[Skip to Navigation]
August 1936


Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Medical School.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1936;16(2):284-292. doi:10.1001/archopht.1936.00840200122013

The professional detachment of the ophthalmologist from the commercial and technical phases of the spectacle industry may well be replaced by a wider outlook. Perhaps this traditional attitude has been subtly fostered by the commercial interests involved to forestall unwelcome criticism. Though the scientific contributions of the leading concerns are worthy of serious study, the industry still has certain tendencies toward mystery, pretense and commercialism which the profession should be alert to penetrate. The absurd claims made in the advertising of tinted glasses and various patented lenses have been adequately exposed by Jackson,1 Coblentz2 and Cowan.3 Said Jackson: "When tinted glasses are necessary, London Smoke Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are better than many that are said by their makers to perform miracles. The `soft light' of a cathedral is a poor light for ordinary purposes."4 Coblentz stated: "Lenses in which

Add or change institution