Our silent enemy: ashes in our libraries

Abstract

SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS, PHYSICIANS, OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, AND LIBRARIANS FACE A CRUCIAL DECISION TODAY: shall we nourish the biomedical archives as a viable and indispensable source of information, or shall we bury their ashes and lose a century or more of consequential scientific history? Biomedical books and journals published since the 1850s on self-destructing acidic paper are silently and insidiously scorching on our shelves. The associated risks for scientists and physicians are serious-incomplete assessment of past knowledge; unnecessary repetition of studies that have already led to conclusive results; delay in scientific advances when important concepts, techniques, instruments, and procedures are overlooked; faulty comparative analyses; or improper assignment of priority. The archives also disclose the nature of biomedical research, which builds on past knowledge, advances incrementally, and is strewn with missteps, frustrations, detours, inconsistencies, enigmas, and contradictions. The public's familiarity with the scientific process will avoid unrealistic expectations and will encourage support for research in health. But a proper historical perspective requires access to the biomedical archives. Since journals will apparently continue to be published on paper, it is folly to persist in the use of acidic paper and thus magnify for future librarians and preservationists the already Sisyphean and costly task of deacidifying their collections. Our plea for conversion to acid-free paper is accompanied by an equally strong appeal for more rigorous criteria for journal publication. The glut of journal articles-many superficial, redundant, mediocre, or otherwise flawed and some even fraudulent-has overloaded our databases, complicated bibliographic research, and exacerbated the preservation problem. Before accepting articles, journal editors should ask: If it is not worth preserving, is it worth publishing?It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of our biomedical records against all threats. Authors should consider submitting manuscripts to journals that use acid-free paper, especially if they think, as most authors do, that they are writing for posterity. Librarians can refuse to purchase journals published on acidic paper, which they know will need restoration within a few decades and will thus help deplete their budgets. All of us can urge our government to devise a coordinated national conservation policy that will halt the destruction of a century of our historical record. The battle will not be easy, but the challenge beckons urgently. The choice is ours: we can answer the call, or we can deny scientists, physicians, and historians the records they need to expand human knowledge and improve health care.