>
> I agree with John Simmons' opinion that Natural History Collections
> should not be assigned a monetary value.  The specimens have an
> intrinsic value; they are priceless.   Intrinsic means, that by
> definition their value is: "...belonging to the real nature of a thing;
> not dependent on external circumstances..."  External circumstances
> such as market value change depending on demand.  Demand is influenced
> by collectors, hobbyists and what may be "in vogue", rather than
> the scientific value to a researcher or the educational value provided
> to a student or member of the public.
>
> Just my (strong) opinion...
> Carol K. Malcolm
> Texas Natural History Collection
> Texas Memorial Museum-UT Austin
>
 
Don't the intrinsic values of collections change in relation to what
is scientifically or educationally "in vogue" as well?  Do the large
phrenology collections gathered in the 19th century still have the
same intrinsic value they has when they were collected?  All
collections are a product of what was in vogue at the time of their
creation.  As such they are archival documents about the history of
science worthy of preservation intact for just that reason.
 
However, I don't see how using an alternate measure of value (a
current fair market value) as well as an intrinsic
scientific/educational value to defend these objects can be bad.  It
seems, in my experience with administrators and directors, to be much
more easily grasped by these non-specialists.  I wish the intrinsic
value arguement was enough, but all too often it is not.
 
Richard Gerrard