INTRODUCTION

In what is rapidly becoming the worst of all possible worlds geology is still the best of all possible professions. Did we not think so we would not all be part and parcel of it. But, contrary to Thoreau's dictum that "even the best things are not equal to their fame" geology is at least one "best thing" whose fame, far from being equal, is practically non-existent. I have long been of the opinion that the fault lies not with the stars but with us, and that the situation should be analyzed critically with a view toward arriving at a constructive program for improving the national standing of our science. Realizing that criticism comes more gracefully from an older and wiser man, I have long waited for some Nestor of the profession to come forth to assume the natural onus of being the orst critic of all--a critic within the fold. None has yet appeared. Therefore with full realization of the horrendous crime I am about to commit I propose to present a friendly philippic against the entire geological fraternity.

DECLINE OF INTEREST IN HUGH MILLER AND GEOLOGY

The decline of public interest in geology and geologists during the past 75 years can be well illustrated by the case of Hugh Miller, who now, unfortunately, is as little known to most geologists as to the laymen. Yet as recently as 1880 the name of this great geological essayist was still on the lips of all the world's literate who had been avidly reading his works for 40 years.

Some ten years ago, to my great delight I stumbled onto 13 volumes of Hugh Miller's collected writings bound in half leather beautifully tooled. The bookseller assured me that the price he was asking--$10--represented not more than a

End_Page 1221------------------------------

quarter of the cost of binding. The writings of the forgotten author were thrown in gratis. Sic transit gloria!

All of Hugh Miller's published works were liberally sprinkled with geology--five volumes are almost entirely geological--and though his style was graceful and easy to read he did not hesitate to introduce difficult scientific terminology. Despite this fact my copy of his Old Red Sandstone, dated 1874, is the 19th edition of a book originally published in 1841. The Footprints of the Creator or the Asterolepis of Stromness--imagine that subtitle booming the sale of a book to-day--is represented in my bargain purchase by the 16th edition. But, you may say, editions were small in those days. So they were for most works--not for Hugh Miller's. My copy of his Testimony of the Rocks, far from his most popular book, is labeled "42nd thousand." Considering the great increase in the size of the reading public during the past 75 years, it is accurate to say that, for their day, at least three of Hugh Miller's geological books had a circulation greater than that of Gone With the Wind!

The final depths to which Hugh Miller's reputation has plunged can best be indicated by the fact that through the years encyclopedias have, with each new edition, devoted less and less space to his life and labors, and, since 1919, his name has been deleted.

The diminution of public concern with Hugh Miller may be taken as symbolic. The seriousness of the situation for us all probably is less apparent to the petroleum geologist than to other members of the profession for even the moppets of some petroleum centers think, as the story goes, that the three fundamental branches of education are not "Readin', writin', and 'rithmetic," but "Readin', writin', and geo-oil-ogee"! But if you were to consider this a national rather than an extremely provincial reaction you would be playing the ostrich with a critical problem which has gradually crept up on the geologists.

PRESENT NATIONAL STANDING OF GEOLOGY

To be brutally frank, in the English-speaking world, geology has no very high standing as a science. It is considered a nuisance by many college administrators and, all too commonly, if taught at all, courses in the subject are conducted reluctantly by the junior member either of the chemistry or the biology department. University presidents grudgingly give their departments of geology space, usually though fortunately not universally, in the oldest building on the campus, and ordinarily in its basement or attic. Professors of geology are commonly the lowest paid on their respective campuses, and their budgets are ordinarily lower than the base of the Archeozoic. One eminent geologist of my acquaintance, whose name is known to most of you as well as to our colleagues in all lands wher the subject is taught, once existed on a non-salary budget of five dollars, while a good many men in other departments--some not known beyond their own quadrangles--were being supported a hundred to a thousandfold more generously.

Geology is so poorly regarded by our scientific cousins that not more than one

End_Page 1222------------------------------

out of five majors either in the physical or biological sciences takes a single course in the subject. Do you realize the full import of what I am saying? I am stating the bald fact that on a national basis more than 80 per cent of the mathematicians, chemists, physicists, botanists, zoologists, and medical men never have any scholastic contact with the subject of geology. Moreover, the professional educators think so little of the value of geological training that to-day approximately 99 out of 100 high-school students have had no formal educational contact with the planet on which they live. This is in marked contrast to the situation during the heyday of Salisbury's Physiography, when it is estimated, 25 per cent of all American high-school students had at least one formal course i geology.

Partly as a result of, and importantly contributing to, the situations just described, geology has for years been given scant space in newspapers and magazines, and almost no time on the radio. The geologist who is in college or university administration is a rara avis--perhaps this is not an unmixed evil--geologists in positions of real national power are non-existent,(FOOTNOTE 3) and even more disturbing, members of the profession on important national scientific or advisory groups are as scarce as mammals in the Mesozoic. Even in the petroleum world all too many corporations and independent operators maintain geological staffs as a stylistic conformity, and do so more or less with tongue in cheek. But the zenith of my personal irritation with the general situation stems from two ot er facets of it--namely, that geology no longer attracts the very best type of graduate students--though it would be a mistake to assume that it does not still lure some superlatively good men--and that geologists, by a combination of circumstances, have been--and probably for some time will be--circumvented in adding their full and important talents to the country's total resources for winning the war.

EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF PROFESSIONAL STANDING

GENERAL STATEMENT

By this time you may be pardoned for believing that I look at geology and its future with a completely jaundiced eye--and that I am also suffering from a case of virulent scientific nationalism. In both beliefs you would be correct, but my ophthalmic difficulties can be cured if only I can infect you all with my second, and I hope, incurable disease. My expression of concern regarding a science which I love, and which has undoubtedly treated me far better than I deserve, is not to be considered a disappointed groan from an ingrate. My apprehensions for the future of the science of geology are genuine and they have been born of long and considered observation. I am sure that the data I have collected amply support all the flat, and probably non-diplomatic statements I have just made. L ck of time and space prevent me from documenting these data completely but a few of the many lines of evidence, given in abbreviated form, may be of interest.

FOOTNOTE 3. The case of Mr. Herbert Hoover does test, but fails to controvert, the rule, for while President, and since, I can not find that he was ever referred to as a geologist, though he took his training in geology. How much the physicists or chemists, quite properly, would have made out of a comparable situation I am afraid to state.

End_Page 1223------------------------------

LACK OF GEOLOGICAL ITEMS IN THE PUBLIC PRINT AND ON THE AIR

An extended and long continued search through the newspapers--excluding those of the oil centers--will reveal a strange lack of geological stories or items. Even more annoying, when rarely, such a story is found, the actual word "geology" fails to appear in connection with it. Even at convention times, although the local papers may carry some items, the national newspaper coverage varies from weak to non-existent.

A similar search for geological items in the magazines of all types, excluding, of course, the strictly scientific, will be similarly unrewarded. I am not making this up or relying on an impression. I ask you to make any test to satisfy your doubts. No matter how you choose the magazines--no matter how long a period of time is involved--you are in luck if you can find the word geology. From 20 to 50 articles each appear on chemistry, physics, medicine, and biology, for every one which discusses any phase of our own subject.

