An anatomical collection dissected: practical implementation of a national de-accessioning project Babke Aarts University Museum Lange Nieuwstraat 106 3512 PN Utrecht, The Netherlands E-mail: babke.aarts@museum.uu.nl Oskar Brandenburg, Andries J. van Dam* Leiden Museum of Anatomy PO Box 9602 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands E-mail: o.brandenburg@lumc.nl; a.j.van_dam@lumc.nl *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed Abstract This paper demonstrates how an extensive de-accessioning and preservation project at the Leiden Museum of Anatomy both improved its collection management and collection policy, and served to strengthen collaboration on a national level. By elaborating two representative examples, practical aspects of deaccessioning and preservation procedures are highlighted. The project resulted in a manageable, accessible and well-organized collection, matching the museums unique task within the Dutch Academic Medical Collection. Keywords anatomy, collaboration, collection harmonization, preservation policy, conservation, de-accessioning, disposal, Introduction Article 4.1 of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums is very clear about the subject of deaccessioning: ‘A key function of almost every kind of museum is to acquire objects and keep them for posterity. Consequently, there must always be a strong presumption against the disposal of objects or specimens to which a museum has assumed the formal title’ http://icom.museum/ethics.html, May 2004). However, during the past five years Dutch academic collections have undergone considerable de-accessioning. This paper will show the process by means of two representative examples out of 24 collections that were subject to de-accessioning. Medical collections dissected At the beginning of the 1990s, discussions on de-accessioning had become ubiquitous in the Dutch museums sector. The unlimited growth of museum collections had been brought into discussion mainly because of huge backlogs in documentation and preservation. The existence of such backlogs was most severely felt among custodians of academic collections. Therefore, an amount of 12 million guilders was rendered available by the State Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in 1 997. This particularly encouraged custodians of academic medical collections, who formed a project team to inventory the ‘Dutch Academic Medical Collection’ on sub-collection level. In 1999, this resulted in publication of an extensive report, ‘Medical Collections Dissected’, compiled in collaboration with the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage (Instituut Collectie Nederland) (Bergevoet 1999). Matching collection profiles on a national level As a result of different research programmes and the interests of individual professors, different fields of collecting are represented in each academic medical collection. The ICN report identified the sub-collections present in each of the classic universities, and proved a frequent occurrence of overlap. This former distribution of collections is shown in Table 1 (Bergevoet 1999). By means of a quality assessment on sub-collection level, each university could be provided with an appropriate collection profile (Table 2; Bergevoet 1999). In addition, the report states the possibilities for matching these profiles on a national level. De-accessioning In accordance with this view, the project team and ICN concluded that the quality of the Dutch Academic Medical Collection as a whole could be improved by reducing the amount of objects in it by 30 per cent (Bergevoet 1999). Not only would de-accessioning improve the content of the Dutch Academic Table 1. Former distribution of collections within the Dutch Academic Medical Collection (Bergevoet 1999) Table 2. Recommended collection profiles within the Dutch Academic Medical Collection (Bergevoet 1999) Medical Collection, additionally, decreasing the quantity of objects that constitutes it would unquestionably make it more manageable. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the latter must never be a reason to de-accession. Matching collection profiles on a national level enables the different universities to specialize in their complementary core collection. To achieve this each university was granted a budget to realize this proposed reduction within four years. The Leiden project Leiden Museum of Anatomy One of the institutions that benefited from this grant was the Leiden Museum of Anatomy (AML). The museum houses the largest medical collection in The Netherlands, covering anatomy, embryology, teratology, pathology, parasitology, and physical anthropology. Because of a strong affiliation with both the academic hospital of Leiden and its medical faculty, different research groups often regarded the museum as the most obvious custodian for their collections. However, the ad hoc nature of their acquisition policies often resulted in huge collections that were not always properly cared for. Consequently, because of the limited resources, the museum could not take the responsibility it was assigned. Storage conditions The faculty’s collections were mostly stored within the original faculty buildings. This scattered storage made control and maintenance of the collections quite difficult. In addition, environmental control was often lacking. The national macroscopic collection of bone tumours for example was stored in an inaccessible and extremely dusty cellar. This collection, which had been compiled