Page images
PDF
EPUB

In addition to the above, the work of the Ships Panel has progress to include the following:

1. Development of annual coordinated ICO ship construction program. 2. Annual preparation and publication of the ICO ship operating schedules.

3. Development of inputs to the annual Intergovernmental Oceanographic Committee (IOC) ship operating schedules.

4. Updating of reports on ships and related data including methods of designing and funding for new construction.

5. Continuing interchange of technical information on ships, equipment, and operations. The current membership of the ICO Ships Panel is as follows: Navy

Treasury Capt. T. K. Treadwell, Chairman Lt. Comdr. E. A. Delaney (USCG) (CNO)

Comdr. W. M. Benkert (USCG)
Mr. Feenan D. Jennings (ONR)
Mr. B. K. Couper (BUSHIPS)

NSF
Mr. B. C. Byrnes (NAVOCEANO)

Dr. Jack Spencer
Commerce

Dr. Leo Berner, Jr.
Comdr. A. L. Powell (USC&GS)

NASCO
Mr. A. F. Low (USC&GS)
Mr. L. C. Hoffman (MARAD)

Observer : Dr. Fritz Koczy
Mr. Vito Russo (MARAD)

Alternate: Mr. R. C. Vetter

Interior

ICO

Mr. Robert Wilson (BCF)
Mr. Joseph King (BCF)

Observer: Mr. Robert B. Abel
Alternate: Mr. Lynn L. Moore

CHARTER FOR THE PANEL ON INSTRUMENTATION, EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES OF

THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY The principal objectives of the panel on Instrumentation, Equipment, and Facilities are: (1) to give impetus to the development of instruments, equip ment, and instrument systems for oceanographic research, engineering, and surveys, (2) to encourage cooperation and coordination in these areas by the entire oceanographic community, and (3) to coordinate the development of shoreside facilities. These objectives are to be achieved through: (1) the annual review required in the preparation of the national oceanographic program, (2) the briefing of the panel members by experts in different fields, (3) the work of special ad hoc working groups reporting to the panel on specific areas of interest, (4) the development of adequate information exchange systems, (5) the use of special working groups to prepare hard, governmentwide specifications and follow through on supervision of procurement, tests, evaluation, and subsequent development of new and existing devices, and (6) facilitate the formation of communication interfaces between oceanographers and the industries that supply them.

In its review of the pational oceanographic program, the panel will recommend cooperative effort where the needs of several agencies overlap and will point out and recommend appropriate action to strengthen lagging areas and to close gaps in the spectrum of instruments which serve the National ocean science, survey, and engineering activities.

The Interagency Committee and its panel organization have permitted a wide range of coordination within the Federal agencies as well as a desirable high degree of communication and flexibility. The ICO reviews and endorses, or recommends modification, of the agencies' programs within the context of an overall national effort, but also keeps in mind the separate missions of the member agencies. The ICO posseses no authority to challenge the responsibilities of individual agencies, nor would we wish to do so as a matter of procedure.

Accordingly, the national program, as composed annually by the ICO, must satisfy the statutory requirements of the individual agencies before it can depart therefrom in the interest of a unified effort. Within this natural restriction, I believe the committee has been effective. We consider our primary forces to be those of communication, debate, coordination, and a unified sense of purpose which has enabled planning in the individual agencies to be carried out in full knowledge of the purposes and actions of the other agencies.

Our advisory panels, which carry the real brunt of the ICO work, are composed of people involved in the oceanographic programs of the agencies. Although they can advise, formulate plans, and address themselves to needs, they generally do not possess anyone to do the staff work associated with their ICO tasks. Accordingly, the ICO has acquired a small working staff. I have here for your information a list of the ICO staff, which I will submit for the record.

(List of ICO staff follows:)

ICO STAFF
January 1965:

Abel, Robert B.
Shykind, Edwin B.
Moore, Lynn L.
Martin, Evelyn T.
Sisson, Sammy D. (on leave).
Hoffman, Joan M.

Crowley, Maxine E. (temporary).
June 1965:
Į Abel, Robert B., GS-16—Executive Secretary.
Shykind, Edwin B., GS-15—Program Analysis, Oceanographic Engineering

Panel staff. Moore, Lynn L., GS-14Information specialist, Research Panel staff. Windom, William W., GS-11-Administartice officer. Sullivan, Gerard E., GS-7—Manpower and Training Panel, International

Programs Panel staff. Martin, Evelyn T., GS-6-Administrative assistant to the executive secretary. Sisson, Sammy D., GS-4—Clerical. Hoffman, Joan M., GS-3— Clerical. Crowley, Maxine E., GS

4Clerical. Dr. Robert W. Morse, Chairman, Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

Cdr. J. Edward Snyder, Jr., executive assistant to the Chairman. This staff reports directly and solely to me in my capacity as Chairman of the ICO and has no other duties except those prescribed by the Chairman of the ICO. In addition, it is my hope to increase our staff capability by eliciting support from Government inhouse and sponsored laboratories to participate in analytical studies bearing on the overall program.

The ICO has made significant gains in consolidating interagency activities. As space has become available with the withdrawal of naval elements from the Navy Yard and the Navy Yard Annex, a number of our agencies, individually—that is on their own—and through staff coordination, have been able to acquire space there. One part of the Navy Yard is shared by the oceanographic components of the Bureal of Commercial Fisheries, the Oceanographic Office of the Navy Department, the Instrumentation and Data Centers, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution, and the ICO staff itself. We look forward to this colocation as one further step in the tightening of interagency cooperation and communication in oceanography.