A careful search through the pages of many issues of Life did, however, reward me, with the following information: all-American tackle Alf Bauman "majors in geology"; "Lady MacRobert is an amateur geologist of distinction"; and "The University of Texas owes much ^hellip to the geological conformations underlying the Texas land." But the leading article in Life of March 23rd, 1942, entitled "Industrial Chemistry," is even more typical of the many articles which could do geology some good, but do not. It failed to mention geology although raw materials were stressed, and sulphur, potash, coal, and petroleum were individually discussed. Among other things the author said: "Like sodium, potassium ^hellip is mined from the beds of ancient seas," and he went on to explain, "Shown here is th rosy-pink potash ore mined by the Potash Company of America, in the Permian Sea deposit, 1,000 feet below New Mexico's soil." This article also featured salt and limestone, reproduced a panorama of geologic life, shown vaguely, and introduced the phase "solid silica (SiO₂), a chief constituent of 'earth's crust'." But no "geology"!--No, Sir!--editorially the word must be practically taboo!

PUBLIC APPETITE FOR GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Can this be the result of the public's apathy to, or genuine distaste for, things geological? I do not think so. The public's largely unsatisfied curiosity regarding the geological aspects of our National Parks--whose chief raison d'etre is geological--is almost embarrassingly great. The public's preoccupation with things dinosaurian--if not geological--is the basis for a national advertising campaign, or possibly the result of it. The entire situation poses a paradox. The layman apparently continues to have some appetite for our subject, but he perforce must get along on short rations. Some six years ago, pondering this anomaly, I wrote in the preface of an introductory text on geology:

We find it just a little hard to understand man's intelligent and commendable interest in Arcturus, and the time it takes light to come from that distant star, when he seems so

End_Page 1224------------------------------

abysmally ignorant of many facts concerning the planet from whose vantage point he scans the heavens. We are continually amazed at the student's familiarity with hydrogen, which he cannot see, and his apparent woeful ignorance of the hydrosphere, which he can see and feel and which is all about him. We are eternally surprised at the layman's attempt to understand atoms, electrons, and genes, which he cannot directly observe, and his lack of knowledge concerning rocks, minerals, and fossils, which he can not only see but can collect in his ordinary rambles in the out-of-doors.

The well known English geologist, A. E. Trueman, F.R.S., in the preface of his Scenery of England and Wales, made a somewhat similar observation, as follows:

Geology is pre-eminently the layman's science. In it more than in any other science there is opportunity for a beginner to make original observations, to weigh up evidence, to coordinate his facts and in general to acquire a truly scientific outlook, whereas a layman can do no more in many sciences than accept ready-made conclusions, often explained by clever but dangerous analogies, without any prospect of understanding the steps by which they have been reached.

But perhaps the public at large takes a perverse pleasure in avoiding the subjects they could comprehend in favor of those which can only give them obscure glimmers of understanding, for, as Prezzolini says in his life of "Nicolo Machiavelli," "a thimble full of obscurity is worth more in gulling mankind than a barrel of clarity."

The real answer to the paradox, however, probably rests in the geologist's innate dislike of publicity, which is really one manifestation of his hypertrophic bump of false modesty. Our competitors in the sciences are not so afflicted. As proof let me cite a rather typical bit of physics publicity entitled "Gota Match?"

The cyclotron weighs eighty tons. It stands 20 feet high. It takes 100,000 watts of electricity to run it. It smashes atoms. It contributes greatly to medical and physical sciences. Last week a newspaper photographer placed a cigarette in front of the new emission chamber and then retired behind five-foot thick ray-absorbing water tanks and peeked through a port with his camera. The Research Associate slowly and carefully turned on the power. A blue-violet ray an inch thick appeared, extending 14 inches from the emission chamber. In it the cigarette tip glowed red. The camera clicked. The four year old cyclotron had lit its first cigarette.

So far as I can determine, scientifically such jargon is practically meaningless to the average laymen; yet, to stoop to the patois, the public literally eats it up. It makes them think that physics is a great subject. But to the average geologist, who even balks at the phrase "Old Mother Earth," such an account is anathema--and probably correctly so. Yet there can be excellent, dignified geological publicity, and the public really yearns for it.

The geologist who attempts to satisfy that desire with an honest popularization of his subject should not immediately lose caste in his profession as is presently the case. The heavy restraining hand of geological opinion has, in a large measure, prevented us from selling our subject to the public.

Clifton Fadiman, in the New Yorker for July 5, 1941, gives expression to the

End_Page 1225------------------------------

reality of the public desire for geological information in his review of Mary King's Quincie Bollivar. He says:

Miss King is not interested in the oil industry per se or its connection with the rest of American life.

If Miss King ^hellip were more generous with her interesting side excursions into the mysteries of petroleum geology ^hellip she would have written a better, less pretentious novel.

GEOLOGICAL SELF-EFFACEMENT VERSUS GENERAL SCIENTIFIC SELF-ASSERTION--SOME OF THE RESULTS

Let us now contrast the standard geological self-effacement notion--a very good idea which we carry too far--with a bit of the self-assertiveness of the physicist. According to Time of May 26, 1941, the University of Chicago's distinguished physicist (and the present president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), Arthur Holly Compton, has stated that "in modern warfare 100 trained physicists may be more valuable that 1,000,000 infantrymen." This is not only resounding rhetoric, but it is doubtless an assertion devoid of hyperbole.(FOOTNOTE 4) In fact, most American scientists and military authorities are inclined to agree completely.

It would be no exaggeration, however, similarly to state that the 3,730 members of the A.A.P.G. are also actively engaged in a phase of national defense work, and a most vital phase at that, the discovery of petroleum--the chief fuel sinew of the war. But until very recently geologists have been reluctant to point out that the small army of workers in this Association may be as valuable as the entire army which the United States can raise by any draft system whatever. Since such a statement would be factual and not fictional, it is the sort of assertion which might well be made to the general public for the common good as well as to the specific advantage of the science of geology. But such a statement is even now being made only via committee action not by way of broadside to the pub ic because, for some perverse reason, geologists are completely conditioned to playing their subject down, not up. Our scientific colleagues in the other physical sciences, have never been trammelled by such medieval notions of modesty, and their assertiveness, which seems to border on arrogance to the average member of the geological fraternity, has paid those scientists rich dividends.

Arrogance is not a new thing in the physical sciences, for its roots go back at least fourteen centuries. Aryabhata (born, 476), the famous ancient Indian mathematician and astronomer, said in his Aryabhatiya:

He who disparages this universally true science of astronomy (and mathematics), which formerly was revealed by Svayambhu, and is now described by me in this Aryabhatiya, loses his good deeds and his long life.

Astronomers, mathematicians, biologists, especially physicists, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, chemists, have been saying the same thing with slightly different

FOOTNOTE 4. Director Henry Askew Barton of the American Institute of Physics recently stated (Time, May 11, 1942): "The last war put chemistry on the map. This is a war of physics."

End_Page 1226------------------------------

phraseology throughout the 14 intervening centuries with a rather telling effect on the minds of laymen, educators, administrators, and all those who in one way or another "shape the budget," or plan the national design.

"But really, now," you may well ask, "Isn't this all just scientific gossip? Have there actually been any adverse effects on our science?" Many doubtless will disagree but I maintain that all the factors mentioned, and many others, combine to produce an enormously deleterious result. As just minor bits of evidence, recently advertised survey texts, entitled "This Physical World," or some variation of the words, virtually ignore geology. A McGraw-Hill advertisement for a current German-English science dictionary states that words covering some 15 specifically mentioned scientific fields are included. Geology is apparently not even in this none-too-exclusive company.

