Many pharmaceutical companies have recently elected to stop maintaining good laboratory practices (GLP) status of their R&D sites. Similar discussions have also been engaged in the (agro)chemical industry. This opinion paper examines the pros and cons of maintaining facility GLP status for the purposes of performing the pathology interpretation or peer reviews of GLP studies internally. The toxicologic pathologist provides gross and histomorphologic evaluation and interpretation of nonclinical exploratory and regulatory studies during drug and (agro)chemical development. This assessment significantly contributes to human risk assessment by characterizing the toxicological profile and discussing the human relevance of the findings. The toxicologic pathologist is a key contributor to compound development decisions (advancement or termination) and in the development of de-risking strategies for backup compounds, thus playing a critical role in helping to reduce the late attrition of drugs and chemicals. Maintaining GLP compliance is often perceived as a costly and cumbersome process; a common and short-term strategy to reduce the costs is to outsource regulatory toxicity studies. However, there are significant advantages in maintaining the GLP status for toxicologic pathology activities in-house including the sustainable retention of internal pathology expertise that has maintained the necessary training needed to manage GLP studies.

This is an opinion article submitted to the Toxicologic Pathology Forum. It represents the views of the authors. It does not constitute an official position of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology, British Society of Toxicological Pathology, or European Society of Toxicologic Pathology, and the views expressed might not reflect the best practices recommended by these Societies. This article should not be construed to represent the policies, positions, or opinions of their respective organizations, employers, or regulatory agencies.