Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Ttherefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future. The argument presupposes that ['the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is natural and cannot be prevented', 'the scientific analysis of museum exhibits can be performed in a nondestructive way', 'if a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations', 'it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future']