Gotta weigh-in on this. Only about 20% of practicing physicians in the US are members of the AMA (DHHS-AMA figures) "clinicians" have always resented pathologists since they have the real understanding of disease processes and have been the "truth cops" that sometimes trip-up clinicians who are esteemed by patients for their "laying-on of hands". This visibility imparts an aura of infallibility that clinicians buy into. In fact many diagnoses are made in the lab, NOT by pathologists (research, clinical, "basic scientist", diagnostic pathologist, or whatever semantics one wants to apply). They are made by non-physicians and even non-PhDs but by Registered Medical (Laboratory) Technologists/Medical Laboratory Scientists (alternate certification), microbiologists, toxicologists, etc. Furthermore assessment of the efficacy of most patient treatments would not be possible without lab often headed by clinical pathologists. Most pathologists (clinical or therwise) are totally unprepared to function in a clinical laboratory or blood bank. None-the-less the contribution of pathologists to patient care and outcomes warrants their appointment as CEO of AMA.