[NHCOLL-L:3391] Re: Labels for wet collection

[Dean Pentcheff]

One of the truly discouraging aspects of putting together our
"Collection Forum" study on laser printer labels in wet collections
was to find ourselves unable to cite any peer-reviewed experimental
tests of printed labels in wet collections.  That's because we
couldn't find any.

Properly designed reproducible experiments, analyzed appropriately,
are the accepted approach to gaining knowledge in science.  That
approach has proven to be far more effective than anecdote and
personal opinion.

To claim that tests of labels in jars without specimens "are pretty
much useless" misconstrues the way science works.  Our results were
that the labels, in clean solutions, showed good durability.  The test
is certainly not useless: it establishes the minimum requirement that
must be met before considering labels printed the way we did in the
solutions we tested.  Without doing that test, how could laser printed
labels in those solutions even be considered?

Of course, as John Simmons (and we) pointed out, those tests do not in
any way establish that there are never any conditions that will cause
them to fail.  But now we know that there are some conditions in which
laser printed labels are durable in the solutions we tested.

Without experiments, I really don't see how combinations of printers,
labels, and solutions are being chosen in an informed way.  If good
tests are being done, why are the results not being published?  If the
tests aren't well-enough designed to be published, then why does
anyone put credence in the opinions?

-Dean
-- 
Dean Pentcheff
dean at crustacea.nhm.org