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?