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.