« PreviousContinue »
activities, both between and within agencies. A highly competent independent staff. having no other duties than staff work for the Council, should certainly be able to provide an improved basis of planning.
I would hope, also, that under the authority of this bill it will be possible to develop some means of obtaining much better coordination in the review of the annual program and budget by the Congress.
Finally, I am pleased to note that this bill recognizes the importance of international cooperation in research and development in the world ocean, in the context of our foreign policy. Many of the underdeveloped countries are turning to the sea as an important source of the resources required to feed and otherwise support their people. At the same time, many of the more advanced industrialized nations are rapidly increasing their uses of the world ocean. This great international common is, thus, becoming much more crowded than it has been in the past. I believe that this trend will rapidly accelerate in the near future. I am convinced that developing of the resources of the sea, equitably for the benefit of our citizens and for the benefit of all the people of the earth, presents one of the greatest challenges of our generation.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN C. CALHOUN, JR., VICE CHANCELLOR FOR PROGRAMS,
TEXAS A. & M. UNIVERSITY
Senator Magnuson and members of the Committee on Commerce, I consider it a privilege to appear here in response to Senator Magnuson's invitation to state my views on coordination and advancement of the Nation's marine science program and to discuss national needs pertaining to expanded exploration and research of the oceans.
My name is John C. Calhoun, Jr. My home is College Station, Tex., where I am employed as vice chancellor for programs by the Texas A. & M. University system. I wish to state, however, that I do not appear here as a representative of my employer. My appearance here and my statement are personal and I speak for no sponsor, organized group, Government agency, or employer.
Also, I do not claim to be an oceanographer. My education was in petroleum engineering and the related earth sciences. My specialized field of knowledge concerns porous rocks, their natural fluids, and their behavior. The views which I offer are formulated from a background of over 25 years of university teaching and research, university research administration, industrial consulting, and government service.
As a member of the board of directors and of the executive committee for the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, I have had occasion to consider and discuss a national environmental research and development program in another broad area, namely the atmosphere. As president of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and member of the board of directors of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, I have been concerned with national and industrial programs and state-of-the-art for development of the earth and its resources. At Pennsylvania State University, at the University of Oklahoma, and at Texas A. & M. University where I served as staff member, department head, dean of engineering, and director of engineering research, I have considered the broad aspects of university work within the context of national programs dealing with exploration and development of natural resources. At Texas A. & M. University, I have had contact with a large department of oceanography and meteorology. Recently that university has joined six others to form the Gulf Universities Research Corp., the first stated venture of which is the establishment of a Gulf Coast Marine Sciences Center. Finally, I recently served as science adviser to Secretary of Interior Udall and in that capacity was deeply involved with technological needs and programs for resources development. In particular, I had an opportunity to see the national oceanographic program from the viewpoint of that Department's participation.
In summary, therefore, I speak to the general subject of coordination and advancement of the marine science program and national needs for expanded exploration and research in the ocean, not as an oceanographer but as an individual who has participated in and compared various programs for research and development on natural resource systems.
This comparative view leads me to stress first that I do not consider the oceanographic question a unique one. It is one of a number of problem areas that this Nation has met or will face with respect to development and control of our environment. Many of the comments I wil make are general and are applicable to the approach to all environmental systems—the ocean, the atmosphere, the crust of the earth, the polar regions, and other identifiable units of our physical world. I consider the problem of oceanography unique only in respect to its state of development compared to other resource programs and in the sense that the time is ripe for concerted action.
The second observation I wish to record is that there is pressing need for adoption of a national policy on oceanography. In this respect I am completely in accord with the stated objective of S. 944—to set forth a policy and purpose for a national oceanographic program.
At this point I should clarify my perspective for you. It is my opinion that our national program to date has evolved through an emphasis upon science, and particularly upon recognition of oceanography as the comprehensive subject that concerns the behavior of the oceans as an entity. Only recently, has there been increased recognition of oceanography as including applications, or capabilities for performing and managing, for which the term ocean engineering has been used. This derivation from science-orientation has been, in my opinion, one of the factors limiting the achievement of broad national position. It is my opinion that our national policy and purpose should be evolved from the viewpoint of our use and control of the ocean rather than from the viewpoint of exploring and understanding the oceanographic and marine sciences.
