THE EDITOR'S CORNER
I want to propose an orthodontic think tank and suggest two functions for it.
The think tank would be an Orthodontic Research and Development Corporation. It would be an independent, nonprofit organization. It would be funded from government and foundation grants, from contributions from industry and from private practice. It could support itself in part by acting as consultant to industry and being paid for certain projects, in part possibly from royalties from its developments and publications.
One function of the think tank would be to conduct periodic seminars among the best brains in orthodontics. Their purpose would be to supply and consider the evidence that is available with regard to our orthodontic beliefs and practices. They would review and publish periodically what are, on the basis of the best information available, the most attractive, most acceptable current "truths" with regard to fundamental ideas of biology and technique in orthodontics.
In this issue of JCO, in the interview with Dr. Ricketts, he discusses a number of fundamental points which have been widely accepted in the past and with which he disagrees. I think that most orthodontists today would, in large measure, share his viewpoints. It is to be expected that additional experience and new knowledge will result in re-evaluation of past "truths". That is merely the scientific method at work. What is needed periodically is for these to be summarized and called to our attention.
A second suggested function of the orthodontic think tank would be in the area of research. It would establish its own research facility; coordinate the research programs of cooperating university departments, teaching hospitals and others; enlist the cooperation of private practitioners to open their doors and files to objective study.
Thus, by designing research studies in orthodontics, by conducting some of the studies themselves, by supervising others, by coordinating many, and evaluating all, the think tank could provide that missing ingredient in orthodontic research--direction.
The Orthodontic Research and Development Corporation (ORAD) would be able to provide interdisciplinary teams to consider some of our problems and bring to bear on them multiple experience, training and knowledge rather than rely on one individual. We have been blessed in orthodontics with many extremely intelligent and dedicated practitioners. And yet, in one professional lifetime there is a limited experience at best. Each one just does not get to see enough cases to cover the subject adequately. In addition, in one professional lifetime there is rarely enough time to assess in depth the material that does pass before us. Nor is it given to every one of us by training or talent to be able to set up a scientific investigation that is valid. Under all these circumstances, the production of those who produce is an uncoordinated effort. Each one selects avenues of interest more by chance than by design.
I want to be perfectly clear that I have only the highest regard for those orthodontists who are involved in studying, writing and speaking about their experiences and developments in treatment and technique. ORAD is not proposed to supplant them, but rather to supplement them and even to involve some of them in coordinated, larger efforts.
In spite of long insistence in the literature that we must pay more attention to fundamental principles and less to the mechanics of how to do it, we have made great strides in how to do it and have barely dented the surface of the complex fundamentals of tooth movement especially in a growing environment.
I am always a little put off by people who denigrate what we know and elevate what we don't know. All we can really strive for is to increase what we know and decrease what we don't know and a think tank could be a remarkably good way to do that. 
