The Need for the Coordinated Efforts of Technololgy Evangelists in Digital Pathology

Here's a question for all of the readers of Lab Soft News. Do you think that pathologists in particular, and physicians in general, are more or less accepting of new technology than other professionals of the same educational level and income? I don't know the answer to this question but I do believe that the adoption of digital pathology has been much slower than I would have predicted a year or two ago. There are are number of compelling reasons for this, some of which I have documented in this blog. However, I come away with the following idea: most pathologists are very receptive to new science but not necessarily to new technology based on this science, particularly when the technology disrupts established lab workflow or invokes changes in the status quo (see: Major Drivers for the Conversion to Digital Pathology in Teaching Programs). Digital pathology definitely falls into this latter category.

Interestingly enough, many high-tech firms in Silicon Valley face similar issues relating to the adoption of new technology. Executives and engineers working in these firms, when faced with the question of  adoption or rejection of an emerging technology, will often reject it in favor of the tried and true. Sometimes they will even try to "smother" new technologies in their companies if and when they threaten the budgets that they control. To combat this problem, a new type of professional is arising in these companies called the technology evangelist. Here is a definition of the term:

A technical or technology evangelist is a person who attempts to build a critical mass of support for a given technology in order to establish it as a technical standard in a market that is subject to network effects. Professional technology evangelists are often employed by firms which seek to establish their proprietary technologies as de facto standards or to participate in setting non-proprietary open standards. Non-professional technology evangelists may act out of altruism  or self-interest (e.g., to gain the benefits of early adoption or the network effect). Technical evangelists may act, officially or unofficially, on behalf of a company or organization, or on a personal basis, for instance open source evangelism. An evangelist promotes the use of a particular product or technology through talks, articles, blogging, user demonstrations, recorded demonstrations, or the creation of sample projects....Technology evangelism is sometimes associated with an internal employee assigned to encourage new ways of doing things within a large organization.

Taking the more rapid adoption of digital pathology as a desirable goal, I would suggest that there is a need for the coordinated efforts of both professional, technical, and informal evangelists to carry this message to the thus far uncommitted pathologists. We already have an organization, the Digital Pathology Association (DPA), that can direct and coordinate this effort (see: Software as the Core Competency of Digital Pathology Companies). We also have pathology blogs specializing in digital pathology such as the Digital Pathology Blog and The Daily Scan, the latter developed by Aperio. There is also a cadre of pathologists working in the field who  have already successfully deployed the technology. This is a very good start.

What I think that we need now, and this is what I had in mind when I cited the need for coordinated efforts, is an "evangelistic" agenda from DPA. This is different than the marketing plan for each of the companies that support the DPA. What I have in mind is the identification of pathologists in various communities who are enthusiastic about digital pathology and are active users of this technology. Their help would then be enlisted to promote the adoption of the technology in a general way rather than the promotion of individual companies.

Comments

[Michael Mihalik (Vice President, Sales & Marketing, PathView Systems)]

'Are pathologists more or less accepting of new technology'?

In my opinion the overriding factor is that pathologists are human beings like the rest of us and as such they have a difficulty with change. In order to motivate or give reason for change, the new practice must make the lives of the pathologist 'easier' or perhaps, more 'fulfilling'. What is the reward for the individual to change?

There are many reasons to implement digital pathology, but perhaps we have not done a good enough job describing the rewards of such a change.

The implication of your comments is that you are surprised that the adoption of this technology has not been as rapid as you would have forseen. If this is surprising to you, then what are your thoughts about the slow implementation of bar coding and material tracking in the pathology and cytology departments? This fruit is much lower on the vine and provides benefits for all. It is fairly inexpensive to implement and yet, there are many, many facilities who employ manual, time tested methodologies to track material and ensure quality testing.

I would propose that the implementation of bar codes and tracking to be a necessity for digital pathology and if bar coding and tracking has been slow to implement, why should digital pathology be any faster?

[Steve Potts]

Great post. Here is the burning question I wanted to ask at the last three Pathology Visions conferences:

Why are DVM pathologists adopting the technology so much faster than MD pathologists?

There are 500 vet pathologist in the US who work in pharma. More than half use digital slides in their work, they are doing digital conferencing regularly with other pathologists at remote site locations, they are starting to demand quantitative data in their animal studies. They have developed GLP standards for whole slide imaging.

Why have they adopted faster?

Steve Potts
Digital Pathology Services
www.flagshipbio.com