Jim Barnes raises an interesting question.  I'd like to respond with an
attempt at the educational process a previous writer asked for, and to
say thanks to Jennifer S. for her most recent thoughtful posting.
 
Every conservator I know desperately wishes there was a source of
empirical research on the behavior of museum and conservation materials
over time.  Most of what we recommend is based on a combination of
extrapolation from knowledge of organic and inorganic chemistry; available
information on the chemistry of products; and clinical experience.  Few
conservators make arbitrary recommendations from a base of no experience.
*All* conservators spend a large part of their work-lives undoing damage
resulting from the well-intentioned but inadequately informed actions of
others, including earlier conservators.
 
The sad truth is that there are few conservation research resources (the
Getty Conservation Institute, the Library of Congress, the Conservation
Analytical Lab in Washington, the National Archives, and the Image
Permanence Institute in the U.S. and the Canadian Conservation Institute
in Canada; there are a few in other areas of the world).  They are are all
relatively small, and most are underfunded.  They can undertake limited
numbers of projects.  Those are chosen to match the interests and
capabilities of the lab, the breadth of applicability of results, and the
significance of objects likely to be affected by the findings.  The
commercial motive underlying most research just doesn't enter in.  There
are few if any commercial opportunities anticipated from conservation
science in the wildest imagination.
 
The Commission on Preservation and Access has identified a number of
critical, broadly useful areas where research is needed (e.g. a detailed
understanding of the impact of RH and temperature on the deterioration of
paper-based collections).  These questions, for which there is substantial
consensus on priority, are looking for hitherto unavailable support.
 
The question of the suitability of White-out for conservation-conscious
labelling can't compete for research priority.  Manufacturers don't make
White-out for this application and have no reason to explore long-term
stability issues, particularly in the context of anthropological or
historic artifacts.  They won't sell enough of it for this use to make
them care.  It works fine for its intended purpose.  It's not widely used
in the knowledgeable museum community for reasons that have been outlined
in this forum:  it has some predictable aging characteristics and
worrisome potential for interactions with objects; more conservation-
appropriate alternatives are available; conservators know enough about its
behavior and chemical composition to know it falls outside the parameters
of conservation safety.  Therefore they recommend against its use.
 
It is cheap, available, and easy to use.  Many, many people faced with
the need to label artifacts or specimens will continue to use it for
those reasons no matter what evidence is provided to mitigate against
it.  Weighing the cost:benefit, does this still seem a needed
research project?
 
 
Karen Motylewski
Director of Field Service
Northeast Document Conservation Center
100 Brickstone Square
Andover, MA 01810
(508) 470-1010
FAX (508) 475-6021
 
 
> The recent and no doubt to-continue contratemps regarding white-out and nail
> polish has raised some issues in our office.
> The question is this:  Has anyone bothered to do real empirical studies?
> Who does empirical studies (I'm not interested in opinions) on
> the stability, etc., of archival materials and where is that information
> published?