over the past 50 years by a commission of specialists, consisted of 1300 specimens of diverse types and stages of tumour. Most of the collection was kept in plastic food boxes. Lids had become brittle and cracked, as a result of which the level of formaldehyde gases in the storage room was well above the safety limit. Above all, location administration was lacking, causing a tremendous job to link the specimens with piles of patient files to recover diagnoses and other crucial data. The Leiden microscopic collection of neuroanatomy consists very many serially sectioned animal and human brains. The most recent part of this collection is still in use as a source and reference for scientific research. The older part of the collection is the result of a lifetime’s labour by Jelgersma and is still highly appreciated by the scientific world for its neuroscientific and historical value (Marani et al. 1987). The recent research collection is stored in normal slice-boxes in open cabinets. However, the storage condition for the Jelgersma collection was far below museum standards. The slices were stored in cupboards, which were moved several times and finally ended up underneath a lecture room. Because of moving them, the cupboards had become distorted, and the doors would no longer close properly, leading to dusty and dirty slices. The wooden trays on which a lot of series were mounted were stuck into the cupboards, making it a difficult task to remove them safely without damaging the slices. Low ceilings and low light levels made it an unsafe area to work in (Figure 1). De-accessioning procedure With the newly established collection profile as a reference, an extensive deaccessioning and preservation project was set up. By May 2001, a project team had been compiled, and all infrastructural necessities had been provided. First of all, general criteria for de-accessioning the Leiden collections were developed. The guidelines on de-accessioning that ICN had developed in the meantime (ICN 1999) proved their value, and so did the criteria that ‘Medical Collections Dissected’ (Bergevoet 1999) provided. After adapting the criteria that proved to be substantial and practical to the Leiden collection profile, a clear and manageable procedure for comparing the pros and cons of de-accessioning objects and sub-collections emerged. Because the Leiden collection profile had served as a continuous reference, the resulting criteria were in accordance with factors like the national harmonization of collection profiles, the history of Leiden University and the use of objects for presentation or research (Table 3). Before de-accessioning, professional expertise was sought for each collection to ensure the correct decision was made on whether to keep or dispose of objects and sub-collections. With the regular assistance of experts, a collection manager, conservator and others, the project team was capable of applying the general criteria for de-accessioning to specific sub-collections (Table 4). Furthermore, a deaccessioning database was developed to create a proper administrative procedure. Decisions on whether or not to dispose of objects can be recorded at both object and sub-collection level. In the future the museum must be able to account for all de-accessioned objects and sub-collections Figure 1. Removal of the microscopic Jelgersma collection from its original cabinets. Wooden trays were packed in a custommade crate for safe transport Table 3 Criteria for keeping or de-accessioning objects and/or sub-collections Table 4 Composition of project team therefore, the database also provides possibilities for recording the criteria leading to the decision to either dispose of or keep the objects. Because there is no legislation concerning disposal of medical preparations in The Netherlands, the project team had to set up an operation procedure on disposal of fixated human preparations. In consultation with the medical faculty’s anatomical technician, a legal advisor and the Health and Safety Department a proper procedure was outlined with the generally accepted ethical considerations kept in mind. The overall process of deaccessioning and preserving collections is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Flow chart of the Leiden de-accessioning and preservation project Practical aspects of de-accessioning and preserving collections The previously mentioned collection of bone tumours is of great national importance. In the course of time the collection had gradually grown out of control. It was decided that it had to be subject to selection. A Leiden pathologist was asked to cooperate in the project. With his extensive knowledge of bone tumours, the general de-accessioning criteria were applied to the collection. It was the collection manager’s task to decide whether the physical condition of specimens was good enough to preserve them. During several practical sessions the collection was reduced by 90 per cent without harmful effects on the overall integrity. According to the new collection profile the neuroanatomical research collection was no candidate for museumization. In consultation with the Department of Neuroanatomy, care and management of the collection were transferred to the department itself. The Jelgersma collection had to be preserved because of its indisputable historical and scientific value (Marani et al. 1987). All Jelgersma series were subject to active preservation. However, this did not dismiss the possibility of disposal. During this phase, the members of the