The report by Kumar et al1 describes a survey of 83 American medical schools responding to a questionnaire on pathology teaching over the period 1993 to 1999, suggesting that some evolution has occurred in its delivery during this time. The article raises several fundamental issues concerning the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of pathology (particularly anatomic pathology) by practicing doctors, as well as the position and importance of pathology teaching within the undergraduate medical curriculum. During the past 2 centuries, there has been a cyclical change in the view and appreciation of pathology by many societies throughout the world. Before enlightenment, general ignorance of disease processes and the techniques being developed by the founders of pathology promoted a combination of curiosity and revulsion with a subject considered to be macabre. Nevertheless, subsequent understanding of the cellular processes that contribute to the appearances of organs and tissues during active disease, and following death, provided the firm scientific foundation (pathology) on which modern medical practice has subsequently developed. Throughout this time, the public’s expectations of medicine have become increasingly unrealistic, principally fuelled by the “gee-whizz” elements of technology, so that neither medicine nor society have maintained an appreciation that safe, effective, and appropriate clinical practice relies entirely on an objective understanding of the processes by which diseases affect human subjects. To all pathologists, particularly those involved in academic aspects of pathology, it is readily apparent that comprehension of such information is not instantaneous but evolves gradually over significant periods of time, of the order of several generations of medical students. Unfortunately, appreciation of the role of pathology in modern medicine is in decline in many societies. The public expects instantaneous, accurate, and risk-free solutions to their diverse medical problems, whereas medical students want to progress rapidly to practice “high-tech” clinical medicine, and to earn a good income, without spending time on subjects that are not immediately patient-related. Therefore, how should the delivery of pathology to medical students be achieved? The report by Kumar et al1 shows that in the United States, although the overall time spent and the use of large group teaching (lectures) has not changed significantly, purely discipline-based (subject course) teaching has decreased when years 1 and 2 are considered together. This reduction has been replaced by other types of teaching, with wide variations between schools. Some have switched to multidisciplinary teaching in one or both years, whereas some have introduced a system-based year 2 and a small number have a problembased year 2. Again, a small number have introduced problem-based teaching in both year 1 and year 2. The variable but generally quite gradual evolution of delivery systems in the United States contrasts with the more rapid change seen at some medical schools in the United Kingdom. In response to an initiative of the UK General Medical Council (GMC), medical teaching in the United Kingdom has been radically reconfigured, and many schools now have a new curriculum in place.2 Some schools have already seen their first graduates qualify under these new arrangements. The GMC recommended a number of changes of both emphasis and detail. These could be briefly summarized as follows: the overall factual content should be reduced (at undergraduate level) and modern educational methods used as appropriate, with computeraided learning playing an increased part. Students should effectively educate themselves. The core curriculum should be system-based and include both basic science and clinically related material. Special study modules (SSMs) provide opportunities for in-depth study. However, any given module will be taken only by a minority of students, usually no more than 20 students at any one time. Feedback, both informal and from assessments, is an important part of the process, as is supervision. It is widely accepted by pathologists and others that pathology is a fundamental element of medical education. Appreciation of Pathology allows the student to understand the symptoms of illness, the physical signs, the rationale for investigation, the underlying reasons for abnormal results, and the mechanisms by which therapeutic interventions take effect. From the Department of Cellular and Molecular Pathology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England; and the Department of Pathology, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, England. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Christopher S. Foster, MD, PhD, FRCPath, Human Pathology European Editorial Office, Department of Pathology, Duncan Building, University of Liverpool, Daulby Street, Liverpool L69 3GA, England. Copyright © 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company 0046-8177/01/3211-0002$35.00/0 doi:10.1053/hupa.2001.30376