As you like it

Area of Science:

• Histopathology
• Electron Microscopy
• Scientific Terminology

Background:

• A pattern of frequent criticism in scientific meetings and publications has been noted.
• This critique stems from a desire to address recurring errors and ambiguities in scientific discourse.
• The author's critical approach is welcomed by peers for its perceived utility and entertainment value.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify and correct prevalent misconceptions and terminological inaccuracies in scientific research.
• To provide a critical review of specific areas including cellular structures, microscopy techniques, and histochemistry.
• To advocate for precise language and accurate interpretation in scientific communication.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of established scientific terms and concepts.
• Review of findings from electron microscopy and histochemistry.
• Examination of specific pathological entities such as mesotheliomas and Russell bodies.

Main Results:

• Identified numerous instances of incorrect terminology (e.g., 'crystalloid' for crystal, 'lamellar bodies', 'amyloid fibers').
• Highlighted artifacts in electron microscopy (osmium artifacts) and challenges in morphometric analysis (microvilli length-to-diameter ratio).
• Exposed widespread misdiagnoses in histochemistry, particularly for gastrointestinal pigments, and questioned the existence of pseudomelanosis and the classification of intranuclear bodies.

Conclusions:

• There is a significant need for greater precision in scientific terminology and interpretation.
• Commonly accepted terms and techniques in pathology and microscopy require re-evaluation for accuracy.
• Correcting these errors is crucial for advancing scientific understanding and preventing misdiagnosis.