Abstract
Increased harmonization of toxicologic pathology practices and practitioners around the globe has been a subject of considerable debate over the past several years. The deliberations surrounding this topic have been conducted under the auspices of the International Federation of Societies of Toxicologic Pathologists (IFSTP), a confederation of ten societies of toxicologic pathology drawn from individual countries and multinational regions on four continents.
Early points of discussion included whether or not there is a need for a global mechanism to recognize qualified toxicologic pathologists (Ettlin et al. 2007-2008) and whether credential review might serve as the basis for such a recognition system (Bolon et al 2009; Ettlin et al. 2009-2010). The most recent addition to the dialogue has been the publication of proposed global “best practices” for training toxicologic pathologists (Bolon et al. 2010), based on the premise that increased standardization of academic curricula and practical experiences will enhance the ability to produce and compare proficiency among practitioners from different venues. This “best practices” proposal recommended that, in general, toxicologic pathologists should undertake an educational course consisting of at least five years of academic coursework followed by at least four years of practical experience; the rationale for this training pathway is that it has been successfully used for decades in countries with long-established toxicologic pathology traditions. The expectation from extrapolating this educational paradigm to regions in which toxicologic pathology roles and training programs have yet to become formalized is that (1) scarce resources can be leveraged by removing the need for each nation to create its own program from scratch, usually via an extended—and costly—period of trial and error; and (2) equivalent intellectual and technical understanding without regard to artificial (i.e., cultural, political) boundaries will encourage greater uniformity of practice and proficiency by toxicologic pathologists, regardless of where they train or work.
When published, these global training practice recommendations had been approved by the governing body of the IFSTP as well as by the executive committees and/or constituencies from eight of the ten IFSTP member societies. These eight endorsing organizations represented toxicologic pathologists in Europe (ESTP), Latin America (ALAPT), and North America (STP), as well as the nations of France (SFPT), India (STP-I), Italy (SIPTS), the Netherlands (NVT), and the United Kingdom (BSTP). This letter is to communicate that the two remaining IFSTP member societies, representing Japan (JSTP) and South Korea (KSTP), have now completed their internal deliberations and have confirmed their support for the global “best practices” in training proposals. Thus, the recorded opinions of all ten current IFSTP member societies are unanimous in their backing for improved standardization of professional education in toxicologic pathology.
Brad Bolon
GEM path, Inc., Longmont, Colorado