In response to John Simmons' comments on valuation, I would like to
add the following comments to the discussion.  Experience has shown
that the illicit trade in endangered species, cultural property or
stolen art has not been damaged by national governments, the
international community or museum staff taking the moral high road and
saying commercialization is bad and we shouldn't encourage that kind
of thinking by placing a monitary value on our collections.  Personal
experience has clearly demonstrated that when people are told the
"value" of a collection in dollars and cents that resources for its
care and research are more forthcoming.  A jaded view to be sure, but
realistic.  I agree with your comment that the line between priceless
and worthless is thin, and all too often they are equated to save
money on insurance premiums.
 
I thought your comment on DNA interesting.  Particualrly in light of
the ASC Guidelines for Institutional Database Policies.  They
recognize the potential value of DNA in natural history collections as
BOTH a record of biodiversity, and to the drug companies.  In the near
future, the people persuing your collections will not be provate
collectors, but the biotech/pharma companies.
 
I agree we need to ask first-principle questions about what we do to
ensure the long-term survival of the collections under our
stewardship, but we also must recognize the nature of the world we
live in.
 
Richard Gerrard
Registrar, Collections Management
Toronto Historical Board
[log in to unmask]