Salvatore Pizzo
American pathologist
Salvatore Vincent Pizzo is an American scientist and Distinguished Professor of Pathology at Duke University Medical Center. Pizzo was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000 for his research on blood vessel cell receptors on tumor growth. Pizzo was chair of Duke's Department of Pathology and director of the Medical Scientist Training Program. He received the Dean's Award for Excellence in Mentoring 2004.
Pizzo earned his PhD (1972) and MD (1973) from Duke University.
In 2002, Leslie Dodd sued Pizzo and Duke University for discrimination, harassment and infliction of emotional distress. An expensive piece of equipment was ordered without Dodd's knowledge, allegedly in retaliation for ending a relationship with Pizzo. This purchase generated ill will toward Dodd and developed into a hostile work environment. The court judgement sided with the Title VII claims of hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation, but denied as the Title VII claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. This case is notable and cited in legal studies regarding differences betweenTitle VII and Title IX claims, and how institutions are held accountable for quid pro quo harassment.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Salvatore Pizzo” is american pathologist. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Salvatore, Pizzo and American, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “american pathologist” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q29791460. The first chronological checks are 2000, 2004, 1972 and 1973.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Salvatore Pizzo”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Salvatore Pizzo primary sources, Salvatore Pizzo archive and Salvatore research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Salvatore Pizzo”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Salvatore Pizzo” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.