Eye-Grafting

Countless newspaper reports relative to the possibility of transplanting the eye have aroused a controversy among physicians and surgeons which finds expression in issues of The Journal of the American Medical Association for Oct. 4 and 11. Prof. Joseph Imre Jr., head of the Department of Diseases of the Eye in the State University of Pecs in Budapest, pointed out (Oct. 4) that he considers it his moral duty to relate the results of investigation in this connection. His studies have shown him that Dr. Koppanyi (TIME, June 18, 1923)--who incidentally is not a physician--performed experiments on rats and rabbits in attempts to find out whether or not an animal with a transplanted eye could see. According to Prof. Imre, Dr. Koppanyi cut the muscles and tissues around the eye-ball and left the eye in place. There was no proof that the optic nerve was cut through. He said, furthermore, that in every case witnessed by physicians in which the eyeball was removed from its place, there never was any other result but complete destruction of the eye.

Prof. Imre advanced as his opinion the statement that even if the optic nerve could grow again--which has never been established--and even if there were a possibility of transplanting a complete eye from one man to another, the question could not have any practical importance, because no physician should be allowed to, and no physician with any conscience would, remove an eye with good vision for making a rather uncertain experiment.

Prof. A. J. Carlson, of the Department of Physiology in the University of Chicago, replied (Oct. 11) to Prof. Imre's attack on Dr. Koppanyi, testified as to the scientific status of Dr. Koppanyi's work. Prof. Carlson pointed out that Dr. Koppanyi has been on the research staff of his laboratory in the University of Chicago since January, and that such newspaper stories as have appeared have not been authorized either by Dr. Koppanyi or by the laboratory. Experiments have been made on spotted rats; and the transplanted eyes have undergone varying degrees of change from complete destruction to mere cloudiness of the tissues. Most of the cause for failure is believed to be secondary infection. In the most successful experiments, the transplanted eye appears normal in size; the cloudiness clears up; and, so far as the scientists have been able to determine, there may be some return of vision. Prof. Carlson has controlled Dr. Koppanyi's work and believes that it demonstrates definitely that transplantation can be carried out with at least partial success on the spotted rat. He pointed out that it remains to be seen whether such results can be duplicated in the dog and the monkey; and, if this is achieved, there still remains a very high percentage of complete or partial failure which must be converted into success before anyone would be justified in attempting any such operation on man.

Supplementing the letter of Prof. Carlson, Dr. Koppanyi declared (Oct. 11) that the charges of Prof. Imre are not true. He denied that he gave unwarranted publicity to his work. He said that the return of vision is possible, but admitted that the optic nerve was not cut in his eye transplantation experiments.

The actual facts seem to be that experimental work of interest and value is being done; but there does not appear to be the slightest reason to 'believe that it will be possible for many years to transplant a human eye successfully.