Do-it-yourself (DIY) pathology

volume 26 number 9 september 2008 nature biotechnology have neglected to consult a comparative pathologist during the evaluation of such manuscripts. One must wonder whether such a practice would be allowed if a submitted manuscript contained complex statistical analyses and no statistician was involved during the preparation or review of the manuscript, or crystallography was used to resolve a molecular structure but no expert was asked to check the X-ray diffraction data. Yet, it appears that when it comes to evaluation of human tissues and genetically engineered mouse (GEM) phenotypes, which is no less complex than statistics or X-ray diffraction, unvalidated1 DIY pathology’ has become common— and frequently accepted—practice2. We have previously noted the dwindling number of comparative pathologistscientists who are qualified to coordinate and critique the pathological interpretation and the basic science in a manuscript3,4. There is an urgent need to make use of existing experts and encourage the growth of this discipline5. We recognize that a qualified expert may not be available for journal editors in some instances. However, when a pathologist-scientist who can review the entire manuscript is not available, both journal editors and grant study sections should, at least, seek the expert opinion of a pathologist to perform a fact and/or quality check of the pathology data, without necessarily commenting on the basic science. Implementing such a policy routinely during manuscript reviews in Nature journals would have an immense positive impact for the future health of scientific research. We, a group of concerned investigator-pathologists, have formed a nonprofit educational foundation, Center for Genomic Pathology (CGP; Davis, CA, USA; http://www. ctrgenpath.org/) to address these issues. We invite others who are interested in this issue to participate in a comprehensive debate to develop standards for the manuscript and the grant review process involving human and genetically engineered mouse tissues and use of pathology in research. We note that this letter represents a consensus opinion of the faculty of CGP and other cosigners below.