268 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1919. 
cessful, and other professional geologists have looked with more or 
less disdain upon those of their fellows who have tried to expound 
their science to the people. They have felt that men with unusual 
ability for research should devote all of their energy to the work of 
enlarging the confines of knowledge rather than to that of disseminat- 
ing and popularizing what is known to the few. There is undoubt- 
edly much to be said for this view, and when applied to certain ex- 
ceptional men it is strictly correct. When, however, we think of 
Darwin and compare the magnitude of his achievements with the 
pains that he took to make his conclusions comprehensible by the 
multitude, we are inclined to feel that only by extraordinary ability 
and performance in certain directions can an investigator in natural 
science be altogether absolved from the duty of making himself in- 
telligible to more than a few specialists in his own line. There are un- 
doubtedly many scientific men, thoroughly and earnestly convinced 
of the importance of their researches, who would in the long run be 
doing more for humanity and perhaps for themselves if they would 
spare some time to tell us as clearly and attractively as possible what 
it is that they are doing. While I believe this to be true of scientific 
men in general, it is particularly true of those who are officially serv- 
ants of a democracy. A democratic government might almost be 
characterized as a government by compromise, and this is one of the 
major compromises that confronts scientific men in the service of 
such a government. The conclusion that a very important function 
of a national geological survey is the education of the people in 
geology and the increasing of popular interest in that science appears 
to be unavoidable, yet it is surprising how little this function has 
been recognized and exercised. The results of such education are 
a direct and permanent gain to science, whereas, on the other hand, 
the consequence of prostituting the opportunities for scientific work 
to satisfy this and that popular demand for so-called practical results 
in anj^ problem that happens to be momentarily in the public eye is a 
kind of charlatanry that is utterly demoralizing to those who prac- 
tice it and that must ultimately bring even popular discredit on 
science. A bureau that follows such a policy can neither hold within 
it nor attract to its service men animated by the true spirit of 
investigation. 
METHODS OF EDUCATION. 
It is not practicable in the present address to discuss in detail 
the many possibilities of educational work in geology. Only a 
few general suggestions can be offered. 
In the first place the importance of education by a national 
geological survey should be frankly recognized, and the idea that 
it is beneath the dignity of a geologist to participate in this func- 
