In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132 #00065

Submission Number:
00065
Commenter:
Hung
State:
Indiana
Initiative Name:
In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132
To Whom It May Concern, As a scientist working in vision studies, and who had been working with Dr. Seitz for years, I found that the action by FTC is overhasty, unfair, and discouraging to the translational research that would bring fruits from scientific findings to clinical applications. In this action, FTC determined that research not involving large-scale, double-blinded, and place-controlled studies are invalid and thus disregarded the validity of Seitz's findings. However, this definition is narrow and ignored the fact that there are tons of papers that have gone through rigorous review process and reported solid and important scientific findings (even though many of them were neither double-blinded nor placebo-controlled). The training approach was established on perceptual learning, a paradigm that has been studied intensively and has been shown to effectively improve low-vision in numerous papers and journals. Also, Dr. Seitz has published three articles on influential journals specifically about the training results of this approach. Therefore, without any 1) further evidence demonstrating that results are not reproducible or 2) more convincing criticisms or 3) appropriate comments that address Seitz's and other scientists' questions against FTC action, it is overhasty and unfair to judge the value of Seitz's research. Of note, Dr. Seitz is a well-esteemed and one of the most careful scientists in this field. His integrity and high standards on reviewing and publishing scientific findings earn him respect and trust. He has been dedicating himself to developing effective training methods to improve vision based on his expertise, and he never hesitates to answer questions to the public who have concerns in his research. Due to the reasons mentioned above, I have full faith on evidence published by Dr. Seitz and think it is sufficient to support his conclusions. The FTC's action against Seitz's research and the excessive fine ($75,000) to him in person not only exhausts his bank account but also harms his reputation severely. Therefore, I hope FTC reconsiders their decision and reverse this action against Seitz's work that would bring the scientific research to benefit the clinical and general population. Dr. Shao-Chin Hung, PostDoctoral Research Associate in Neuroscience, Purdue University