project team closely collaborated with the technicians of the Department of Neuroanatomy, to decide whether a slide could be preserved or not. The condition of the slices was in some cases so bad that restoration was not an option. In these two cases, the de-accessioned objects were destroyed. The transfer of human specimens to other heritage institutions was excluded because of legal and ethical restrictions. The objects were not transferred to fellow anatomical institutions because either they had no substantial value or their physical condition was poor. The material to be destroyed was subject to a very strict protocol. Recognizable human specimens (such as hands and feet) to be disposed of were put in a coffin and cremated by the undertaker affiliated with the University. Unrecognizable parts of the body were disposed of as biohazard waste. This meant that these specimens were put in plastic containers with a non-removable seal, which are used within hospitals. Owing to the unacceptable conditions in some of the storage rooms, precautionary measures had to be taken. Members of the project team never worked alone in these areas. When working on the bone tumours kept in formalin, it was necessary to wear protective suits, gloves and gas masks. These measures were designed in collaboration with the Health and Safety Department (Figure 3). All specimens, whether de-accessioned or kept, were entered in the deaccessioning database. To guarantee their future physical well being and accessibility, the remaining specimens were subject to both active and non-active preservation and thorough documentation. The collection of bone tumours was reduced to an amount of 100 specimens that all needed to undergo a preservation treatment. The specimens were kept in plastic boxes with snap-on lids, of which a major part was split resulting in excessive evaporation. These boxes are known to be highly permeable to oxygen. This could cause a lowering of pH of the preservative, which might in turn lead to gradual decay of the preserved specimen (Stoddart 1989, Van Dam 2000). Therefore it was necessary to renew the preservative and to put specimens in a different type of container. The following preservation procedures allowed the remaining specimens to be preserved and correctly stored within six weeks. Each single specimen needed to be rinsed thoroughly with running water, to get rid of all old acid preservatives. Because of time management issues, specimens were rinsed all together in one big tank. To separate specimens from each other, different coloured baskets were used. With a simple but efficient registration by colour and number, it was easy to keep track of each specimen (Figure 4). After the rinsing procedure, specimens were placed in new glass jars with a new preservative. The choice of preservative and container type was made after consulting the main users of this collection, the Department of Pathology. Considering future scientific use, the scientists pointed out that molecular and histological research would be of great importance. The formerly used preservative, formalin, might affect the DNA integrity of the tissue. It was important to minimize severe degradation of DNA in the specimens. Ethanol as an alternative was not considered an option, as it is known to destroy morphology on a cellular level. For these reasons it was decided to apply a buffered glycerol-based solution, known as Kaiserling. This preservative was used primarily for preserving blood colour in pathological specimens. Because of the importance of future scientific research, the specimens should be easily accessible. The jars suitable for this purpose should have an easily removable lid and at the same time a tight seal to prevent evaporation. The following types of jar were selected to meet these of demands. The first type is a screw top jar closed with a polypropylene lid with a Figure 3. Safety measures were taken when handling the macroscopic collection of bone tumours. For disposal of recognizable human remains, a coffin was provided by the affiliated undertaker Figure 4. Specimens were rinsed together in a big tank. Rinsing time (1–3 days) depended on size and density of the specimens polyethylene foamed liner inside. These jars are easily accessible, which means that they have an open and unrestricted neck. The second type of jar is a borosilicate glass cylinder, used for larger specimens. The jar is closed with a glass lid and petroleum jelly is used as a sealant together with a universal clamp system to tighten the lid. The Jelgersma Collection as a whole was subject to active preservation. According to Goodway (1995) the storage and packaging of microscopic preparations demands care to avoid breaking the glass or cracking the glass cover slip. It is preferable to store slides flat for the following reasons. The resins used as mounting media can be unstable, become brittle, crack or never harden completely. Also the adhesive on paper labels can dry out and loosen. Storing the slides vertically could allow the samples and labels to fall off, which makes it impossible to identify them. The museum has developed a storage system for the microscopic slides. The slides are cleaned, and placed on a corrugated polypropylene board with a framework, which protects the slides from damage (Figure 5). This material is very rigid, emission-free and durable but it is also of lightweight construction. Slides are protected from dust and light by placing the boards in an emission-free cardboard box (Figure 6). In