Concerning Richard Gerrard's interesting comments to my previous
dissent on the question of valuation, I need to point out that I
did not say that "saying commercialization is bad" would in any way
lessen the illicit trade in natural history specimens (or the legal
trade either).  What I did say was that when natural history museums
start assigning dollar value to their specimens, this will be a
tremendous boost and assist to the commercial market, both the legal
market and the illegal market.  Natural history museums have already
seen many fossils appear on the market at prices they cannot afford.
Are museums ready to see a similar trade in other natural history
specimens flourish?  We don't have to go back very far in history
to find a time when natural history specimens were bought and sold
to the highest bidder, leaving many museums out of the game
entirely.  As just one example, in the UK there is still a flourishing
illegal market in egg sets.  Many UK museums have had eggs stolen from
them to feed this market, as well as eggs taken from protected species
in the wild.  Recognizing this illegal trade by slapping a monetary
value on the egg sets in museum collections is only going to help
this market.  And I have yet to hear anyone address the issues raised
when a museum administrator begins to view the collection as containing
many duplicates of egg sets with dollar values.  There is only one
Mona Lisa, but there are many elephant bird eggs.  The temptation to
sell collections will be played out with very different considerations
than it has been in art or history museums (and the record in those
museums is not always very pretty).
 
Regarding DNA, it sounds rather benign to say that biotech and
pharmaceutical companies will be "perusing" our collections in the
future.  No, they will be offering big $$$ for permission to do
destructive sampling of specimens.  Think for a minute about what
is required for DNA extraction.  As more countries such as Costa
Rica (and I believe also Australia, though perhaps it has only been
proposed there) seek patents for their living natural heritage,
these companies will turn increasingly to museums as sources of
material.  Before this happens, natural history museums need to
think long and hard and engage in a friendly, open debate about what
the best way to proceed is.
 
I need to repeat what was said in my first post:  before the
mechanisims of valuation are discussed, a lot more attention needs
to be paid to whether or not it should be done at all, and some
thought needs to be given to such things as commercialization of
the genetic data bank that preserved specimens will be seen as in
the future.  We are NOT talking about art objects here, we are
talking about natural history specimens.  Just because valuation
has been helpful (or non-hurtful?) in art museums does not mean
that it will work the same for natural history specimens.  Think
of what a fundamental change you are about to make.  At present,
without dollar values assigned to collections, it is possible for
collection management personnel to successfully argue that all
natural history specimens are equally valuable and all deserve
the same level of protection in a museum.  Once dollar values are
assigned, you will no longer be able to make that argument.  Are
you prepared to give this strength up?  Are you prepared to cope
with the unscrupulous board president or administrator who wants
to deaccession "just a few" of the "duplicate" specimens for monetary
gain?
 
John Simmons