academic pathology research struggling?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

elburrito

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
6
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.

Members don't see this ad.
 
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?
Disagree. As long as you identify interesting observations, you will be able to publish these studies. Although molecular data are much more compelling, these observations are still valid, and there are more and more journals out there to submit to.

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?
No, I think these approaches are becoming more and more widely available. You will either learn these techniques, or collaborate with those that understand them. Pathology will adapt and take ownership of molecular diagnostics or be left out in the cold.

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.
Disagree, in that clinical data that can be billed for (i.e., medically necessary) will always be available and owned by the physician, not a researcher. If you don't make use of it or take ownership of it, its on you and your department.

Is this not part of the reason we are seeing mergers between private industry and academic labs?
I really don't think these events are related. It's all about clinical revenue, and being able to sustain a viable practice with increasing costs and decreasing reimbursements. As relevant as research seems to a trainee, it is a very small part of the global picture, except at major academic centers.

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.
This one I agree with, and why the Harvards and WashUs will always win. They have the resources and infrastructure and faculty to really do what they want.

G
 
Top