The Dow Chemical Company does not hesitate to advertise "Dow Plastics--Product of Chemical Progress" and "Chemicals Indispensible to Industry and Victory."(FOOTNOTE 5) Would that we had some word such as "geologicals," and some irrepressible believer in the value of our own subject--some intrepid geological nationalist--so that just one company could be persuaded to advertise "Geologicals--Foundations of the Modern World." General Electric is always featuring its physicists and their work in their public relations program, but Jones and Laughlin, with an excellent two-page advertisement in a recent issue of Time, fail to mention geology or geologists although their central theme is Lake Superior iron and the iron ranges. More pertinent to this assemblage let me ask how often have your own companies played up geology and geologists in their advertising? I recall a very few unimportant instances in the past 15 years--perhaps I have missed the significant ones.(FOOTNOTE 6)

GEOLOGY ON THE AIR

Let me now ask how many of you have heard a really good geological radio program? (I admit there have been a very few.) Or how many have even heard the word "geologist" on the air? I did, not long ago, on the Fibber McGee program. The program developed something like this. Horatio K. Boomer, who had been out of circulation for some time, was asked what he had been doing. He replied, "I was an Arkansas geologist--very interesting profession." McGee pressed Boomer to tell just what he did, and the reluctant explanation was, "An Arkansas geologist makes little rocks out of big ones." I am afraid that this may be the all-too-general public notion of the definition of any kind of a geologist.

It is true that the Geological Society of America sponsored a fine series of eight 15-minute radio addresses in December, 1938, and in the Spring of 1939, of which there should be more. These addresses were grouped under the title "Frontiers

FOOTNOTE 5. Note in Time magazine and elsewhere Monsanto Chemical Company's advertisement entitled "The Mud whose name is CHEMISTRY."

FOOTNOTE 6. The Santa Fe R.R. in a recent brochure entitled "Grand Canyon Outings" labels one of the 40 pages "A Course in Geology." This is not much but it is a satisfactory beginning. Other railroads serving scenic sections should be persuaded to follow this lead.

End_Page 1227------------------------------

of Geology" and were well presented by outstanding experts in the subfields of our subject. The speakers, however, were geological and not national, or even radio personalities. I listened to the programs with interest, but their Crosley ratings were undoubtedly dismal. I have found few persons even in the geological fraternity who heard our experts. Contrast this fine but not very productive geological attempt with the excellent results (on chemistry, and du Pont) of the long sustained Cavalcade of America program whose catch phrase is "Du Pont--Creator of Better Things for Better Living, Through Chemistry."

If The Pure Oil Company, which owes a great deal of its success to its geologists, could be persuaded to instruct H. V. Kaltenborn to change his characteristic newscast conclusion by only a few words, the improvement in the national standing of our profession would be electrifying. I fully realize that to some conservative geologists this will seem a superlatively silly assertion. Nevertheless, I contend that the statement is valid. Let Mr. Kaltenborn merely say, and continue to say, "And here is Lyle Van for The Pure Oil Company"--as he does at present, but let him add, "Whose geologists are busy finding one of the chief sinews of war--petroleum."

THE G.S.A. AND PUBLICITY

That the Geological Society of America was not wholly enthusiastic about its radio program may be judged from Professor Berkey's foreword to the booklet containing the scripts of the G.S.A. radio addresses. He said:

"The Geological Society has never given special attention to publicity." This is a majestic understatement. Dr. Berkey continues, "Its major purpose is the 'Advancement of geology in North America' and in keeping with that objective its interests are in developmental research rather than in education." It seems to me that the one is quite useless without the other, but it is obvious that for any one of a dozen reasons a society may wish to stress certain aspects of the subject it represents rather than the others. Dr. Berkey goes on, "Nevertheless, there is no lack of appreciation in the membership that there must be a certain responsibility attached to a society standing for so large a field." There is, some would insist, a definite responsibility. Dr. Berkey further states that "It ight on occasion be as useful to spread the available information as to make its discovery." Perhaps the implication here is that the discoverer plays a more important role than the disseminator. This is doubtless true, but is it not always the scientist's duty to spread his information, or at least to see that it is spread, and spread accurately, by sympathetic and understanding agencies?

The plain truth is that many influential members of the Geological Society of America do not really believe in publicity, of any sort, and they make a pretty strong case for their point of view. My experience with their reactions is first hand, and results from a term of office as member of a committee of the G.S.A. appointed to examine the feasibility of properly publicizing geology. The committee report, submitted in December, 1935, stressed, not too diplomatically I

End_Page 1228------------------------------

am afraid, a few of the factors which I have tried to outline in this paper. Not surprisingly the report was not particularly well received. Its suggestions were not acted upon, and the committee was dismissed. Through the activity of two of our Association members, George C. Branner and Frank R. Clark, who were members of the G.S.A. committee, however, some short excerpts from its report were published in the Association Bulletin.

It is clear that because of its organization and ideals the G.S.A., very much more advisedly than I once thought--or some of you now think--may well hesitate to engage too directly in anything but the most discreet publicity program. On the other side of the question, because of the seriousness of the situation, and because of the dominance of the G.S.A. in many parts of the American geological picture, it is probably still fair to try to persuade that Society to take a more active interest in public education. There is, indeed, some evidence that the G.S.A. is gradually shifting its position in this matter and that it could be persuaded to give more than surreptitious lip service to a well thought out program of public instruction under the direct aegis of this Association which has omewhat less need for dignity and hence for qualms. Moreover, as you know in this organization, much of the machinery is already well set up for the work, and it is in competent hands. It would, however, be most inaccurate to suppose that this Association, either as a unit or through its committee on applications of geology, has been aggressively active in educating the public regarding geology.

GEOLOGICAL DISUNITY THROUGH MULTIPLICATION OF GEOLOGICAL SUBFIELDS

I now must mention another one of our weak points--general disunity of geologists--a fault which doubtless contributes largely to our lack of strength. There are always among us those who wish to establish separate departments of meteorology, of mineralogy, of paleontology, and of geophysics. There are all too many men in our profession who by every possible evasion avoid admitting they are geologists. What in heaven or its antipodal area is wrong with being a geologist? Why not for public, and non-professional purposes at least, drop the terms, mineralogist, paleontologist, physiographer, petrographer, geomorphologist, geophysicist, geochemist, and geo-everything else?

The confusion in our ranks--the lack of unity which is so harmful--in part results quite naturally from the fact that our science rests far from the base of the scientific pyramid. The situation, its pitfalls, and methods for their avoidance, however, are well summarized in certain excerpts from H. H. Swinnerton's 1939 anniversary address as president of the Geological Society of London, as follows.

When I was considering what subject to take for this address a keen young geologist suggested to me that I should not talk about paleontology, but that I should deal with some geological topic. This differentiation between paleontology and geology, by such a geological enthusiast, made me wonder for a moment whether all these years I had been living in a fool's paradise, imagining a paleontologist to be a geologist, when in reality

End_Page 1229------------------------------

he was an unwanted nondescript. Then it occurred to me that the suggestion really reflected a dispersive attitude of mind which is doing grave injury to the science of geology. This attitude owes its development, at least in part, to the fact that our science is one which has many frontiers, and that it is sometimes difficult to know when we have crossed the frontier into some other branch of science, from paleontology into biology, geomorphology into geography, mineralogy and petrology into chemistry and physics. The specialist in any one of these aspects of geology is inclined to think of others as working in one of the kingdoms beyond the frontiers.

This attitude must tend to have a disintegrating influence upon our science, and to weaken its hold upon the minds of the educated public and of those who are responsible for the guidance of our educational system. Whatever our special interests may be it behoves us to safeguard our science as a whole.

"Geology is the science which investigates the history of the Earth." Expanding the phrase "history of the Earth," Sir Archibald Geikie first refers to the unravelling of its physical history, naturally including in this the history of climates and surface forms. He then goes on to say: "Nor does the science confine itself to changes in the inorganic world," and he proceeds to devote as much space as he gave to the physical, in showing that geology is just as deeply concerned with the progression of living forms, for they also play their part in earth history.