Just as our own West was a geographical part of this globe to which we gave national efforts to develop and use effectively, so I hold also that the ocean is essentially a matter of geography, which should be the object of a national policy for development utilization as rapidly as our technology permits. Purposes for expanding our knowledge of phenomena in and related to the ocean would flow from this policy. So also would purposes for development of instruments, vehicles and equipment to give us the capability of working in and reducing the oceans to our control. The policy also should allow our traditional encouragement of private investment in economic utilization of marine resources, not only of the continental shelf but also regions of the ocean beyond the continental shelf where our technology will provide us with the capability.
From the viewpoint of national policy, therefore, I find provisions in S. 1091, the Marine Exploration and Development Act, introduced by Senator Bartlett, which I believe are complementary to the statements of policy and purpose contained in S. 944. I would like to see our statement of national policy and purpose based upon a national commitment to ocean resource development and use, combining both the general knowledge advances cited by S. 944 with the specific development advances cited by S. 1091.
The urgency for a statement of national policy stems partly from our general realization today that higher standards of living, greater technological change, more efficient utilization of resources, and a general advancement in welfare arises from an expansion in the understanding of knowledge with respect to any system. By any measure, our knowledge of the ocean is very limited and advances in that knowledge will represent a very fruitful field for advances in our welfare.
Our urgency for policy arises also, as noted in S. 1091, from the recently adopted Convention on the Continental Shelf which recognizes international rights that are in a real sense realizable in proportion to development of national technological capability.
A third urgency stems from our general need to have available all possible natural resources. Finally, there are numerous reasons that pertain to defense needs and requirements of this Nation.
The resource opportunities and exploratory challenge presented by the ocean, the necessity of maintaining an internationally competitive position, and the present diffused nature of our national effort demands, in my opinion, a policy position which recognizes ocean resource development and management on a par with development and management of the space environment or the development and management of the nuclear environment. Parenthetically, although it is not the purpose of these hearings to cover the subject, I will add that we also need the same type of national position with respect to the development and management of the atmosphere.
Some of the things that need to be done for implementing a broad policy to create a capability for understanding, operating within, developing and using the resources of the ocean can be done through existing agencies and programs.
I am of the opinion, however, that needed actions cannot be done entirely through the organizational structure of programs that now exist.
I see four categories of needs: (1) Planning for a national program; (2) coordination of existing Federal activities; (3) gaps in mission assignments to fulfill the total purposes for ocean development; and (4) resource control, management, and conservation.
Present Federal planning takes place through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography with assists from other executive agencies and from groups outside the Government such as the National Academy of Sciences. The present planning is essentially the summation of the programs of the individual agencies and it suffers from this very characteristic, namely, that it is an attempt to add the parts rather than to view the whole. It suffers more fundamentally, however, because it approaches oceanography as a technological program rather than a resource development program with whatever science programs are necessary to support the total purpose. The total planning for a national program in line with the kind of policy I have tried to portary cannot be done by an interagency group. I believe a new focus for planning responsiblity is needed, with funds to support a planning staff.
Coordination of the existing Federal activities in oceanography is quite good, in my opinion. The least effective coordination seems to be at the decisionmaking level, because coordinated programs come in second best to single agency programs when decisions are required with respect to priorities and budgets. The coordination that will be needed to embark upon total ocean resource development will require comprehensive operating level coordination, particularly with respect to special facilities, instrumentation, and the other performing functions that are concerned with ocean engineering, the allocation of developmental rights, and the effective use of high cost shore bases or special ships. Particularly, those involved in underwater development will demand likewise a very exact coordinating activity. The real job of coordination will move parallel with the development of an engineering and operating capability for moving within, existing within, and performing within the ocean environment.
There are three gaps to be seen among existing mission assignments when one considers achieving a total ocean resource management. Overall, these gaps add up to the fact that no one existing agency really has the mission of exploring and developing the ocean for whatever peaceful purposes may be cogent. One of these three gaps is in the field of basic research. Present basic research done in the ocean is largely that which stems from a particular defense or existing developmental mission. The National Science Foundation is the only agency in position to fund ocean basic research as such. It relies essentially on proposals that are based upon particular educational and other institutional capabilities, and not upon a programed national basic research effort that has outlined the steps to explore the environment completely.
