Last February, many leading gemologists attended the very successful First World Emerald Congress in Bogotá, Columbia. Of particular concern to the participants was the topic of emerald treatments-- that is, the use of different fillers to improve the apparent clarity of the stone. All were aware of the negative publicity that emerald filling has received in recent months, and of the fact that some fillers are less effective or less durable than others, At the Congress, representatives from many of the major gemological laboratories sat together on a single panel to discuss this problem. A constant refrain from the audience, which included dealers as well as retailers, was: When were the GIA Gem Trade Laboratory, the Gübelin Gemmological Laboratory, SSEF, AGTA, and even Gems & Gemology, among others, going to resolve the treatment issue?

We, however, cannot address such problems without help from you in the trade. A meaningful gemological study-- whether done in the U.S., Europe, Asia, or South America-- often requires large numbers of samples, hundreds of hours of testing, and the participation of several experts to analyze the results. For example, the trace-element-chemistry project reported by Sam Muhlmeister and colleagues in this issue used 283 natural and synthetic rubies, from 14 localities and 12 synthetics manufacturers. As Dr. Mary Johnson reported at the Emerald Congress, the emerald treatment study that GIA is currently spearheading required almost 300 emerald samples, all natural, from a number of known localities. Several fillers are being tested by various means to determine both their effectiveness and their durability under normal conditions of wear and care.

Often the greatest delay in conducting such a study is in acquiring the samples. Unlike universities or government research institutions, the research conducted by most gemological laboratories is not supported by outside funding. You are the experts on buying and selling gems, so most of you know what it costs to purchase 300 one-half to one carat emeralds or rubies. In addition, even though for many projects the samples do not have to be large or expensive, it is critical that they be representative of the particular locality, manufacturing process, or treatment under investigation-- information that often can be provided only by members of the trade. As a result, researchers may have to work for years to obtain the stones for a single research project. For the ruby study, some samples were donated, many were loaned, and others were purchased. Our hats are off to all of the people who participated (more than 30 individuals and companies for that study alone). Still, some dealers leave request letters unanswered or make promises they cannot keep, consuming precious time. Then, when the pressure is on from consumers and the media, these same dealers want to know what's taking so long.

As the gem and jewelry industry is faced with ever-more-pressing issues regarding the disclosure of treatments and synthetics, comprehensive research will become even more important. Knowledge gained from the scientific study of gem materials and their treatments is necessary to maintain confidence in the industry by our colleagues and consumers alike. The use of broad, representative sets of samples, accompanied by reliable information about the sources (or treatments) of the stones, is critical to many of these research projects.

So, please, think about it. And the next time you're asked, send some stones, provide information, share your experience and... support your local researcher.