The mountaineering geologist, standing on some lofty viewpoint, contemplating wondrous scenery and breathing the clean air of the heavenly heights, may be forgiven for exclaiming, "Ah! this is geology!" But he who in less inspiring surroundings excavates the jaws of an echinoid, or measures the changing proportions of a lamellibranch, in order to discover the laws and processes which culminated in the production of a geologist on a mountain peak, may also justly claim to be a student of earth history. Unbending his back, he too may truthfully exclaim, "Ah! this is geology!"

Another interesting sidelight on this point, which also seems to indicate that much of our disunity is of our own manufacture, is found in Dr. Harold Jeffreys' reply to president Swinnerton when, for outstanding work in geophysics, he was presented with the Murchison Medal of the Geological Society of London. Dr. Jeffreys said in part:

Mr. President: ^hellip I am particularly impressed by your recognition that geophysics has something to do with geology, though perhaps you may not go so far as I should and say that geology is one of the most important parts of geophysics.

I take this opportunity, Sir, of again thanking you, and of expressing the hope that the increasing cooperation that is now taking place between different earth sciences will be for the benefit of all.

EQUIVOCAL POSITION OF GEOLOGISTS IN THE MINDS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS AND IN THE WAR EFFORT

I have implied that we geologists are at fault in letting our professional standing suffer at least in the eyes of the nation. But has that standing really suffered? I think so. As further proof let me quote briefly from Raymond B. Fosdick's Rockefeller Foundation review of 1941. He says:

^hellip Concern for the future is a matter of stern, practical sense. The specialized talents and abilities that are meeting this emergency and those that will meet emergencies to come are not produced by feverish last-minute activities. No amount of pressure can suddenly create a supply of thoroughly trained and broadly experienced physicists, mathematicians,

End_Page 1230------------------------------

chemists, biologists, economists, and political scientists. These men represent the trained intelligence without which a war cannot be won, or a lasting peace achieved. They emerge spontaneously, unpredictably, but irresistibly out of long, patient and sustained effort.

The natural sciences, whether in physics or biology or chemistry, can and will be used to serve a world at peace as well as at war.

This is a fine sentiment to which we all subscribe, but where is geology? Is its omission just a slip, or are we, as a result of our derelictions, lost to the administrative as well as the public eye, even though through us are provided the mineral resources for the war, as well as for the aftermath? I fear it is more the latter than the former, for I can readily cite scores of similar omissions of geology from various important authorities' lists of the sciences significant both in war and in peace. As a single example the report of the British Association on that body's 1941 conference on "Science and World Order" contains statements regarding every science except geology; and, although many of the participating authorities stress the importance of raw materials, only one, Dr. P. W. Kuo of China, even mentions the word "geology."

Other scientists (FOOTNOTE 7) are not bashful in speaking of their fields and their importance in the war. Witness the recent letter of Harvard's chemist president James B. Conant to Life, part of which follows.

In the October 20, 1941 issue of Life ^hellip you have referred to the activities of the National Defense Research Committee. In pointing out that a large number of physicists have been mobilized for work on war projects, you may have left in some readers' minds the idea that this Committee was concerned with physics alone. I should like to point out, therefore, that the work involves research and development in fields of physics, chemistry and certain branches of engineering. We estimate that 75% of the more distinguished physicists of the country (those starred in American Men of Science) are now engaged in work for national defense. Similarly, somewhat over 50% of the starred chemists are now engaged.

There is little doubt that some of the geologists' apparent lack of service to the nation in these critical times results from the sterling, but not much publicized, work already quietly done by the Federal and the various State geological surveys, and especially by the petroleum geologists. The American Chemical Society, however, with its well organized, yet tremendously diversified, membership of 28,700,(FOOTNOTE 8) has increased its national prestige in addition to making an important contribution to the national welfare merely by being completely organized as a body, and by telling the world about it long in advance of the emergency. Not so for us geologists. Months before the Pearl Harbor tragedy, I was talking with five distinguished geologists sufficiently in positions of leade ship

FOOTNOTE 7. Said Dr. M. B. Visscher of the University of Minnesota, as quoted in Science, May 15, 1942, "Despite the general belief that the present war is the province of physicists alone, biologists have the opportunity of making important contributions to the national effort."

FOOTNOTE 8. The secretary of the American Chemical Society, Charles L. Parsons, reports in Science for May 8, 1942, that the membership is now 30,400! Every geologist should read his statement, much of which has direct bearing on points raised in the present paper.

End_Page 1231------------------------------

to have been able by their approbation to have assured the consummation of any reasonable geological program. I suggested that the geologists should, like the chemists, make public announcement of their willingness and ability to be of service in any national crisis. So strongly unanimous was the negative reaction that I had to re-examine my remark to determine whether I had inadvertently uttered some monstrous blasphemy. I had not--my companions had heard me correctly!

Our Association has been relatively foresighted in this matter, having had an active committee on the war effort for more than a year although service questionnaires were not sent out to members until December 24, 1941. The G.S.A. has had a similar committee since December 30, 1941, and it has accomplished a great deal in a short time. Their publication of several important papers, notably one by Sidney Paige on "War; Geologists and Engineering" and another on the "Utilization of Geology and Geologists in War Time," has been extremely helpful. The "Bibliography of Military Geology and Geography," prepared under the direction of W. H. Bucher, and Douglas Johnson's paper on the "Role of Geology in the First World War" also fill an important need. It would be perhaps fair to say, however that although these committees--and others in the process of formation--have functioned efficiently, and have made some notable progress, they have not materially altered the geologists' position with regard to the war effort. Perhaps, as Paige seems to think, it can not be altered to any great extent. In the limited time the committees have been active any very considerable change would have been too much to have hoped for in any case. It takes time to catch up with Karl Haushofer's idea (actually his brilliant Jewish wife's notion) of "geopolitical war" and strategy. But certainly, somehow, the English-speaking world must come to utilize more fully the available geological knowledge both directly and indirectly, if they wish to worst the Japanese and the Germans who have long made cap tal out of it. That the English geologists are worrying over the same problem is indicated clearly by the following quotations chosen from 1942 issues of the English journal, Nature. The first is part of a report on "The Use of Science and Scientific Workers in the War."

Dr. S. E. Hollingsworth, of the Geological Survey, illustrated how geologists are often not called in when sites for factories, camps and air-raid shelters are decided upon. This has led to considerable waste when the site is badly chosen in relation to drainage and water-supply.

I need not--though I could--go into a discourse on the same costly neglect of geological information in this country.

Dr. N. F. M. Henry, of the Department of Mineralogy, Cambridge, also asked for "a larger place in the war effort for geologists, stating that the British Army has only two geologists"!

Prof. H. H. Read, F.R.S., also speaking of the neglect of geological advice has recently stated in Nature that:

End_Page 1232------------------------------

There appears to be considerable divergence of opinion among professional geologists in Great Britain as to the extent to which they and their knowledge can be used in war. Some hold that the hundreds of geologists could be employed in the civil defense and armed forces; others protest that saturation would be reached by the employment of a score or so. Whatever may be the truth of this matter, however, all are agreed that the utilization of geological knowledge in the war effort has up to now been singularly haphazard. It is, of course, possible that a considerable proportion of the cases of the successful use of such knowledge never becomes public, while certain scandalous examples of neglect of geological information achieve, on account of their news value, a disproportionate notor ety. Still if there were but one case of such neglect, the geologist would be entitled to lift up his voice. When he is officially informed that a sum approaching half a million pounds has been wasted through this cause at one aerodrome site alone, he must be pardoned if he becomes speechless, and especially so since, though he may faintly hope that those officials responsible for this waste have been liquidated, he is secretly sure that they have been promoted to posts with still greater possibilities.

