Page images

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.


CORP. The history of the national oceanographic program is well known to you gentlemen. I will recall some highlights to set the stage for the remainder of my remarks. The historic report of the committee on oceanograyh of the National Academy of Science in 1958 provided the factual data and recommendations from which the expanded program was derived. The administration of President Eisenhower adopted and launched the program. President Kennedy added impetus and essential guidance. With the decisive help of the Federal Council of Science and Technology, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography assembled the various agency programs into a Federal program; but it was some times unable to generate sufficient support for the long-range aspects, or maintain integrity of the approved program through the appropriation process and subsequent administration in the various agencies. Nevertheless, the program grewsometimes slowly. In June 1963, you perhaps remember the Federal council prepared “A Long-Range National Oceanographic Plan 1963 to 1972,” expressing for the first time I am aware of a set of national goals. Subsequently President Johnson has continued the support of his predecessors. He mentioned in his letter transmitting the oceanographic program for fiscal year 1966, he calls for a unified thrust seaward.

In spite of a favorable beginning, it has become increasingly evident in the past 2 or 3 years that the establishment of a truly vital national oceanographic program will require additional action. Some of these difficulties I would like to mention today. The goals stated in the long-range program were general: Strengtheining basic science, improving national defense, managing resources in the world oceans, managing resources in domestic waters, and protecting life and property. Although perhaps tacitly endorsed, these goals still lack specific legislative recognition. Pressed by more specific and immediate missions, the busy agency administrators find it difficult to establish and maintain comprehensive programs in oceanography aimed at achieving these long-range goals. This is particularly true for the nonmilitary area Mr. Chairman.

In the beginning a proper emphasis was placed on the scientific aspects of the oceanography program—the acquisition of knowledge. On the other hand, it was more difficult to find ways and means for applying this knowledge, for initiating imaginative Government and private technology, and for usefully exploiting the

Perhaps the problem is partly semantic. In a narrow sense, the word “oceanography” defines a science or combination of sciences; but the national program of oceanography must be more than that. It must also derive vitality and extract broad benefits from the application of this scientific knowledge. Because it involves exploration, engineering, and development, the national program of oceanography is much more like the national space program than like the national program in high-energy physics. I believe that the reduced rate of growth of the Federal Oceanographic Budget after 1962 is partly a reflection of the difficulty experienced in devising and launching new programs of ocean technology.

This is not to imply that scientific oceanography should not continue to grow in proportion to the need for it and availability of qualified investigators. I would make the additional point that a vital program of technology and engineering will stimulate and guide science by identifying specific areas which need investigation. An example came up during one of the Nation's first deepocean efforts—the deep submergence systems review group study which followed the Thresher casualty-several questions without answers were posed : "What are the bearing strengths in the ocean-bottom sediments on which sunken submarines may come to rest or on which structures may be built?” “What is the precise speed and direction of near-bottom currents in various deep-ocean areas?”

Exploitation of the oceans is inevitable. If the United States does not lead a unified thrust seaward, others will. A recent international agreement, which since June 1964, has the effect of an international treaty, grants each nation the right to explore and exploit its continental shelf to a depth of 600 feet, and deeper where the capability exists to do so. This might well be the starting gun of an international race to develop deep-ocean technology. Here is our opportunity to regain leadership in the sea through application of our great strength in science and technology.

But exploitation of the oceans will, of course, produce conflicts of two kinds. First, other nations will contest our influence, our use, and perhaps our occupa



tion of the ocean bottom. That nation which has a proven history of greatest actual accomplishment in the ocean will have an advantage in determining the settlement. A second kind of conflict will surely arise among our own citizens, just as expanding population and urbanization now produce conflicts over land utilization and river pollution. If we wish to avoid a future crash program of ocean renewal, parallel to urban renewal, it would be wise to have long-range comprehensive "usage" planning for the general benefit of all of our citizens. No agency has such a broad mission today.

I am sure you are well aware of the wide interest of U.S. industry in the national oceanographic effort and its applicable capability of the industry. In the years between 1958 and 1962, many small companies sprang up and many large companies established oceanographic, or marine departments. For instance, in 1962, 87 companies were in a position to contribute to a summary of industrial capabilities available for the national oceanographic program. Many of these companes are now participating in oceanography in some small way; but the majority of U.S. industry is oriented more toward engineering and production rather than toward science. To date, the engineering and production efforts of the program have been confined mostly to the relatively specialized and limited fields of shipbuilding and instrumentation.

