Discussion focussed upon various problems that could arise with the banking of data and materials. Available data management programs were considered to be more cost effective. The comparison of data among laboratories has demonstrated the need for a standard format. The reevaluation of radiocarbon dates has met with a lack of responsiveness in the various laboratories. <i>Radiocarbon</i> remains as the primary reference for radiocarbon dates; several small programs are available, one having been implemented in California. The Society for American Archaeology and the Society for Archaeological Sciences have provided forums for the exchange of information. The criteria for selecting specific projects for scientific examination at the British Museum were brought up, but there was no response for discussion of how other laboratories have handled a similar situation. The lack of a dictionary definition for the word <i>archaeometry</i> did not hinder the discussion. See also abstracts of transcripts by Michael Tite, Christoph B. Ruger, Edward V. Sayre, Jaime Litvak, and Frederick R. Matson. -- AATA