As Prof. P. G. H. Boswell has pointed out in his presidential address to the Geological Society, issued on September 30, the fundamental reason for this haphazard utilization of geological knowledge is the lack of awareness on the part of the general public of the content of the science. The ignorance is, of course, especially profound among the politicians and the higher Civil Servants, while among scientific men it is often deplorable--a result in their case arising from a devotion, inculcated in the schools and fostered by examination requirements, to the unholy trinity of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. One would have expected, on the grounds of value for money alone, a fuller utilization of geological knowledge^hellip

Thus far the token data submitted in support of my major thesis have perhaps been open to other interpretations by those less protagonistic for geology than I am. I therefore next propose to submit as evidence of one of my major contentions some examination records whose interpretation can not admit of much diversity of opinion.

GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION (FOOTNOTE 9)

INTRODUCTION

At the last annual meeting of the Association I referred briefly to the Graduate Record Examination, and pointed out that the results of this project demonstrate that geology is attracting to the graduate schools students less well prepared than they should be. The critical long-term significance of this fact to the future of the subject scarcely can be overstated. Because this entire matter has such sharp pertinence for us all, whether we are engaged in academic or economic geology, I now wish to describe in some detail this all too little known examination and analyze some of its results especially as they bear on the profession of geology.

FOOTNOTE 9. I am very much indebted to C. R. Langmuir and W. S. Learned of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching for making the results of the Graduate Record Examination available, and for permitting me to use, in only slightly altered form, much of the information which they have assembled pertaining to the examination generally and to geology specifically. I alone, of course, am responsible for the conclusions drawn, and for the possibly unwarranted ranking of the students in the subject groups.

End_Page 1233------------------------------

GENERAL CHARACTER AND PURPOSE OF THE EXAMINATION

Beginnings of project:
A 100-per-cent increase in the number of students attending graduate schools during the last 10 years has given rise to increasingly complex problems of admission, classification, and transfer, and this will continue to be true despite notable enrollment fluctuations due to the war. The graduate schools have always needed, but seldom acquired valid proof that a student's educational resources accumulated during undergraduate days are adequate for advanced study. An objective, standardized examination suitable for use through some central management appeared to offer more in judging acquired knowledge and estimating possibilities of future achievement, than letters of recommendation from men of unequal perspicacity and lists of grades from colleges of widely varying standards. Accordingly the Graduate Record Examination under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was devised, and was first administered to entering graduate students at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia universities in October, 1937. Subsequently, Brown, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Rochester universities and Radcliffe College have adopted it, and well over 10,000 graduate students, trained in some 500 different colleges, have taken the examination.

When it became apparent that the test promised to be successful, it was administered to graduating seniors of some score of liberal arts colleges with the hope of using the results for admission to graduate and professional schools, and as bases for special awards. The total number of graduates and undergraduates who have taken the examination is now approaching 25,000. Thus the results, within certain limits, must be assumed to be valid and meaningful.(FOOTNOTE 10)

Nature and limitations of examination:
The Graduate Record Examination tests the various divisions of knowledge commonly studied in a liberal arts college. The tests are cast in "objective" form, every question having several optional answers, each seemingly plausible. Thoughtful discrimination, therefore, is required to arrive at the correct answer. This type of examination gives breadth of sampling, and, by the provision for objectively exact scoring, makes possible a definite score, comparable from one student to another. The convenient form and the method of marking facilitate the use of the test with large numbers. When sound scholarship is exercised in the selection of good questions and in their distribution over a suitable subject area, wide sampling and comparable results are achieved, and the test becomes a tool of undamental value.

The use of the examination, however, is limited to the testing of knowledge and of whatever the knowledge may be found to carry with it. No attempt is made to evaluate originality, initiative or even the acquisition of specified material of a given course. The test scores are thus valuable in that they measure

FOOTNOTE 10. In addition to the general examination, a series of advanced examinations scaled for testing specialized students in 15 separate subjects, including geology, has been prepared. These tests were first given in September, 1939, and are now an integral part of the examination. Lack of space prevents their discussion here.

End_Page 1234------------------------------

important factors in the educational process, but the results can not be regarded as a substitute for a complete appraisal.

Most of the examinations were constructed by faculty committees from the four original sponsoring graduate schools, and the material was tried out on appropriate groups of students before final selection of questions was made. The "verbal factor" and mathematics tests, however, were prepared from material supplied by the College Entrance Examination Record.

Various aspects of use of test:
The reliability of the Graduate Record Examination is considered to be very high, although there is the usual uncertain zone within which differences may lack significance, and sources of unreliability are similar to those of any other examination. The examination does, however, reveal both the student who has merely fulfilled formal requirements and the student who has unexpectedly mastered subjects far removed from his curriculum.

GENERAL RESULTS OF GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION

Results of the Graduate Record Examination indicate that they can be used to predict success of a student in graduate school with at least as much accuracy as his whole undergraduate record, including his recommendations. If used in combination the record and the Graduate Record Examination profile are much more accurate than any other criterion; when the record is obscure or unfamiliar the profile alone is much superior to it.

A school may compare its students in a given department with the norm, but comparisons between schools and departments are difficult, and interpretations reached must be regarded merely as suggestive. This word of caution needs even greater emphasis in making combined norm interpretations between students of major interest in any of the fourteen fields presently listed. Nevertheless some highly interesting and suggestive data for the geologist's perusal will readily become apparent from a detailed study of Figure 1.

Figure 1 shows, in generalized fashion, the combined results of the Graduate Record Examination. On each of the eight vertical lines there is recorded the group grade in the general test named at the top. The code letters, and each of the 14 major subject groups they designate, are listed near the bottom of the plate. Thus it follows that the lightly dashed line connecting all the C's on consecutive y coordinates graphically displays the group "profile," or the norm, for students of chemistry beginning their first year of graduate work. In order to avoid complexity only five group profiles are indicated, but the others can be obtained readily by connecting the appropriate letters.

RESULTS OF GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION SIGNIFICANT TO GEOLOGISTS

An individual, interpreting the results of his own tests, compares his eight scores with the average score of students beginning the graduate study of each of the 14 different subjects. The average of all first-year graduate students, regardless

End_Page 1235------------------------------

Fig. 1. GENERAL RESULTS OF THE GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATIONS

End_Page 1236------------------------------

of field of specialization, is 500 on each test. Thus the geology major might well expect to score more than 500 in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and less than 500 in history, literature, and the fine arts. This turns out to be conspicuously the fact for the latter group of subjects, not strikingly enough the case for the former, as is well indicated by the heavy black line showing the group profile for geology.

It is also possible to calculate from the graph the average total standing of the 14 groups of graduate students, although the results, which again, it must be recalled, are only suggestive, are not too flattering to the geological fraternity.

Table I, which gives the average standing of students in 14 subjects as a result of having taken eight general tests, shows that first-year graduate students in geology have compiled a record which does no better than earn them a tie for eighth place. Stated in another, and more damning fashion, these embryo geologists averaged 9 points under the average of all men taking the examination, and 49, 34, and 31 points respectively below the averages compiled by the budding physicists, mathematicians, and chemists. If the standings are arranged, as in Table II, so that students in any specialty do not bring up their averages by being tested in that specialty, then the youngest geological generation improves its record slightly, but climbs only to an undistinguished sixth place.

