Each architect's ability to translate complex notions of function into two-dimensional drawings into solid form is remarkably powerful, and it is a unique attribute of human minds. The architect's professional power can be used to design buildings that will foster better human health, or that can needlessly harm the inhabitants, depending on whether sufficient attention has been given to health and safety issues. As this conference itself has noted in its statement of purpose, There is growing concern about the health effects of biological contaminants in indoor air due to damp and moisture problems of The purpose of this follow-up meeting is to provide a forum for the discussion of new research findings and to provide professionals in this field with concise information and expert opinions. It is also an exceptional opportunity to learn of future trends in scientific research. The expert Conference in Saratoga Springs in 1998 discussed in detail many aspects of exposure assessment, clinical findings, cellular mechanisms of the health effects, case studies and prevention, mitigation and control of microbial problems associated with excess dampness and moisture in buildings. Laws and regulations, the rule of law as well as the laws of nature, control how buildings look, what functions they are allowed to serve and whether they will meet standards for inspection, occupancy and use that conform to the requirements in practice as well as under law. Yet, the shape and structure of buildings reflects human values that can either promote or hinder human health. As noted in the landmark report, BUILDING COMMUNITY, education is really about fostering the learning habits needed for the discovery, integration, application and sharing of knowledge over a lifetime...however, what this also points up is the architecture community's long history of failure to connect itself firmly to the larger concerns confronting families, businesses, schools, communities and society. In the area of indoor air quality, the controversy regarding the origins and impacts of so-called Sick and the political movement that has sprung up calling for Buildings, these views of the political shortsightedness of architects and their profession has proven to be prophetic. Yet, an architect's ability to translate complex notions of function into two-dimensional drawings, then into solid form is an untapped resource for tackling the problems of sick Architectural design is one of several tools; sometimes competing tools -- that can be used as an analytical system for problem-solving around human-created environments and the positive or negative impacts of those constructed structures upon human health. Scientific research regarding the health, potential health hazards, or safety and security of certain structures has yet to consider the profound implications of form, structure and uses of architectural design for various uses of Yet, there are instances where an architect's intervention can reduce exposure to mold or alter the airflow that breeds a vector for disease. The bringing together of architects, scientists and the lawyers who create housing codes, inspection criteria and other types of regulation could ultimately result in an unprecedented benefit whereby unhealthful building uses have been transformed through thoughtful design to improve their inhabitant's health, thus providing a better quality of life and significant cost savings from illness, at the same time. But such a grand and urgently needed meeting of the minds has yet to occur. The questions to be addressed when designing, constructing, regulating or using Health Buildings must be considered from the standpoint of at least three discisiplines: 1) scientific (with its myriad subdivisions and subspecialties); 2) law and regulation to prevent harms, remedy harms or improve conditions; and 3) architectural design that can modify actual conditions or design Healthy Buildings. Like three sides of a triangle, these disciplines, their perspective or angles on the specific problems raised by the need for healthy buildings are both distinct and interdependent. No structure can truly survive without considering the whole; missing one part, the structure falls away. So too, since buildings are actually three dimensional, it is possible that there are other disciplines that should be included in this discourse, that to be truly successful in the tasks of analyzing these problems, if we wish to make positive changes in the existing situations or the slow down the existing trajectory of potential harm, there must be a way to create a model for problem-solving discourse that is multi-dimensional, embracing more disciplines. Under the present situation, however, this concept of legal aspects and scientific concerns and architectural design would be addressed by three or four different conferences each in their respective professions. It is time, instead to cross-fertilize information by bringing in the considerations from other disciplines.