Developmental missions for the ocean are largely historical. There is no existing mission to take advantage of unique ocean characteristics which may give rise to particular new opportunities that have no counterpart on land. This is the second type of mission gap. For example, there is no established mission for covering the generation of power by thermal gradients.
The third type of existing mission gap is the largest and is in the area of what has come to be known as ocean engineering. This is the area of operating or performing capability, instruments, structures, and similar support facilities. Present ocean operating capabilities are tied to development or research missions, the primary one being the defense mission. Support for ocean operating capability must be argued now on the basis of requirements for each mission separately. In my opinion, it would be desirable to approach ocean operating capability as a separate mission by itself. This follows naturally from a total national policy which states that we will do whatever is possible to make maximum effective use of ocean resources and their management. It would be almost like having a policy to develop land without knowing how to build bridges, automobiles, roads, and houses.
Most of the needs which I have enumerated are covered in some way through either S. 944 or S. 1091 or both. The fourth need which I stated that of resource control, management, and conservation is not covered in either of these proposed bills, although it is inferred. So far as the tidelands are concerned, there is now a procedure for handling the problems of resource control. With the new convention on the Continental Shelf, it not only becomes important to be Oceanography is not a major share of E.G. & G. total business, but it is growing at a good rate and certainly holds forth the promise of technical challenge I have referenced. We evidence our interest in this field not only by past efforts, but by substantial present commitments for the future. At this moment, companyfunded research and development programs in progress at E.G. & G. include: The development of improved transducers and ship-board recorders for its acousticseismic profiling and surveying systems; an onboard photographic processing system utilizing newly available film materials and techniques which will enable onsite, immediate viewing of photographic survey results at sea; and a planned series of direct-digital sensors which offer promise in terms of the cost, reliability, and usefulness of data obtained to define the physical properties of the sea.
In view of our historical background, our present activities and our future commitments, our interest in the stated objective of S. 944: “to set forth a policy and purpose for a national oceanographic program” is self-evident. Since I am primarily a research scientist my knowledge of legislation and the political process is somewhat limited. However, you may be assured that I am favorable to any action that increases our national awareness of oceanography.
In the latter regard, we are looking at the proposed national policy statement and its commitment from an industrial point of view, and, indeed, I believe that is why you have invited us here. In that vein, I would like to offer for your consideration some of the benefits which we feel can and should derive from this legislation.
Foremost, perhaps, is the increased national recognition of the scientific, military, and economic importance of the oceans inherent to this measure. There are multitudes of studies and reports, such as "Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research” attesting to the need for this recognition.
Will industry respond? I have indicated the motivation and interest of one company, E.G. & G. and would invite your reference to the National Security Industrial Association report, “A Compilation of Industrial Capabilities Available for the National Oceanographic Program" as evidence of the range of present capacity.
In addition many of our Nation's firms have had to face the realization that the defense arsenal that assures our Nation's freedom is fast becoming replete. We have all heard the phrase defense reconversion discussed but the problems of replacing a multimillion dollar weapons system with the production of refrigerators is seemingly insurmountable. Our defense industries have provided our Nation not only with armaments, but a supply of highly-skilled scientists and technicians. These people have skills that are readily transferable to oceanographic endeavors. Shall we use these people or waste them? A strong national commitment to oceanography would certainly be a step down the road to effective utilization of all our resources, human and physical.
The effect of a national commitment in oceanography can open up entirely new areas of human endeavor calling for new skills and for manpower as yet uncommitted. In short, it means jobs. It has been said one half of all the children in the United States now in first and second grade will have as their first employment jobs that are not in existence today. We hope that many of these new jobs are in the field of oceanography, created by the enactment of the new national policy under consideration here today. In short, a major national endeavor in the field of oceanography offers new opportunities for our labor pool to acquire new skills which can result in the utilization both of human resources not currently employed, and those as yet not employable. We see this happening today. In the greater Boston area where we are headquartered three universities are proceeding with the active expansion and/or establishment of facilities to be devoted to the fields of oceanography. These facilities will offer a whole host of opportunities to scientists, technicians, laborers, and clerical people that simply never before existed. More importantly, they will attract the large group of young people seeking advanced education to a field that was largely nonexistent just 20 years ago. Beyond this we can see, as has been the case with MIT, the beginnings of small companies in academic laboratories whose development may well be much like our company's.