Some companies have recently backed their interest with modest investments of company funds in those areas which promise early returns. Some others have become discouraged as a result of the slowed rate of growth of the national oceanographic program and the failure of the program to move vigorously out of thie restricted realm of scientific oceanography. Except for the Navy's deep submergence systems program, there have been meager indications of specific national requirements and Government support for long-range programs.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the legislation you are considering is one essential step in the continued growth of the national oceanographic program; and that program is essential to the political, economic, and military welfare of this country. I believe that the statement of national policy and the National Oceanographic Council which would result from enactment of S. 944 would provide the following:

1. Legislative recognition, which is very important, and a firm base for more positive executive action.

2. Emphasis, coherence, and long-range stability which would encourage scientific oceanography to grow in proportion to the need.

3. A comprehensive program of ocean technology and engineering, embracing exploitation and development of the capability to do uiseful work in the ocean, particularly in the nonmilitary area. This would in turn provide guidance and encouragement to industry and the tangible evidence of Government support would stimulate increased industrial participation.

4. An essential step toward a strong posture for the conflicts which will result from increasing exploitation of the oceans by many nations.

5. Finally, a basis for long-range usage planning for the Great Lakes and the oceans contigious to our own shores, to the end that special interests or thoughtless exploitation will not damage the general welfare of U.S. citizens.



My name is Wilbert McLeod Chapman. I am director, division of resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co. I am also a member of the Marine Research Committee, California Division of Fish and Game; Governor's Commission on Ocean Research : Advisory Council, Institute of Marine Resources, University of California. In the National Academy of Sciences, member of Advisory Committee on Africa; Committee on Marine Protein Resources; chairman of Panel on Laws, Use of the Sea and Technology, Committee on Oceanography; Panel on Marine Resources, Latin American Science Board ; member, Advisory Committee to the U.S. section, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; member, Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research, Food, and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; consultant of fisheries from time to time, Special Fund, United Nations; serve from time to time on U.S. delegations to the general conference of FAO, to meetings of Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council, to international conferences dealing with the law of the sea, to sessions of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and to other conferences dealing with marine matters; and serve from time to time on working parties on marine matters for the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research of the International Council of Scientific Unions, FAO, National Security Industry Association, and various industry and professional associations.

My business is the science and technology of harvesting the living resources of the sea on a worldwide basis. It has been for a long while. In the course of my professional activities I have had occasion in the last few years to visit something over 75 countries to inquire about ocean science, fish, and fisheries.

In appearing before you this morning, however, I am testifying in my personal capacity. What I have to say does not necessarily represent the opinions of any of the organizations with which I am associated, or of any other person or entity.

There are several aspects of the national interest which fall within my field of experience where the national ocean program is not performing adequately. Among these are:

1. Despite very large unused, or little used, resources directly off our coast we do not catch fish we eat, and we catch each year an increasingly less percentage of the fish we eat. In terms of round weight we now obtain about 62 percent of our fish by imports from other countries. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries can provide you with the most recent data. The table attached hereto illustrates this situation from 1948 through 1964. In Dr. Schaefer's statement you have a brief account of the latent resources available to us. In "Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research,” recently published by the National Academy of Sciences, this is treated more fully. I have recently treated on this question in “Fisheries Aspects of the Oceanographic Program,” “Potential Resources of the Ocean,” and “Politics and the Marine Fisheries,” copies of which are attached hereto.

To the best of our present knowledge the stocks of fish directly off our coast will produce 10 times as much crop we take from them per year; we take from them less than half the crop of fish we use per year.

2. The amount of dollars we spend abroad for fish each year is upward of $400 million. This is a ponderable part of the dollar drain. The accurate figures can be had from the sources cited abore. There is no natural reason why the United States should not be a net exporter of fish, not only filling our own requirements but exporting fish and earning foreign exchange.

3. As a result of the rich unused resources off our coast, fishermen from Asia and Europe are coming to fish them in increasing variety and volume.

Our impoverished and underequipped coastal fishermen resent this competi. tion. They ask their representatives to bring pressure on the Department of State to stop this competition.

This erodes continuously the law of the sea and our full freedom to use the high seas for all purposes. This freedom has been a prime objective of U.S. policy since Thomas Jefferson first enunciated the adherence of the United States to the 3-mile doctrine for the breadth of the territorial sea. This high national policy is more important to our military and mercantile interests today than ever before in our history.