this condition the collection can be transported without damage. The use of a translucent board allows the boards to be placed on a light viewer, which makes it easy to survey the condition of the mounting media slices (Brandenburg and Van Dam 2002). To enhance the accessibility and guarantee the future well being of the collections they were moved to a new, acclimatized storage facility. The collection of bone tumours, for example, is stored in cabinets with deep drawers. This method is space saving and the accessibility is improved (Figure 7). Figure 5. After selection, the Jelgersma collection was cleaned, rehoused and recorded in the database Figure 6. After cleaning, the Jelgersma collection was stored according to museum standards Figure 7. The collection of bone tumours was stored in durable easy accessible containers, which were placed in drawer cabinets Results In total, the museum eventually disposed of 48 per cent of its original collection including the transfer of collections that did not fit into Leiden collection profile. All de-accessioned items have been disposed of in a sound manner, and they have been recorded in a de-accessioning database to make sure their disposal can be accounted for in the future. The remaining part of the museums collection has been subject to thorough documentation and preservation. Because of this treatment, it has become manageable, accessible and well organized. To prevent uncontrolled growth of the museum’s collection in the future, all parties that were involved in the Leiden project will be discussing the status of sub-collections on a regular basis. The status of the collections that have been subject to selection procedures has become more obvious. The museum can now properly take care of those parts that can reasonably be called academic medical heritage. The report ‘Medical Collections Dissected’ (Bergevoet 1999) is currently being updated. The results of the de-accessioning and preservation projects are being summarized. Above all, as a result of the national harmonization of collection profiles, the museum now has its own unique task within the Dutch Academic Medical Collection. A platform for sharing knowledge and experience gradually developed, and in the course of the projects it has even been extended. As a result, it now covers all levels, from project management to preservation. Eventually, even staff were shared, resulting in the exchange of rare and specialist experience. Conclusion In 2001, The Leiden Museum of Anatomy started an extensive de-accessioning and preservation project. As a result of the national harmonization of profiles for academic medical collections, the museum had a clear and unique collection policy at its disposal. In close collaboration with expertise from both the academic hospital and the faculty of medicine, a well-considered deaccessioning procedure has been set up. In this way, the museum eventually reduced its collection to 52 per cent of its original size. The remaining items were preserved in consultation with the research groups involved. This extensive project resulted in a manageable, accessible and well-organized collection, matching the museum’s unique task within the Dutch Academic Medical Collection. According to the national harmonization of collection profiles for academic medical collections, other universities performed similar activities. This encouraged collaboration, resulting in the exchange of knowledge and experience. Above all, a well-balanced Dutch Academic Medical Collection has emerged, serving as a line of action for future collecting. Acknowledgements Many people participated in the Leiden de-accessioning and preservation project. We thank all of them and some of them in particular: Professor Dr H Beukers, Tiny Monquil, Mijke van den Berg, Donny Tijssen, Jeanette de Lange, Jorrit Schermer, Corneel Geus, Professor Dr P C W Hogendoorn, Professor Dr H K P Feirabend, Andries de Vries, Adrie van Weeghel, Freddy van Immerseel, Hennie Kuiters, Fred van Dam, John van der Kaai, Bram Wijnmalen, Jacques Rozier, Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science, the Mondriaan Foundation, and The Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage. We also thank Melissa Bavington and Vicky Purewal for reviewing the manuscript and providing comments. References Bergevoet, F, 1999, Medische collecties ontleed: instrumenten voor een nationaal collectiebeleid voor het academisch medisch erfgoed, Amsterdam, Instituut Collectie Nederland. Brandenburg, O and van Dam, A J, 2002, ‘You’ve got to move before you move’, Natural Sciences Conservation Group Newsletter 19, 9–13. van Dam, A J, 2000, ‘The interactions of preservative fluid, specimen container, and sealant in a fluid collection’, Collection Forum 14 (1–2), 78–92. Goodway, M, 1995, ‘Storage system for microscopical preparations’ in Rose, C L and de Torres, A R (eds.), ‘Storage of Natural History Collections: Ideas and Practical Solutions’, Iowa, Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, 269. Instituut Collectie Nederland, 1999, Concept-leidraad voor het afstoten van museale objecten, Amsterdam, Instituut Collectie Nederland. Marani, E, Roeling, T A P, et al. 1987, The Jelgersma Collection, Leiden, Stichting Neuroregulatie. Stoddart, R W, 1989, ‘Fixatives and preservatives: their effects on tissue’ in Horie, C V (ed.), Conservation of Natural History Specimens: Spirit Collections, Manchester, UK, University of Manchester, Department of Environmental Biology and the Manchester Museum, 1–25.