I am currently working on a book on medical entrepreneurship. Harold Ridley deserves inclusion.
Innovative entrepreneurs often observe anomalies and realize how the anomalies can be put to good use, where others would not notice the anomalies, or would notice them, shrug, and forget. (In Ridley’s case the anomalie was that the plastic fragments in Cleaver’s eyes “weren’t causing any inflammation or infection.”)
Pasteur famously said that ‘chance favors a prepared mind.’ If he had read Kirzner, he might have added ‘chance also favors an alert mind.’ (Kirzner’s account of entrepreneurship emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial alertness.)
(p. A17) On Aug. 15, 1940, Royal Air Force pilot Gordon Cleaver scrambled into the cockpit of his Hawker Hurricane and lifted into the sky. . . . He was shot down over Winchester. Enemy bullets shattered his canopy, showering debris into his eyes. Flying blind and in excruciating pain, Cleaver managed to escape his doomed plane and parachute to the ground.
. . .
Cleaver’s damaged eyes were examined by a 34-year-old ophthalmologist, Harold Ridley. Shards of Plexiglas from his shattered canopy remained in the pilot’s eyes. This was a disaster. Foreign bodies in the eye such as lead or shrapnel usually caused inflammation or infection so severe that the eyes often had to be removed. But Ridley noticed something peculiar: The fragments of clear plastic weren’t causing any inflammation or infection. They sat quietly inside Cleaver’s eyes, glistening in the light of the ophthalmoscope. This was a shocking discovery.
Ridley examined Cleaver multiple times. The pilot’s sight was severely damaged, but the Plexiglas remained inert in his eyes, causing no inflammation. In 1948, while Ridley was removing a cataract—a clouding of the eye’s lens—for another patient, the memory of Cleaver’s case sparked an epiphany. A medical student observing the operation said, “It’s a pity you can’t replace the cataract with a clear lens.” Ridley recalled the well-tolerated Plexiglas in Cleaver’s eyes and realized that he could use the material to make an intraocular lens that the body wouldn’t reject.
. . .
His invention has saved the sight of millions. But instead of stirring professional acclaim, Ridley’s invention was a disaster for his career. The ophthalmology establishment labeled him a heretic.
Leaders in the field accused him of malpractice, ridiculed him at science conferences and poisoned colleagues against his ideas. They argued that the procedure was a “time bomb” and that “manufacturers should be prosecuted for supplying implants.” Ridley worked for decades to improve his operation and gain converts, but fell into a deep depression. When he retired in 1971, he considered his career a failure.
For the full commentary see:
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date February 7, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)
Lam’s commentary is related to his book:
Lam, Andrew. Saving Sight. Bokeelia, FL: Irie Books, 2013.
For Kirzner on entrepreneurial alertness see:
Kirzner, Israel M. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.