[NHCOLL-L:3400] Re: Labels for wet collection

[Dean Pentcheff]

There have been excellent suggestions posted here to this list in the
last few days regarding labelling systems that have potential value
for wet collections.

What we haven't seen, though, is evidence.  As the trope has it: the
plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

It's clear that many collections workers have labelling approaches
that appear to work well for them.  But collections management is
supposed to be (or at least is promoting itself) a science in support
of science.

If the topic of durability of labels in wet collections is not
receiving published analysis in a reproducible, well-designed manner,
then I can think of the following possibilities:

1) Collections workers just don't think it's an important topic.

2) Good studies have been done but the workers have not chosen to
publish them in peer-reveiwed scientific publications.

3) Workers have done various quick-and-dirty tests that wouldn't stand
up to peer review, and base their opinions on those.

I dismiss (1).  In my experience collections professionals work hard
to permanently associate data with specimens, and think this topic is
important enough to have extremely strong opinions on it.

I'm not sure about number (2).  Is there any disincentive to
publishing well-done work?  The writeup is usually the least
time-consuming part of a good study.

I fear that (3) is the most likely cause.  It disturbs me.  It implies
that collection workers are willing to base important long-term
decisions on inadequate evidence and are uninterested in advancing
their colleagues' work.

We don't expect a drug to be prescribed just because our doctor has
tried that chemical out on a couple of her patients and it seemed to
work.  We expect proper double-blind placebo-controlled trials for
both safety and efficacy, with adequate sample size, published in the
peer-reviewed literature.

We've come to realize that that is the best way of gaining and
establishing knowledge.  Anything less is inadequate.  Then why do we
accept anecdote when making decisions about long-term labelling of
irreplaceable specimens?

Basing recommendations on personal experience puts collections
management in a pre-scientific guild-style mode of operation.  Lore is
acquired through experience and passed down in oral tradition.  I
don't think that's good enough to ensure the survival of labels, and I
don't think it's good for the future of collections management.

Obviously (or perhaps not, since I feel the need to state it) I have
strong respect for experience in this and other fields.  But I think
we should be striving to move further and turn that experience into
rigorous, independently-confirmable results.  If I'm in a new museum
in a remote location, I should be able to find literature that
explores and tests the major issues I will face in conservation
(including labels in wet collections).  I should be able to find tests
of things that worked, tests of things that failed, analysis of those
results, with predictions of what will work and directions for future
research.  That's how we'll all be able to profit from the solid work
of our colleagues.

That's what I'm arguing for: evidence-based collections management.

-Dean
P.S. In the way of evidence, Howard Newman of Alpha Systems has
promised to send me literature regarding the thermal transfer
technology described by Andy Bentley.  I'm looking forward to seeing
it.
-- 
Dean Pentcheff
dean at crustacea.nhm.org