Regarding Matthew White's remarks: "...if a museum professional is less than adequate at their [sic] job no one will die, no innocent people will go to jail, no building's [sic] will fall, and no one's children will be doomed to illiteracy." This is true (normally), but incompetent museum workers or administrators can damage or destroy, steal or allow others to steal, significant artifacts of inestimable historical, scientific, or aesthetic value, diminishing forever our shared historical heritage and in effect destroying knowledge. Or they can hide such objects and prevent both scholars and the general public from having access to them. In the frenzy to present themselves as "educators," some museum professionals forget their fundamental status as stewards or guardians of knowledge--in the form of objects which are documents and residues of the past. To the extent that some of these objects require TLC and rehabilitation, or at least health maintenance strategies, I sometimes think of museums as hospitals for objects, with staffs of physicians, surgeons, technicians, etc. (not a perfect analogy, but hey, that's the nature of analogies); how many of these "patients" are the victims of museum malpractice? I don't know whether certification would reduce such problems, but I doubt it. My medical analogy was suggested by a television program on medical malpractice a couple of years ago, when the host asked if there was a "code" or "conspiracy" of silence which keeps physicians from ratting on each other so that they can go on killing patients through incompetence, indifference, inattention, etc. "Of course there is," I yelled at the TV (I don't do that very often), "and there's a code of silence in every profession" (vis-a-vis bad apples, that is). In many professions, it doesn't matter that much. Perhaps nothing is more serious than incompetence or malpractice in the health professions, but I don't think we should underestimate the importance of solid professionalism on the staffs of the institutions which safeguard knowledge, including knowledge residing in objects, documents, and books. It IS important, however you measure or certify it. Call me hopelessly idealistic, but I think we should encourage honest evaluation of workers by: peers (both "inside" and outside), supervisors and subordinates, and "customers" in most professions and institutions, not the least of which is museums. Oh, yes, getting back to people-- incompetent museum professionals not only can destroy objects, they can destroy others' careers as well. I'm thinking of several museums, by the way; you can read about it in my post-retirement book on the subject. There's a lot of talk about protecting whistle-blowers in government, but we need whistle-blower protection in in all fields. Hope this doesn't sound like too radical a rant. Finally, I'm concerned that recent changes in museum values may tend to direct attention away from collections and place them at even greater risk. --David Haberstich