This causes considerable embarrassment and great diplomatic difficulty to the Department of State. The embarrassment comes from such allies as Japan accusing us, quite correctly, of acting like an impoverished, developing country in respect of sea resources. The diplomatic difficulty arises not only in the variety and depth of fishery disputes in which the United States thus becomes involved, particularly with our allies, but our inability to adopt a sufficiently strong diplomatic posture in international conferences, such as those in 1958 and 1960 on the law of the sea, to nail down our basic policy of freedom of the seas in international law. We could not do this because political pressures from the fisheries at home required us to be both protectionists and internationalists at the same time and even the maximum pressure on friends, allies, and enemies brought by the Department of State on a worldwide basis, working more efficiently and effectively than I have ever seen the apparatus work before or since, was unable to sell this schizophrenic position to the group of nations, although we came within one vote of doing so.

The embarrassment is even more keen on a personal basis. It has happened that a Russian fishery expert after the 6th or 10th glass of vodka in a friendly tete-a-tete, asked in a puzzled tone why it was that a country so rich and so strong in industrial technology and science as the United States, did not use the rich fishery resources off its coasts. He referred specifically to the resources off New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the Gulf of Mexico, California, the Gul of Alaska, and Bering Sea which they were already working or had had surveyed preparatory thereto. In such a situation there is not much a fishery expert of the United States can say except to ask for another shot of vodka and look for a hole to crawl into.

4. We are shipping grain out of our surplus warehouses to other countries as fast as they will accept it, but as a nation we are doing little to tackle the prime human dietary problem in the world, which is protein malnutrition. The awful dimensions of this problem we know well. Various recent publications of the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Agriculture, and those cited above will inform you fully on this subject. It is enough to repeat that there is no human problem in the world which bears so heavily on U.S. foreign policy as the fact that more than 60 percent of the world's human population has less than enough daily supply of suitable protein to keep it in vigorous health, that this deficiency is a root cause of the worst economic and social difficulties in the developing world, and that the prime source of infant mortality on a worldwide basis is protein malnutrition. We also know that if every person on earth had an adequate portion of animal protein per day the total use would be about 80 million tons per year.

Secondly, we know the ocean is able to provide about 400 million tons of animal protein in forms suitable for harvest and use by presently known means, most of which dies and returns to the web of life in the ocean, unused.

Thirdly, we konw the world fisheries at present are producing somewhat less than 10 million tons of animal protein per year (about 50 million tons of fish, round weight), and

Lastly, we know the world fisheries product has doubled in the last 10 years, and has been increasing at a rate of about 8 percent per year for the past 5 years. These matters are treated more fully in "Potential Resources of the Ocean" attached hereto.

The United States is largely out of this swim. Our domestic fisheries jog along on an even keel. We do little of a practical nature to assist the developing countries in solving this problem themselves.

Russia does otherwise. They long ago replaced us in the rank of No. 2 fish producer in the world. Then they were replaced in this position by bustling Peru, but the Russian high seas fish production has continued to increase steadily according to planned schedule in all of the seas of the world from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and in the Indian, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans with their communicating seas and gulfs. It is now double ours, and their production is still increasing rapidly, a little ahead of their planned schedule. Our production stands still, and actually fell back a little last year.

The most rapidly increasing domestic fishery in Africa is in Ghana. This is moving with massive and practical help from Russia. In addition Russia is landing 20,000 tons of fish per year in Ghana from its own vessel's catch off Angola and Senegal, to the great benefit of Ghana and to its own profit. Russian vessels at present are landing 2,000 tons of fresh frozen fish per month in Nigeria where the need for protein is great. It is planned that these landings will treble within 18 months to a level of 6,000 tons per month, which Nigeria so badly needs. The same thing is going on in the Congo (Brazzaville), Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. In Senegal, Russia bought $6 million worth of surplus peanuts last year and for this has contracted to build for the Government of Senagal a modern fishing and fish processing industry. Algeria has just been the recipient of an ocean research vessel from Russia Russia is building a modern fishing harbor for Egypt at Alexandria on the Mediterranean and another at Ras Banas on the Red Sea. Russia is fishing for various kinds of fish in the Gulf of Aden and landing much of its catches in Sudan and Egypt where animal protein is badly needed, again for its own profit. Russia is building a modern port for Somalia at Berbera on the Gulf of Aden. Russian has offered to do the same for Zanzibar in East Africa. Russia has recently offered to land large quantities of fish regularly from its Indian Ocean fleets in India, whose people need the protein. Similar overtures are underway with Ceylon, which is desperately short of fish. Russia is building a $12 million fishing port in Cuba, which also needs animal protein. It has made approaches to Brazil to aid that country in this matter.

This does not begin to cover the impact of the "Soviet Fishing Revolution" which is detailed more fully than this in an article of that name from Professor Borgstrom published in Food Technology, 1965, volume 19, No. 2, pages 64–73.

« PreviousContinue »