Page images
PDF
EPUB

new geologic data gathered, industry seems primarily interested in maintaining its public image as an enthusiastic developer of energy resources.

NSF is assuring everyone that enough oil companies have shown an interest for planning to proceed. In the next few months, a general drilling program must be hammered out that will satisfy all parties, including Congress. It will have to be strong enough to stifle the often-heard argument that Explorer is an expensive scientific tool looking for a job to do.

RICHARD A. KERR.

Mr. HOLLENBECK. Doctor, you touched a little bit on the grant process and recipients thereof. If I'm correct, there still is a Presidential directive standing which would permit the Foundation to make grants to organizations other than colleges, nonprofit institutions or someone related thereto.

But, except for the small business innovation program, I don't see that being done. Is it done in addition to that, or are your intentions to go beyond what you have done so far in the grant giving process?

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Hollenbeck, we have grants outstanding to just about every conceivable type of organization. I think your question deals with the mix of grants.

Mr. HOLLENBECK. Exactly.

Dr. ATKINSON. We have grants with small business and with large industry. We have cooperative grants between universities and industry. We support various types of nonprofit organizations, variousMr. HOLLENBECK. I'm interested in the noninstitutional grants. Dr. ATKINSON. You mean individual scientists?

Mr. HOLLENBECK. Individual scientists, businesses and so on, industry. Noninstitutional in terms of noncollege and non-nonprofit institutions.

Dr. ATKINSON. Yes. I would like to provide some breakout for the record.

Mr. HOLLENBECK. I would like that. I think that question will arise again, in the full committee.

Dr. Atkinson. The mix may change over time, and it would be interesting to see what the mix is now.

Mr. HOLLENBECK. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The material referred to is as follows:]

NSF AWARDS TO PRIVATE, PROFIT ENTITIES

During fiscal year 1979, NSF made 232 awards, totalling $29.3 million, to private, profit entities including small businesses. The awards represented about 2 percent of those made in fiscal year 1979 and about 3 percent of total NSF obligations for that fiscal year.

Mr. BROWN. Dr. Atkinson, I don't want to belabor the question of basic versus applied research and I will not belabor it except to make an observation here which you may comment on if you wish.

The problem of how to allocate the Foundation's resources between the box which we will call basic research and the box which we will call applied research has always been a difficult one.

I would offer this comment that it will continue to be difficult as long as we think that we have these things in two boxes, because it involves making a discrete choice and allocating money and that sets up rivalries and competition.

No two people agree as to what a proper balance would be in this area. I wouldn't speculate myself as to what a proper balance would be.

I would comment that I think it's more important than having the two boxes for two poorly defined and controversial areas that we develop a concept with regard to both basic and applied research which gets us beyond the boxes and into the question of how is this society as a whole served by what we are doing in support of a particular program of one sort or another.

The point that I have frequently made is that it's sometimes not the boxes, but the connections between the boxes. Regardless of whether they are engaged in and in love with basic or applied or targeted or any other kind of research, do our scientists understand really that this is a part of a process which improves the quality of the society?

Do they have standards as to what does constitute the quality of society? That is, where the society is really going? If they have this kind of understanding, then it doesn't really make too much difference whether they are working in the applied box or the basic box. They understand that this is really a seamless web—to coin a phraseand that the important thing is that it's embedded in the total goals and purposes of the society.

I was reading an interesting article last night about Islamic science and technology which poses some completely different kinds of problems. But, Islamic science and technology has no questions about whether or not it's basic or applied. It's whether it is Islamic or not.

I don't think we need to borrow so much from that particular concept as we need to understand that there is such a thing as relating science, whether it's basic or applied or what have you, to the overall needs and value structure of the society.

My criticism—which is frequently taken to be not enough applied science is really not enough attention to the fact that science is a part of the society and needs to be considered in that light by all scientists and they need to feel that they have a role that is broader than just taking taxpayers' money and using it for some worthy research project which is important, particularly to them, but may or may not be important to the society as a whole.

