was somewhat different than those I usually attend. For instance, I noticed that several of the research projects did not appear to be completed but rather ongoing in nature. When one of these not quite completed research papers was presented to the 100+ member audience, something rare occurred. The audience, in a non-critical, helpful, “let me be your friendly advisor” way offered constructive criticism on how the project could be improved, Vision Development & Rehabilitation altered and/or changed to make it more meaningful and robust. None of the meetings I usually go to allow uncompleted research to be presented and do not often have this friendly critique assistance for the researcher. I found this an excellent way to introduce new researchers into the peer research relationship that allows a much gentler approach then what I’ve experienced in the past. During the meeting a paper entitled “Does – And How Does – Vision Therapy (Orthoptic Treatment) Work?” was then presented. No constructive criticism was offered even though there were some serious flaws in the research design and interpretation of the outcomes. The conclusion of this research was “While vergence exercises have some effect, effort and possibly voluntary influences are a major factor in effecting change … Very careful attention should be paid to these effects when studying eye exercises.” The impression given and actually stated was that “eye exercises” did not cause the improvement and all the subject had to do was to “try harder”. At noon the group broke for lunch and I deliberately sought out the presenter. She was a dedicated, excellent researcher. She had a sharp mind and congenial demeanor. I did not discuss my concerns about her research over lunch. I wanted to use that time primarily to get to know her in a friendly non-antagonistic environment. Since this presentation was made to a small 7 Volume 1, Issue 1 • April 2015