It is also possible to add to the grades of each of the five groups which did not have the presumed advantage (FOOTNOTE 11) of being tested in their own subject, the average

Table I. APPROXIMATE RANK AND SCORE OF AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS MAJORING IN EACH OF 14 FIELDS LISTED, AS COMPILED FROM RESULTS OF TESTS TAKEN IN 8 FIELDS LISTED IN FIGURE 1

Table II. APPROXIMATE RANK AND SCORE OF AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS MAJORING IN EACH OF 14 FIELDS LISTED, AS COMPILED FROM RESULTS OF TESTS TAKEN IN ALL FIELDS EXCEPT THAT OF STUDENT'S SPECIALIZATION

FOOTNOTE 11. Of course students in fields other than geology would also have been at a presumed disadvantage had they taken a general test in geology.

End_Page 1237------------------------------

amount by which each of the nine other groups, which were so tested, raised their standing, that is, 16 points. This very arbitrary addition has been made in Table III. With this increase (which was actually 17 points each for physics, mathematics, and chemistry, but 26 for students of the fine arts and only 9 for those in economics), the geological contestants still can do no better than sixth place. They do, however, thus achieve a score of 507, which by such an unorthodox and possibly non-valid method of scoring as indicated gives them an artificial position of some 5 points above a recalculated average of nearly 502 for all men taking the examination.

It would be possible to labor this point exhaustively but it would only become increasingly apparent that geology students entering graduate schools to-day certainly are not as well trained generally, definitely do not know as much specifically, and possibly, but far less certainly, do not have the intellectual capacity of those students entering the other physical sciences. If there is any strategic defeat aspect in these figures which can be turned into a propaganda victory, it will have to rest first on the fact that whatever the shortcomings of the current crop of geologists those shortcomings can not be so explicitly charged to those of us here because fortunately we received our training before the development of such diabolically revealing tests as just described. Second we may with a perverse "Johnnie-is-dumber-than-me" satisfaction, point to the poor record of students in the biological sciences. Or we may in the third instance, with a little forgivable malice, call attention to the lowly record made by students in most of the non-scientific subjects. I say the malice is forgivable, if not particularly profitable, because I doubt if anyone who has had dealings with hydra-headed bureaucracy fails to enjoy the even partial confirmation of his suspicions regarding the intellect of at least a few of those who have chosen government as their field of specialization.

RESULTS OF GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION SIGNIFICANT TO GEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS

Digressing momentarily we may profitably wonder whether these Graduate Record Examination results are not even more prophetic of disaster for the nation

Table III. APPROXIMATE RANK AND SCORE OF AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS MAJORING IN EACH OF 14 FIELDS LISTED, AS COMPILED FROM RESULTS OF TESTS TAKEN IN 8 FIELDS LISTED IN FIGURE 1. SCORES MARKED WITH ASTERISK HAVE HAD 16 POINTS ADDED, THE AVERAGE BY WHICH SCORES ARE RAISED BY TAKING EXAMINATION IN FIELD OF STUDENT'S SPECIALIZATION

End_Page 1238------------------------------

and the world than they are for our own subject. When we remember the growing ideas that science is responsible for the world's ills, and that although it may indeed win the war, it certainly should have nothing to do with establishing the peace, then the rather sorry showing of non-science students, whose elder ideological brothers sponsor such notions, is particularly disheartening. If there is any validity to the conclusions I have drawn from the records, and you may be certain that the social scientists and humanists whose "verbal factor" score is high, will find words to prove that there is none, then the future of the world should be entrusted to the scientists and the students of philosophy. And from my probably biased viewpoint it would seem logical to suppose that most of the philosophers in question approached their subject from the scientific--not the metaphysical point of view. Their relatively high standing in the science tests supports this idea.

Without attempting to interpret all the many possible reasons for the realtively discouraging position of the geology students--and some explanations, I confess, make possible a more rosy picture than I have painted--it may be instructive to examine the average undergraduate course of study pursued by these students. This can best be done by perusal of tables prepared by the Graduate Record Examination on the basis of about 5,000 second-semester senior men tested at 14 representative eastern institutions in 1940 and 1941. The fact that the sampling was sectional and that a total of only 85 majors in geology was involved probably does not too materially weaken the validity of the results; and although the national figures would doubtless be somewhat different, it is unlikely they would be very much more flattering.

Table IV shows, among other things, that some 90 per cent of the geology majors finished their undergraduate training with 8 or more semesters of formal study in the subject. Fifty-four per cent, however, had no physics, 26 per cent no mathematics, 20 per cent no chemistry, and 43 per cent no biological sciences whatever. On the credit side only 25 per cent had no training in modern languages, 13 per cent no formal work in English literature, 24 per cent no courses in history, and some 35 per cent no training in economics.

In order that these figures may have more relevancy let us now compare the record of the geologists with those of chemists, physicists, and mathematicians.(FOOTNOTE 12) Eighty-seven per cent of the 403 majors in chemistry had no training in geology, whereas less than 2 per cent had no formal instruction in mathematics or physics, and 50 per cent no courses in biological sciences. In addition 50 per cent of these chemistry students had no history, 41 per cent no economics, some 22 per cent no work in English literature, and 4.5 per cent no modern language.

The 103 majors in physics had all taken at least 3 semesters of mathematics, and only 4 per cent had no formal work in chemistry. Some 83 per cent, however, had no geology and 69 per cent no biological sciences. More than 21 per cent of

FOOTNOTE 12. Lack of space prevents the inclusion of tables covering the individual physical sciences other than geology.

End_Page 1239------------------------------

Table IV. DISTRIBUTION OF COURSES OF FORMAL STUDY REPORTED BY SENIOR MEN MAJORING IN GEOLOGY 1940 1941

End_Page 1240------------------------------

these young physicists failed to take courses in English literature, 7.5 per cent did not study any modern language, 44 per cent avoided history courses, and some 26 per cent took no work in economics.

The 181 majors in mathematics included 24 per cent who took no physics, some 36 per cent who had no chemistry, 85 per cent with no geology, and some 75 per cent with no biological sciences. Some 35 per cent of these students had avoided work in history, 20 per cent took no economics, 18 per cent had no formal training in English literature, and 2.5 per cent studied no modern language.

Table V recapitulates the distribution of courses taken by 803 majors in the physical sciences. It shows among other things that physical scientists by and large consider geology the least desirable of the sciences, not even excluding the biological sciences. Moreover, of the 18 subjects listed only two, education and classical languages, found more disfavor than geology, and two others, music and fine arts, were elected about as infrequently as our own subject.

Table VI recapitulates the distribution of courses taken by 398 majors in the biological sciences. Like their physical science comrades the biologists eschewed contact with geology, for 82 per cent took no formal work in the subject, although only some 20 per cent avoided mathematics, 11 per cent physics and 2.5 per cent chemistry. In fact the embryo biologists avoided geology more assiduously than any of the other 17 subjects except classical languages and education.

Lack of space makes it impossible to include the complete tables for students majoring in humanities and "social studies." The 1,010 humanities majors, however, found geology not entirely unpalatable, for although 64 per cent had nothing to do with the subject, 67 per cent were avoiding chemistry and 81 per cent took no physics courses. Mathematics was not elected by some 58 per cent of the humanists and 45 per cent failed to register for biological training. The 2,054 students of "social studies" reacted to geology in approximately the same fashion as the humanists. Some 65 per cent of the majors avoided it, but, at the same time, some 64 per cent took no chemistry, 81 per cent no physics, 48 per cent no mathematics, and 51 per cent no work in the biological sciences.