That is intended to be helpful in broadening the debate on basic versus applied science. You don't have to respond if you don't want to.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, I agree with much of what you say, but I am not sure where it leads us.

The problem is that we are comparing where we are with where the rest of the world is. And I believe that the interplay among scientists and society-among applied researchers, basis researchers, and university people—is remarkably good in the United States, when compared with other countries.

I am often concerned about the isolation of the British research programs from the rest of the world. One needs only to visit the Soviet Union to see the isolation of the Academy research centers, particularly some of the applied research centers, from the rest of that society.

Some successes of the Japanese and the Germans in recent years have resulted from breaking down some of these barriers. But I do believe that as a society, the United States is much further along than many other parts of the world. Still, I think it is a problem.

Mr. Brown. I'd like to ask Dr. Murray if he would like to contribute anything at this point.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown. Do you have a prepared statement, Dr. Murray?

Dr. MURRAY. Yes. With your permission, I would like to insert it in the record.

Mr. Brown. Without objection, your statement will be in the record. [The biographical sketch of Dr. Murray follows:]

DR. GBOVER E. MURRAY Born Maiden, North Carolina, October 26, 1916; son of Grover Elmer and Lucy (Lore) Murray; married Nancy Beatrice Setzer, June 21, 1941; childrenMartha (Mrs. Wylie Poag) and Barbara (Mrs. Kenneth Lefner).

B.S., University of North Carolina, 1937; M.S., Louisiana State University, 1939, Ph. D., 1942.

Research geologist, Louisiana Geological Survey, 1939-41 ; geologist, Magnolia Petroleum Company, Jackson, Mississippi, 1941-48; professor department of geology, Louisiana State University, 1948–55, chairman of department, 1950-53, Boyd professor of geology, 1955–66, consulting professor of geology, 1966—, vice president and dean of acadamic affairs, 1963-65, vice president of academic affairs, Louisiana State University System, 1965–66; president and professor of geosciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1966–76; president Texas Tech University School of Medicine, 1969–76 ; univ. prof. Tex. Tech U. Complex, 1976%;

Prof. La. State U. geology camp, Colorado, 1949, 51. La., 1961; dir. U. Tex. geology camp, East Tex., 1949, 51; visiting lecturer U. Tex., 1958; dir. Ashland Oil, Inc., Global Exploration Analysts, Inc.; bd. governors Icasals, Inc. Mem. Internat. Comm. Stratigraphy; part-time cons. geologist, 1948—; chmn. U.S. Nat. ('om, on Geology. 1964–68; dir. NSF project for basic geologic studies in Northwestem Mex., 1956-60, 66; mem. Nat. Sci. Bd., 1968-—; mem. Tex. Natural Fibers and Food Protein Comm., 1966–. U.S. del. Internat. Geol. Congresses, Mex. 1956, Scandinavia, 1960, India, 1964, Czechoslovakia, 1968, Can., 1972. Bd. dirs. Tex. Partners with Peru, Africare, Inc., 1975– Recipient Distinguished Alumnus award U.N.C., 1971.