In summary we feel that expanded national efforts in oceanography are most desirable. That if these are initiated at the present time, they could utilize resources created by our defense industries at a time when predictable changes in defense spending are making them available. This new commitment would also provide new jobs and new industries as yet unheard of to meet many new needs. We hope to be able to do our part to fulfill that promise.
of tidelands policy. The resources involved are generally under the purview of the Department of the Interior, so perhaps that Department should be assigned the task of establishing procedures applicable to ocean situations, but consonant with other general resource development policies.
In summary, I applaud the efforts of this committee in seeking a national commitment for an oceanographic program. There appear to me to be significant values in both S. 944 and S. 1091 and they appear to be complementary. The Council is needed for setting broad policy, goals, priorities, planning, and full agency participation. The Commission is needed to coordinate and to carry out activities beyond existing programs. Industry and universities are anxious to participate and are ready to do so as soon as an effective organization, procedures and funding are established. I see no problems to the enactment of either S. 944 or S. 1091 and I believe either to be a step forward. With a few minor changes, such as the stipulation for a single Esecutive Director to serve both the Council and Commission, and with changes in wording to achieve uniformity, I believe these two bills could be combined into a single Ocean Resource Development Act that would be a landmark in our legislative history.
STATEMENT OF DR. HAROLD E. EDGERTON, PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL MEASURE
MENTS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, EDGERTON, GERMESHAUSEN & GKIER, INC.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Commerce, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before you, at the invitation of Senator Magnuson, to present some views with regard to how industry and therefore the Nation might expect to benefit from a new national policy to expand and coordinate our marine research and related oceanographic efforts.
My name is Harold E. Edgerton and I live in Cambridge, Mass. I am professor of electrical measurements in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chairman of the board of Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, Inc.
My oceanographic affiliations include membership in: the Marine Technology Society, the Academy of Underwater Arts and Sciences, and the C.M.A.S.-a world underwater scientific federation founded in France. Elected to the Na. tional Academy of Sciences in April 1964, I have been serving as a member of the Academy's Mine Advisory Committee in its Division of Physical Science. I have also served, in previous years, as a consultant in underwater photography and television techniques to the U.S. Navy's David Taylor Model Basin. Finally, I am honored to say that I have been the recipient of the National Geographic Society's Burr Prize for my efforts in the field of oceanographic instrumentation.
My association with the field of oceanography is not as an oceanographer but as an innovator and developer of instruments and techniques for use in acquiring information in the ocean environment. Our company is a supplier of prod. ucts and services to both Government and private groups working in this field. Our primary products are used for photography in the ocean environment, to its maximum depth, and seismic profiling of the ocean floor and the geological starta several thousand feet below the floor. E.G. & G. also performs research and development in new oceanographic instruments and advanced systems to acquire information for oceanographic research and to advance the technology of ocean engineering.
Finally, we have an oceanographic and geophysical survey department which performs photographic and seismic surveys under contract in the inland waterways, on the Continental Shelf, and in the seas and oceans of the world.
Typical tasks that have been performed by our equipment include: assistance in detecting and photographing the lost submarine Thresher, and a seismic subbottom profiling of a 160-square-mile section of the English Channel prior to the proposed construction of an underwater tunnel between England and France.
Briefly, E.G. & G. was incorporated in 1947 following a partnership of 16 years. We are a major contractor to the AEC in weapons and nuclear reactor development programs, and are deeply involved in many other programs where information acquisition is a dominant requirement. We have approximately 2.800 employees, of which nearly 1 in 4 is an engineering or science graduate. We hare continually sought opportunity in advanced fields which would stimulate and challenge our technical people, and have seen oceanography as such a possibility since the early 1950's.