I should like to comment at length on the possible significance of these figures, but space restrictions make it impractical. It seems apparent, however, that the non-science students may well elect geology as a science minor because it is not considered a laboratory subject. It may also follow that science students so conspicuously fail to elect geology as their science minor for the very same reason. Most serious students of science want laboratory work--most non-science students avoid it by every possible subterfuge. Great as is the need for more field work in the training of geologists, the need for well organized and regularized laboratory work in geology is even more urgent. Part of our lack of scientific standing among scientists may well be charged to the fact that we have not really made geology a laboratory science.

End_Page 1241------------------------------

Table V. DISTRIBUTION OF COURSES OF FORMAL STUDY REPORTED BY SENIOR MEN MAJORING IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES 1940 - 1941

End_Page 1242------------------------------

Table VI. DISTRIBUTION OF COURSES OF FORMAL STUDY REPORTED BY SENIOR MEN MAJORING IN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 1940 - 1941

End_Page 1243------------------------------

RECOMMENDATIONS

I have contended that the profession of geology does not occupy as high a position in national esteem, and thus in fundamental national utility, as its potential importance warrants. I have cited a few of the data which tend to support my contention. Although it is "easier to be critical than correct" it seems logical to suppose that all of the causes and effects outlined in this paper are interrelated. Further, it appears reasonable that if geologists themselves are largely to blame for their rather lowly estate, as I believe, then it is far from impossible for them to pull themselves up a few rungs higher on the ladder of scientific respect.

Realizing that advice, like criticism, may be given by the tank, but will be taken by the drop, I nevertheless wish to continue with my perhaps unmitigated presumptuousness and make several suggestions for the good of the science. These recommendations are presented first in outline form and then discussed briefly in sequence.

I. Organize an American Geological Association to which each geologist, and each person fundamentally interested in the subject, may belong regardless of field of specialization, or prime professional affiliation.

II. Establish and consistently maintain a system of awards to attract the highest grade of young men, and women, to the profession.

III. Establish and consistently maintain a series of rewards to honor outstanding accomplishments by members of the profession.

IV. Inaugurate and consistently maintain a unified, vigorous, and yet dignified public relations program.

It is obvious that all of these suggestions are closely related and that, if the first were followed completely, the remaining three could be readily facilitated.

THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Following the first recommendation involves acceptance of the concept of geological Union Now. Such a union is very much needed, for in a period whose every news dispatch demonstrates the necessity of federation, the geologists, with characteristic perversity, are basement bent on secession. However thoroughly we understand and applaud the motives behind such separationist movements as that recently effected by the vertebrate paleontologists, we must, on reflection, be appalled to witness our special-interest groups breaking off from already small nuclei and running away like drops of spilt mercury.

If organized the A.G.A. presumably should be made up of members of the G.S.A., the A.A.P.G., the Paleontological Society of America, the S.E.P.M., the Mineralogical Society, the Society of Economic Geologists, the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists, the Association of State Geologists, and certain other members such as some of those belonging to various engineering societies, and some non-professional geologists genuinely interested in the subject. The academic base of individual membership,

End_Page 1244------------------------------

as in the American Chemical Society, possibly should be set no higher than the possession of a 4-year baccalaureate degree from an A.G.A. accredited institution, for some of the most important members of the Association might well turn out to be amateur collectors, school teachers, principals, and superintendents, executives of firms working with natural resources of geological import, various conservation enthusiasts, members of mountaineering clubs, inveterate travellers, and certain officers of local, State and Federal governments. The participating societies would lose not one whit of their individuality, for the bindings of the proposed federation would not be tight enough to chafe, though they would be firm enough to preserve union, and thus achieve the strength that only comes hrough unity.

The secretary (who would also serve as general editor) of the A.G.A. probably would have to have at least semi-permanent tenure, but the other officers could, if deemed wise, be selected from those of the participating societies, possibly on some equalized revolving basis. Financial support of the A.G.A. could be secured through nominal dues from all members and proportional assessments on each of the participating societies. The proposed federation, which with real support would readily grow to a membership of over 6,000--and 10,000 is not an impossible figure--presumably would issue no scientific journal in the ordinary sense, but would publish a monthly bulletin possibly of "Science format." This bulletin would print items of interest to all members of the profession, including cer ain general addresses, would carry news items of consequence to geologists, reviews of general works whose interest crosses the lines of geological specialization, would serve as a journal of geological education, and would be frankly a geological "propaganda sheet" in the very best sense of the phrase.

Standing committees of the A.G.A. would be the same as those which now are duplicated again and again in our present societies; but each participating society would have adequate representation on each of the central American Geological Association committees. Thus, at long last, one American geological hand might well discover, and facilitate, or at least not duplicate, what the other is doing.

One of the most important of these hypothesized committees might be that on Geology in National Affairs.(FOOTNOTE 13) This group, without duplicating the efforts of the Federal Geological Survey, would be charged with the responsibility of making geological information, ideas, and ideals available to the nation in times of peace as well as in periods of war. It does not seem to me that the potential advantageous war time use of such information is even nearly so limited as has been suggested by some. But it would be the business of the standing committee to ascertain and disseminate the facts--not in a few months after a war is declared, or after a disaster eventuates, or when the exhaustion of a natural resource looms so imminent that all may see--but far in advance of any possible n tional emergency. Undoubtedly Japanese geological advice helped materially to set the

FOOTNOTE 13. See the "First Report of the War Policy Committee of The American Institute of Physics," Science, May 15, 1942.

End_Page 1245------------------------------

stage successfully for their recent production "Conquest." An enlightened geological staff officer, working with a staff which was enlightened geologically, might well have helped the Allied cause in pointing out, on the basis of natural resources sought, more clearly than apparently was done, the few areas which should have been defended at all cost.

The Committee on National Affairs would also discuss such weighty matters as the substitution of women for men in the geological industries, especially during war times, would make certain general decisions as to the disposition of geological manpower during national emergencies, would consider such practical matters as training for all military men in topographic and aerial mapping and map interpretation, and might even discuss such seeming geological impracticalities as the possibility, by directed bombing along the major fault lines, of hastening the next great Japanese earthquake, which, on a periodicity basis, is due sometime in the next few years.

A standing committee for studying the teaching of geology and the curriculum in the subject would possibly be able to establish the teaching of geology in the high schools, not necessarily to recruit more persons to the field, for we apparently have an ample number at present, but to broaden the base of public understanding and support of our profession. For the good of the nation the time should soon come when no State or Federal legislator should be without some formal contact with geology. A really good high-school text in the subject (FOOTNOTE 14) might be the opening gun in our campaign to re-establish geology as part of the secondary schools curriculum so that our potential political leaders will have the chance to make that contact. In addition to seeing that such a book is wri ten and adopted, the curriculum committee might also play an important role in making some such test as the Graduate Record Examination standard for the evaluation and selection of geology students entering the graduate schools. Our own excellent and enterprising curriculum committee has been doing remarkably fine work, but in order to accomplish what our committee thinks is needed, the G.S.A., largely a body of teachers--which the Association is not--must join hands in the effort. This is just another reason for establishing the A.G.A.