Fellow Geol. Soc. Am. (chmn. symposium on sedimentary vols. in Coastal Plain, U.S. and Mex., 1952, commr. Am. Stratigraphic Commn., 1951-54, program chmn. New Orleans Meeting 1955 ; councilor 1961-64 ; gen. chmn. New Orleans meeting 1967; chmn. Southeastern sect. 1960); mem. Am. Assn. Petroleum Geologists (hon., chmn. com. geol. names and nomenclature 1952-54, distinguished lectr. 1954, editor 1959–63; mem. Am. Stratigraphic Commn.; 1957-63, pres. 1964–65), Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists (editor Jour. Paleontology 1952–54, chmn. research com. 1958–59, pres. 1963–64, hon. mem. Gulf Coast sect. 1973–), Am. Geol. Inst. (vis. geosci. lectr. 1959–60, [Pres. 1970–79), Orgn. for Tropical Studies (dir. exec. com.), Gulf Univs. Research Corp. (pres. 1965–66, chmn. bd. dirs. 1967), Soc. Exploration Geophysicists, Assn. Prof. Geol. Scientists (pres. 1978-(1979), Paleontol. Research Inst., Beol. and Mining Soc., Norsk Geologisk Forening (life), Asociacion Mexicana de Geologos Petroleros, Sociedad Geologica Mexicana, AAAS, Am. Geophys, Union, Sigma Xi, Sigma Gamma Epsilon, Omicron Delta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi. Author : Geology of Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America, 1961. Contri. articles to ednl. sci. jours.

Home: 4609 10th St., Lubbock, TX 79410 [Bus: Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 4680, Tech. Station, Lubbock, TX 79409].

Excerpt from Who's Who in America, 40th Edition-1978–79.
February 1980.

Mr. Brown. You may proceed to make any additional statement or supplement this in any way you choose.

STATEMENT OF DR. GROVER E. MURRAY, VICE CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Dr. MURRAY. I will not reminisce too much, even though this is perhaps the last formal appearance I will make before this body.

I would like to observe that at the time I first appeared before this committee, your former fellow colleague, Representative George H. Mahon from the 19th District in Texas, was then my Congressman. I have written in my statement, as you know, that Representative Mahon deeply appreciated the central role of science and technology in our Nation, and he was generous in his counsel to me as a member of the National Science Board regarding the potential contributions and the role of the National Science Foundation in using science, engineering, and technology to improve our way of life.

I read that because it relates to the discussion that was going on previously. As you know, Mr. Hance represents my district now, and he is a member of this subcommittee. You will have to advise him that he should get up a little earlier in the morning from now on. [Laughter.]

Mr. Brown. I assume he was already up, Dr. Murray, but he had something more important to do. [Laughter.]

Dr. MURRAY. I would like to comment just briefly on the proposed ocean margin drilling program so that I may ask that material from a recent issue of EOS, an American Geophysical Union publication, vol. 61, No. 4, for January 22, this year, on deep ocean drilling also be inserted in the record.

Mr. Brown. Without objection, that will be made a part of the record. We are happy to have you make comments on deep sea drilling because we were going to ask you some questions about it, even if you didn't. [Laughter.]

[The material referred to follows:]

DEEP OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM

The next few weeks and months should see the development of major new programs of drilling for scientific purposes in the deep oceans. The main thrust will be a new 10-year program to use the Glomar Explorer to drill holes with up to 10 km of drill string. Budget constraints on this effort, entitled the Ocean Margin Drilling (OMD) Program, were reported in a recent issue of EOS (December 18, 1979).

Although details of the program and its funding have yet to be worked out, a few things are sure: it will be expensive, costing about $700 million, and it will include a comprehensive science program to support the drilling effort.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is expected to be the lead agency for this program-the largest that NSF has ever undertaken. Because of the program's size, concerns have been expressed about both the funding and the science programs. Some of the main concerns are:

1. Will the cost of this program adversely affect science funding in other parts of ocean or earth science?

2. Will there be such pressure to drill passive continental margins that active margin, ocean crust, and paleoenvironmental drilling interests cannot be addressed?

3. With the utilization of a large facility like the Glomar Explorer, will smaller, innovative drilling efforts be precluded? In particular, one might think of the recently developed hydraulic piston corer (HPC) as not being cost effective to use from Explorer.

These three questions can be answered as follows:

1. At present the program is estimated to cost about $700 million for 10 years, starting in FY '80. A large share of this cost would be incurred before FY '84, when the ship is being modified and a riser and blowout preventer, protection devices necessary for drilling in areas of potential hydrocarbons, are being designed and built.

