The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute celebrated its Fortieth Anniversary in 2004. Since its inception in 1963, Smith-Kettlewell has grown from being a small part of the medical research group at Stanford's old San Francisco facility to a fully independent institute, world-renowned for the diversity and quality of its research on normal vision, on eye diseases, and on sensory rehabilitation. We chose to remain independent, rather than becoming affiliated with the excellent academic institutions surrounding us, so that we could control our own destiny. We manage our own facilities, decide our own budget, and set our own research priorities.

From the beginning, Smith-Kettlewell has encouraged collaboration between the clinic and the laboratory, recognizing that the clinician's knowledge of disease management can serve as a guide to problems that might yield solutions in well-controlled laboratory studies. The scientific staff reflects a carefully maintained balance among three broad types of researchers: clinician scientists, laboratory scientists, and sensory rehabilitation scientists. Each of these three groups brings a different perspective to the problems and solutions, a different mindset and a different set of tools and techniques. The scientists at Smith-Kettlewell are chiefly interested in functional vision, with a special focus on binocular vision/strabismus, and low vision/blindness. The research questions principally ask how the normal human visual system responds to light and to complex visual patterns, how this system develops from infancy, and what goes wrong when disease, disability or aging alters normal functioning. Research at Smith-Kettlewell addresses the consequences of disease and disability, as well as the causes; an objective that is well served by the group of scientists in the area of low vision and blindness rehabilitation.

What makes this Institute unique? All visiting scientists and postdoctoral fellows comment on the special research environment here. There are several significant components to this environment. First is the unparalleled autonomy of the principal investigators. They choose their specific research topics, select their own research staff and find public or private sources of funding to support their own salary and the operation of their laboratories. They share in decisions about core facilities, space, and symposia. In the absence of any required teaching or clinical duties, their time is their own. Second, the atmosphere among investigators is mutually supportive. Whereas universities often foster aggressive competitiveness among their faculty, Smith-Kettlewell nurtures collaboration. There is much consultation in the hallways, much sharing of the successes and failures. Younger investigators are assisted by more experienced investigators in identifying suitable research projects and in writing their first proposals. Finally, the administrative staff is part of the scientific team. Rather than assuming an adversarial role by imposing arbitrary constraints and regulations, the administrators work to make the science go more smoothly, to help with research proposals and budgets, to identify new funding sources, and to manage facilities for the benefit of their scientific staff.

With such extraordinary freedom comes responsibility. All investigators are expected to contribute to the welfare of the Institute by participating in institute-wide functions, by assisting other scientists with technical expertise and scientific critiques, by demonstrating institutional loyalty, and by generally taking an active position in maintaining the positive atmosphere at Smith-Kettlewell. In the same spirit, the Institute has reciprocal responsibilities to its investigators. The Institute uses its resources to reward excellent science and citizenship with interim support, seed funds for pilot projects, in-house funding for extra technical staff, and "soft landings" for the long-term scientists who have reached the end of their external funding.

Our unique environment is the most important asset of this Institute. It is a fragile thing that requires a nourishing attitude from all members of the staff. It also depends critically on size. Obviously, scientific creativity requires diversity--a range of relevant disciplines (physics, engineering, ophthalmology, optometry, physiology, and psychology) and a range of ages and experience. If the institute were too small, the potential benefits of diversity would be lost. On the other hand, there are clear dangers to becoming too large. Scientific communication, collegiality, and mutual support would suffer if the Institute were too large. The demand on our resources might exceed their availability, leading to divisiveness among the competing scientists. We believe that our current size is nearly optimal, and we will strive to maintain this critical size so that our unique qualities are preserved.