There can be little question that Paige and others are correct in asking that geology students acquire additional tools for their science through taking more extensive work in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, especially during war time. To this I should add more work in statistics, in modern languages, in composition and public speaking, and in biological theory; and, without being too iconoclastic, more thorough work in geology itself, the need for which subject seems to get lost in the constant struggle for more prerequisites. But if the standing of the profession can be elevated, and if, therefore, better men can be attracted to it, and, if through standard tests, rather than through haphazard recommendations,

FOOTNOTE 14. The present tendency to develop and use "General Science" texts in high schools and colleges is understandable, and has been strongly defended. Unfortunately if there is any geological section in such texts it commonly has been almost completely emasculated, and in many instances it has been written by someone with practically no formal training in geology.

End_Page 1246------------------------------

we can definitely pick the best of the improved group, then the curriculum, important as it is, is of far less importance than you may suspect. R. C. Moore was an undergraduate classics student; E. S. Bastin was not formally trained in economic geology; Kirtley Mather, known as a physical geologist, was trained as a paleontologist; and some of the best geologists in this or any other association have had precious little formal training. Good men are more important to us than good curricula, but, of course, we must have both. Inasmuch as the Association curriculum committee is soon to bring in its report, the curriculum itself will not be discussed in this paper.

The A.G.A. should be sponsored by the present officers of the major geological societies. If for any reason this Association is interested in cooperating, but does not want to take the lead, then some disinterested but sympathetic organization such as the National Research Council might well be persuaded to set up the organizational machinery.(FOOTNOTE 15)

SYSTEM OF AWARDS

In order to attract the best men, in competition with the other sciences which have the advantage of industrial fellowships, we must not only improve the standing of the profession, but we must set up scholarship and fellowship awards at various college and university levels, and prizes for high-school essays, collections and the like should be established. A committee of the A.G.A. might act as a clearing-house organization for this purpose. Awards eventually should be established and maintained by each of the participating societies as well as by industrial concerns with which many of the members of the proposed A.G.A. would be associated. These companies through their awards could, to a certain extent at least, control the course of study of their selectees although they would not ecessarily pick the recipients. No doubt a mutually advantageous "work summer-study winter" program could be evolved which would provide students with the necessary small funds, and, at little cost, the companies with valuable data in making a pre-graduation selection of the better men for their more or less permanent staffs. Every geological society should be supporting the educational program of some outstanding student, for how is it possible for a society to be fostering research and insuring its own future if it does not concern itself with increasing, at the source, the quality of its future leaders and researchers? Every petroleum company, and many other corporations utilizing geological resources, should for purely selfish reasons, if not for many better ones, be continuously fin ncing the education of one or more outstanding geological neophytes.

FOOTNOTE 15. Possibly Section E of the A.A.A.S. might be the nucleus around which the A.G.A. could form. Geologists generally forget the outstanding role their geological forefathers played in laying the cornerstones for many important scientific societies, and very few remember that The Association of American Geologists and Naturalists became the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

End_Page 1247------------------------------

Rewards often make the man. More important, in a subtle fashion, they may help make a science. It has been true in our competitor physical sciences, and could be true for geology. Every honor-awarding society as well as each individual honored is enormously bettered in the layman and the administration eye, and the recipient of the medal or other reward is, in most cases, not tremendously harmed by the granting of the bauble. Geologists seem, however, singularly reluctant properly to reward their fellow workers. I am not suggesting that we should all become bemedaled generals in the geological army. Far from it! But the chemists and physicists especially have impressed administrators and the public with a group of medals and awards given notably to younger men. Even more significant t eir practice has served to attract good men to those professions and to spur them on once they become professionals. But, so far as I am aware, this Association and affiliated societies paradoxically are without any awards at all, and the G.S.A. has, for the most part, persisted in giving its greatest honor to eminently deserving men past 3 score years and 10. Such men by all means should be so rewarded, but a series of somewhat lesser honors in the form of well publicized medals and travelling fellowships ultimately should be set up, say, in one category for men of 30 years and under, and for those perhaps not beyond their 40th birthday in another. Such rewards should be given for outstanding field work, for distinguished laboratory results, for imaginative thinking in any geological li e, and for public as well as geological service generally. Whether the A.G.A. ever comes into existence or not I hope this organization will take the lead in this important step in the process of lifting ourselves by our own boot-straps. It is no accident that geologists are, on the average, the oldest by a wide margin of all scientists in reaching the star of so-called distinction in the American Men of Science. It is only in part due to the superstructure rather than the basement character of our subject--equally is it the fault of ourselves who long have persisted in perpetuating the notion that academic geology at least is an old man's subject. There is no better group than this Association to dispel that idea.

PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM

All that has been recommended before and many possible procedures which, for lack of space, are not herein suggested, would form part of the restrained, but I should hope, astute, public relations program of the A.G.A. This program might well have as its first objective the establishment in the public consciousness of the words "geology," "geologist," and "geologicals." One big step toward this goal could be taken by all of us without benefit of organization, were we merely to add the word "geologist" to whatever descriptive sub-field title under which we now like to hide our geological connections. So far as is possible let us, for public relations purposes, call the paleontologist an organic or a biologic geologist, the mineralogist a mineral geologist, and so forth. The chemists fo low this plan consistently with great good accrued fortune to themselves, and do not even blench at the designation "rubber chemist."

End_Page 1248------------------------------

Were we to improve the standing of the word "geology" perhaps, after a time, the program might also be successful in aiding a move toward the consolidation of sub-field departments into centralized and well integrated departments of geology. This would make possible the well rounded training of young men entering our profession, who to-day perhaps too commonly are, for instance, either over-fed on paleontology because perhaps the organic geologists do not like the physical geologists, or have had a steady diet of rocks and minerals in all of their varied dishes because the physical geologists abhor fossils.

But, if like Humpty Dumpty, the geological sub-fields are now so broken up that it is impossible ever to put them back together again, at least under the term geology, then I suggest we fit back the pieces of the geological jig-saw puzzle and call the resulting picture Geoscience.(FOOTNOTE 16) This is, of course, a compromise and, to a large extent, a sort of dodge, but such a partial solution of one of our problems would be eminently worth while should an American Geoscience Association be destined to succeed whereas an American Geological Association would be marked for failure.

Whatever the name of the Association, its public relations program would also involve enlisting in another fashion the aid of the industrial concerns which are predicated on the natural resources. If these concerns could, as I hinted earlier, only be persuaded that it would be good business to feature geology and geologists in their advertising programs, half of our battle would have been won. With the influence of a truly national organization behind us we could go to industry, to Government, and to the public with a far stronger case than we now can present.

CONCLUSION

If you have been galled by this perhaps undiplomatic discussion, I am contrite, but unreconstructed. If you think that I have been gulled about the national standing of geology, I shall only wish, without hope, that you are right. But I take it that all agree that whether or not my fears are false and my panaceas imbecilic, geology deserves only the best from us and from the nation because, whether in war or peace, the availability of our natural resources, and the national understanding of the geological philosophy of time and change, must be increased for the sake of all men of good will.

Finally for the benefit of those whom I can neither convince of our danger or enlist in the cause I leave the solace of Lord Byron's words:

Believe a woman or an epitaph
Or any other thing that's false, before
You trust in critics.

FOOTNOTE 16. There probably is much to be said in favor of the creation of university departments, institutes, or divisions of GEOSCIENCE. These might teach and investigate, among other things, the origin, discovery, development, and conservation of natural resources of all types, would work and consult in the fields of economic geology and geography, seismology, meteorology, and oceanography, in all phases of mapping, of geophysics and geochemistry, and in most phases of "geopolitics" not already mentioned. The staffs might be recruited from the existing departments of geology, geography, physics, chemistry, botany, economics, and statistics, whose organization would not be disturbed, and might well be improved by such a plan.

End_of_Article - Last_Page 1249------------