I'EBEUAKY 27, 1920] 



SCIENCE 



205 



and investigative work in geological elieni- 

 istry turned over to some central bureau of 

 chemistry. The same argument is believed 

 to be applicable also to physics. Research in 

 geophysics was at one time a recognized func- 

 tion of the United States Geological Survey 

 but since the founding of the geophysical lab- 

 oratory of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 

 ington, this field has been left almost entirely 

 to that splendid organization which is un- 

 hampered by some of the unfortunate re- 

 strictions of a government bureau. Under 

 these particular and unusual conditions this 

 course may have been wise, although it does 

 not negative the conclusion that, in general, 

 investigations in geophysics are logically and 

 properly a function of a national geological 

 survey. 



Soils. — The study of soils, with reference to 

 origin, composition and classification, is un- 

 questionably a branch of geology, but the 

 geologist, with tradition behind him, gener- 

 ally looks upon soil as a nuisance and geo- 

 logical surveys have reflected his attitude. In 

 the United States the classification and map- 

 ping of soil types has for some years been in 

 progress by the Department of Agriculture. 

 While quite devoid of any enthusiasm for 

 engaging in soil mapping, I wish to point out 

 merely that this work, if its results justify its 

 performance by the government, and if the 

 classification adopted is based on chemical, 

 physical and mineralogical character rather 

 than on crop adaptability, is properly a func- 

 tion of the national geological survey. 



Seismology. — Another subject that is com- 

 paratively neglected by national geological 

 surveys is seismology. It can scarcely be 

 asserted that earthquakes have no economic 

 bearing and conspicuous or destructive ex- 

 amples usually receive some official attention 

 — after the event. The comparative neglect 

 of systematic study of earthquakes is probably 

 due to a number of causes. One of these is 

 that few geologists specialize in seismology — 

 a science in which little progress can be made 

 unless the investigator possesses unusual qual- 

 ifications in mathematics and physics. An- 

 other reason probably is that to most men the 



difficulties in the way of gaining real knowl- 

 edge of the causes of earthquakes and espe- 

 cially of predicting with any certainty the 

 time, place, intensity and effects of earth- 

 quakes appear rather appalling. Finally earth- 

 quake prediction or even the recognition of 

 the possibility of futm^e earthquakes in a par- 

 ticular part of the coimtry is likely to have 

 consequences decidedly unpleasant to those 

 responsible for the prediction. Experience in 

 California has shown that a community still 

 staggering from a violent shaking may insist 

 with some acerbity that nothing of any con- 

 sequence has happened and that it never felt 

 better in its life. 



Notwithstanding these difficulties, I believe 

 that a national geological survey, in a country 

 where serious earthquakes have taken place 

 and may occur again, should consider the col- 

 lection and interpretation of seismological 

 data as part of its duty. Such work is 

 regional in scope and can not be carried far 

 by local initiative and by individual investi- 

 gators on their own resources. In spite of 

 difficulties I believe that it is within the range 

 of possibility that some day we shall be able 

 to predict earthquakes with sufficient relia- 

 bility to give the prediction practical utility. 



Summary. — Briefly summarizing what has 

 gone before, I conclude that the chief primary 

 function of a geological survey is geological 

 research and that the spirit of investigation 

 should be the same whether the work is under- 

 taken to increase knowledge and to serve as 

 the starting point for further attacks on the 

 unknown, or is begun with a definite eco- 

 nomic or practical result as its desired goal. 

 Compromise and concession are inevitable but 

 the necessity for making them should not and 

 need not permit the real purpose of the organ- 

 ization to sink from sight. If the members 

 of a scientific bureau can confidently feel that 

 those charged with its direction make such 

 concessions wisely with the higher purposes 

 of the bureau really at heart their whole atti- 

 tude towards their work will be entirely differ- 

 ent from that into which they will fall if they 

 become convinced that scientific ideals receive 



