[NHCOLL-L:3402] Re: Labels for wet collection

[Bentley, Andrew Charles]

Dean

There is a fourth option to add to the three scenarios you portray below.

The crux of the problem we are trying to solve is labels that will stand up to the rigors of wet collections (both chemically and physically) for hundreds of years.  Without having hundreds of years to reproduce these conditions it is difficult to come up with any hard and fast scientific evidence proving that a technology or material will withstand these rigors.  Even accelerated tests do not necessarily mimic these conditions accurately enough to give a definite answer while some of the conditions encountered (e.g, long term exposure to lipids) cannot be duplicated in accelerated tests.

And so, the collections community is doing the next best thing and adopting the scenario of learning from other people's mistakes and employing some trial and error to build up a wealth of excellent knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next and in that way perfecting one of the age old dilemmas of wet collections.

BTW, I have the data that Howard Newman is going to send you from their supplier of their media (and which was reported in my article in the SPNHC newsletter).  This gives an idea (again through accelerated tests) of how the media stands up to the tests of time and exposure to alcohol (I can guarantee it is clean alcohol) but does not give any indication of the interaction of the media and ribbon, stability of the ribbon or longevity of the ribbon/media interface when exposed to natural history collection alcohol or formaldehyde.

I, like many other collection managers have three little bottles sitting on a sunny window ledge in the museum all with labels in them that I peer at periodically to see if they have faded, if the ribbon is lifting off the media or if the media is discoloring or cracking.  I am using dirty museum alcohol for my tests and have noticed none of the above in the four years in which we have been using the thermal transfer printer technology - but do not have enough solid evidence to feel comfortable submitting any of this to a scientific peer reviewed journal.

I have been doing my best to circulate any evidence I do have to the community in the hopes that others will take up the charge and continue to provide more anecdotal evidence to support these claims and thereby expand the wealth of knowledge that will assist others in making these decisions in the future.

I would be happy to share the accelerated test data that I received from Alpha Systems with you if Howard doesn't come through.

Andy

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager/Specify Usability Lead
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu       
                                                
   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Dean Pentcheff
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:29 PM
To: nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:3400] Re: Labels for wet collection

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