satisfaction from their own personal endeavours in their chosen field, but such cases only serve to open our eyes to the fact that there could be and should be very many more of them. The Reasons for This Gap. Why is it then that there is an increasing tendency for the people to regard science as being primarily or even solely something which is to be done for them? One reason, without doubt, is that the tremendous utilitarian value of scientific knowledge and achievement, the array of material benefits which accrue from it, overshadows its purely cultural value. It seems that this is steadily becoming more so. Our public authorities whose duty it is to take thought for the material welfare of the people, naturally lay stress upon these utilitarian benefits, and the people become used to this point of view. It would be, however, greatly to be deplored if this became the main point of view of our educational and of our scientific authorities. We do not want to become a nation which “lives by bread alone.” The great advances made by science in improving the material conditions of life are, as we know, the outcome of intensive work on the part of trained specialists, and every such advance will tend to confirm the popular view that science is something which is done for us unless the cultural aspect of science is being at the same time stressed also. The truth is that both aspects of science, the cultural and the utilitarian, are important. It is not a question at all of one being more important than the other. Both are essential, each in its own way, to the true welfare and happiness of the people. A second reason for this gap arises out of the extreme specialisation which is so characteristic of modern scientific work. It is almost impossible to-day for an active worker to keep in touch with other phases of science than his own, and this tends too often towards an actual lack of interest in these other phases. If this is true, and I think that you will agree that it is, it is likely that it is also true with respect to the average scientist's relation to the general aspects of culture. Is the scientific man of to-day as cultured as his precedessor of a generation or two ago, who could take a real interest in a wide field because there was not at that time so much detail to master and not the same temptation as there is to-day to be content with a narrowed field? If scientists themselves are becoming, through specialisation, less cultured, they will not be active in making science part of the general culture of the people. Certainly the amateur scientist is commonly an enthusiastic missionary! There is still another reason for this gap, and this also is due to the tendency to extreme specialisation. The terminology used by the specialist is becoming more and more exact, and at the same time less and less intelligible to the average person. Not unoften it is intelligible only to a limited circle of the specialist's fellow-workers. It is of course necessary that with increasing exactness in scientific work the language of description should be increasingly