It is anticipated that about half the cost of the overall program will be borne by U.S. industries in petroleum-related fields, the other half by the U.S. government. There may also be some contributions from non-U.S. institutions. Concerns that the program could cut into funding of other ocean and earth science programs have been met by assurances to the contrary from the administration.

2. Since 1976, a program for the future of scientific ocean drilling has been actively considered by the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (Joides) committees and panels. One early model program included Erplorer conversion on the West Coast and 2 years of riserless drilling in the Pacific Ocean and Scotia Sea area. (The Erplorer is too large to go through the Panama Canal.) Explorer would then have been fitted out with riser and blowout preventer in an East Coast shipyard, then undertaken 4 years of mainly passive margin drilling in the North Atlantic.

During government-industry negotiations on joint funding of the program, the 2 years of riseless drilling were cut from the model program. The riseless part of the program was designed to accommodate strong paleoenvironmental interests in the Scotia Sea and elsewhere, and to permit ocean crustal drilling and active margin drilling.

However, there will probably still be an opportunity for other than passive margin drilling. Much of the drilling will doubtless take place in the North Atlantic, and the draft agreement between government and industry indicates that the program is not limited to passive margin drilling.

3. In order to have a program like that anticipated with Erplorer, years of preparation are required. This was undertaken by Joides with many different committees, panels, workshops, and study groups. After the idea of the program was laid before NSF. NSF itself convened several different committees concerned with the scientific program, the engineering and technical aspects of the proposed work, and the potential impact of this program on American society.

While all these plans for drilling with an Explorer-type ship were going on, the Glomar Challenger program continued to improve within the physical limits of its engineering capabilities. These improvements included the use of a number of downhole devices, such as a pressure core barrel, downhole seismic instruments, and an HPC. The HPC first obtained undisturbed cores ahead of the drill bit on leg 64 in the Gulf of California in early 1979. A beautiful record of the varved sediments was produced.

In the spring of 1979, J. Hays of Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory circulated a letter to over 100 scientists, soliciting their opinions about the use of this device. The response was enthusiastic, and Joides convened a meeting on this subject in June of 1979. In July the Joides Planning Committee approved an immediate cruise to fully test the HPC, and this cruise was undertaken as leg 68 in August and September in the western Caribbean and eastern Pacific areas. The HPC has been successfully used on subsequent cruises, including leg 70, just completed in the Galapagos mounds areas. Its use is also planned during drilling in the South Atlantic in the first half of 1980.

Starting in late 1979 a number of marine scientists began feeling that an important use of the HPC was being overlooked. These scientists, mainly paleooceanographers, saw the possibility of getting good undisturbed biostratigraphic and magnetostratigraphic sections of Tertiary marine sediments for the first time, recognizing that use of the Erplorer for this purpose may not be cost effective.

The resulting frustration has led to a number of informal discussions on how to undertake a more serious HPC effort. Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) Inc., which is a corporation formed by U.S. Joides members, is in the process of activating an HPC Planning Committee to establish HPC science programs. In parallel, a 1981-83 program proposal for Challenger is being prepared for submission to NSF by the Joides Planning Committee, and it contains a good deal of HPC work in the Pacific and Atlantic. The HPC Planning Committee may wish to recommend new and innovative approaches to HPC work and funding, including the use of platforms other than Challenger and Explorer on a part-time basis.

Meanwhile plans for the Erplorer operation are being formulated. The cost of ship conversion and outfitting and the cost of and length of time on each candidate hole are being developed. A new scientific planning structure, with members drawn from both industrial and academic science communities, is be ing established to guide the program. A new and comprehensive science program to support and augment drilling is being formulated with funding anticipated at about $10–15 million annually.

The plans for the OMD are evolving rapidly, and it has been difficult keeping the scientific public up-to-date. Information flow will be improved through individual scientists' involvement in the planning process, now that the program seems to have a future.

« PreviousContinue »