Would you agree that the days of publishing pathology studies based on solely on correlation of clinical outcomes with histologic or IHC or other microscopic findings are essentially over? It seems that in order to get published, molecular studies are virtually required. Given that much of the work in molecular diagnostics involves mutational analyses that may not be widely available or which may be expensive to perform on a limited academic pathologist research budget, wouldn't you say that being an academic pathologist is an uphill battle at this point? With limitations in funding or technical/personnel or other resources, I'm afraid that many of the breakthroughs in understanding disease pathogenesis on the basis of mutational or genomic profiling will likely be led by clinical translational researchers. Agree or disagree? Is this not part of the reason we are seeing mergers between private industry and academic labs? I'm afraid also that a lot of research in pathology is therefore limited to retrospective review of data already obtained through clinical service but obviously you must be at a large academic center that already performs a lot of molecular testing in order for that to be particularly fruitful.