One of the principal ICO functions is the preparation of an interagency oceanographic budget; let me describe how this is put together. In formulating the overall Federal oceanographic program for any given year, each of the member agencies prepares its individual budget requirements as a first approximation. This is not done in a vacuum because there has been excellent communications prior to this among the agencies through the panels and the ICO. These initial compilations are distributed to the ICO panels who attempt to work them into a coordinated plan in each of the panels functional areas. This is the most important step in the process because it not only removes program duplication, but it provides trade-offs of plans and ideas in the agency planning process.

Following this, the panels forward their plans to the central ICO staff who prepares and sends to the full committee the first draft of the overall oceanographic plan. Following committee examination and modification, a final draft is submitted as an ICO proposal to the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Office of Science and Technology, in turn-at least this has been the custom in the last couple of years-convenes an ad hoc panel of nongovernment scientists and engineers to examine the program document for coherence, completeness, balance, and responsiveness to national needs.

This panel's examination is anything but superficial. All aspects of the program preparation are explored. They are analyzed for balance among the functional areas in the agencies and the overall program is again considered for possible redundancies and scientific gaps. Newly proposed programs are screened in a manner similar to that performed by the ICO panels to determine their promise and priority. Older projects are analyzed to see whether recent progress warrants acceleration or whether there are stagnating efforts which should be terminated.

This ad hoc panel works with the ICO and its panels and staff but makes an independent report to the Federal Council. The Council, in reviewing the recommendations of the ad hoc panel together with the ICO presentation, may suggest changes to the ICO. Finally, the ICO, guided by the recommendations of the Federal Council, prepares the final copy of the National Oceanographic program as a document which, following clearance by the Federal Council, is issued by the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.

The annual program is actually but one of several documents published by the ICO. I have here both a list and copies of ICO's publications for the record if you wish.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to put the list of publications in the record because this is a very important part of this whole subject. The publications will be filed for reference and will, of course, be available for inspection by the public.

Dr. MORSE. Yes.

[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

1 $0.50 per copy.

NOTE.-Single copies of publications in print are available through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, Building 159E, U.S. Navy Yard Annex, Washington, D.C., 20390.

Dr. MORSE. They represent certain visible accomplishments of the ICO's activity and can give you some idea of the matters that have concerned us.

It might afford you a better view of our activity if I discussed a few of the issues and problems which the ICO has dealt with as it developed over the past few years.

One continuing and important issue concerns international cooperation in oceanography. We all recognize that oceanography lends itself almost uniquely to international cooperation in joint programs; not only does this produce useful and fruitful relations between governments, but the overall progress of oceanography can be speeded by mutual sharing of data.

In 1961 international cooperation was enhanced by the formation of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission under the auspices of UNESCO. The Commission has held three meetings and its executive bureau has met four times.

The CHAIRMAN. You will probably cover it, but put in the record, too, our participation in international programs.

Dr. MORSE. Yes, sir; I will submit to you the list of the issues that they have taken up and our representatives, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I see. Dr. Maxwell is going to discuss that. I am sorry.

Dr. MORSE. Yes.

The United States has had particular interest in most of the issues coming before the Commission and the ICO has normally staffed the U.S. position for the State Department. I can furnish a list of these issues, and I will, and the delegation reports if so desired, but would suggest that you might more profitably explore these in detail with our International Programs Panel Chairman, Dr. Maxwell.

Another issue with which the ICO has concerned itself is the matter of oceanographic manpower, and we have already discussed that in some detail previously. So I will just skip that part of it.1

The CHAIRMAN. Skip that, and go down to the engineering. Dr. MORSE. A more recent matter to which we have given attention is the complex problem of "ocean engineering” or the technology surrounding working-in and exploitation of the sea. This is not exactly a classical marine science; rather it is that body of special engineering or technical knowledge which accompanies working in the sea. We should like both to know more about this knowledge as a coherent whole, as well as to identify special needs that must be faced in the future.

The ICO has recently formed a panel on ocean engineering under the chairmanship of Dr. John Craven, director of the Navy's deep submergence systems project. In the months to come, we plan to take advantage of the research and development by Government and industry which has preceded the effort we hope to embark upon, and translate this important background of experience into engineering objectives with clear implications and purposes. These concerns, of course, bring us to the question of American industry's role in exploitation of the ocean. Because of the great national interest in oceanography in recent years there has been a significant upswing of interest in oceanographic activity by industry. In particular, the National Security Industrial Association has been eager to cooperate with the Federal agencies and the ICO in exploring areas susceptible to industrial effort. We welcome this and will continually seek means (such as information exchange, mutual studies, and sharing with them our ocean engineering efforts, at least the results of that) to identify fruitful areas for industrial participation in the long-range development of the ocean's resources.

The CHAIRMAN. And by the same token, you want to share with industry some of the things that Government may be doing directly where it is possible!

Dr. MORSE. Yes. That, I think, is one of the reasons we wanted to form this panel, is to put together or try to assemble the efforts in engineering matters which may be sharable both from industry to the national program that is the Federal program—and vice versa.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. MORSE. I have mentioned only a few of the matters which have concerned the ICO and its panels--we have dealt with many others such as shipbuilding programs, ocean surveys, educational programs, and so forth. I shall not go into them in further details here, but would suggest that you may wish to explore them at a later time with some of our panel chairmen.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me make certain rather general observations which may possess a degree of objectivity since my own responsibility in the program is of recent origin. First, I believe that progress in oceanography in the past several years has been impressive. There has been a highly satisfactory buildup of capital fix

1 The committee has not had an opportunity to hear Dr. Maxwell.

« PreviousContinue »