Page images
PDF
EPUB

We are fifth or sixth in fisheries, which makes me feel terrible, and I am sure it makes you feel terrible.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard this morning some of the testimony with Dr. Cain on this matter.

Dr. SPILHAUS. We have to have massive expenditures and this means that we need a group, and this is not belittling the work of ICO at all. In fact ICO may even have a reason to continue to exist, but that doesn't mean that we don't need a higher level group to coordinate the much greater order of magnitude and the different efforts that we need if we are going to be first in the oceans.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I would think-and I am sure you agree with me—that ICO ought to welcome something like this, because it would give it a chance to function better. It would give it better advice and it would help it to coordinate some of its efforts better.

Dr. SPILHAUS. I would think anybody who is sincerely interested in the United States being the first in the development of the oceans, would welcome the establishment of a group at the highest possible level to coordinate our activities in ocean engineering:

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I want to explore just briefly, because you are familiar and I suppose some of the other witnesses are too, the matter of industry providing service or taking the lead in this field. I take it that you feel that we are pretty sadly lacking in that and that ICO, even though they may want to do this, just doesn't have the authority and are too limited to be able to do it?

Dr. SPILHAUS. Yes, sir; I think we are missing a bet, because I think that imaginative industry is already looking toward the oceans, looking for ways in which, by the investment of their own capital and with some assurance of reasonable return, which any private industry needs, they are willing to invest in the ocean and I think they are floundering because they have no place to go, no place that can give them the answer.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. And this, to me, is very important and the Government is going to have to sponsor some group or an independent staff of experts to help industry in this matter because you will find that industry seldom in a new field like this will go it alone.

Some industries, notably the oil industry, probably does so, but other than that, you don't have too much actual activity in industry unless the industry is so big that it can afford a lot of research. Smaller industry hasn't much chance in this field.

Dr. SPILHAUS. There are three elements in this thing, encouragement of industrial participation and exploitation of the oceans, and the one I mentioned was the establishment of what I have chosen to call sea grant colleges.

The history of the United States is that if we get a sea grant college, industries that are interested in the sea will cluster around that good college or university, and it could be in the State of Washington, in California, Texas, or in Rhode Island, or our other coastal States. The other thing is that we need a central point in our Federal Government where both industry and the colleges can go for support of their work.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been quite a revival of interest in other colleges than the ones that were in the oceanographic field prior to

this upsurge. I am glad to see this in many schools throughout the United States, which you are familiar with, but I do think they need some more help to get this going. It is similar to the situation I went through with the Space Agency, where we started out with a dozen, no correlation, and finally we had to end up with a separate agency.

The Space Agency is urging colleges through grants to do work in that field, and it seems to me we are in that position with oceanography. This is what we are hoping to do.

Thank you very much, doctor, and I appreciate your coming. We are going to try and hurry this hearing this morning, but we will leave the record open for a few days in case any of you gentlemen wish to add to your testimony.

We will see that the clerk sends you a transcript of what you have said, and you may want to make some changes. There are a great number of trade publications and scientific publications and schools that are very anxious to have this testimony. So you may want to enlarge upon it. Dr. SPILHAUS. Thank

you,

Senator The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, doctor. (Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Schaefer is the director of the Institute of Marine Resources, University of California, at San Diego. We will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF DR. MILNER B. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR OF MARINE

RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

Dr. SCHAEFER. It is very nice to speak before your committee again, sir. Mr. Chairman, with your pleasure, I have a prepared statement here.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead, we will be glad to hear it. There are a great many people interested.

Dr. SCHAEFER. I thought perhaps rather than reading the whole statement I could perhaps cover some of the highlights.

The CHAIRMAN. OK.

Dr. SCHAEFER. As you know, I have been involved with the matter of the academic study of oceanography.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you something. Are you physically located in San Diego or in La Jolla.

Dr. SCHAEFER. La Jolla is a suburb of San Diego. It is a little suburb of about 11 miles north of the center of town. I live nearer to the center of town, the Scripps Institution is located in La Jolla.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I am making is that the university has taken over the Scripps Institutes, has it not?

Dr. SCHAEFER. Yes; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography is one of the units of the University of California at San Diego.

The CHAIRMAN. But formerly it was a private oceanographic research institution?

Dr. SCHAEFER. Not for a great many years. It started out as a marine biological station, endowed by the Scripps of the ScrippsThe ICO performs an essential function, as a means whereby these many agencies of Government can develop a more inclusive and better coordinated program pursuant to their individual missions than would be possible.

But it seems to me that by its nature, there are certain things that it can't adequately deal with. Two of them have to do with the administrative branch, and one essentially has to do with the Congress.

Since the members represent the individual agencies, and since the staff of the ICO is seconded from the agencies, it is most difficult for it to establish relative importance of different programs that are proposed by different agencies or the relative merits of different components within each agency.

Secondly, the budget for the national oceanographic program is composed of the budgets for the individual agencies that are incorporated into the President's budget, as it comes to the Congress, and this is arrived at, of course, by each department head within the overall budget limitations for his department.

Fragments of the oceanographic program in each department have to compete with the other unrelated programs of the department. The ICO representing individual departments and agencies has to work within the limitations of the budget ceilings for the individual departments and this may not always properly reflect the relative desirability of these different elements in a broader frame of reference. This is simply the way the business operates.

Finally, another difficulty is the fact that these individual components come to the Congress not in a single package, but the components consisting of agency components are considered individually by some, I believe 14 different subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee.

Each agency component is judged individually by different subcommittees in relation to the multiple missions of each agency rather than a unified program and budget.

Well, this has all been talked about for quite a few months, in fact, for the last 2 or 3 years, and I think the fact that there have been so many different bills introduced and so much debating going on, emphasizes the importance of establishing some new machinery to make it possible to do the job that is now needed since the program has expanded much beyond what it was when the ICO was first set up.

It seems to me the necessity for this is particularly urgent for those elements of the program that involve the present missions of several different agencies.

Such, for example, as the study of air-sea interactions, or particularly research and development on the extractive resources of the sea, things like fisheries, minerals, and so forth.

Finally with this eminent rapid development of applied engineering in the ocean, which I mentioned earlier, there will certainly arise difficult problems concerning the proper balance between the application of knowledge that we have afready attained for engineering puiposes and acquisition of new knowledge on which to base future engineering developments.

Again these problems I believe will demand consideration in a broader contention than the individual missions of the individual agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, could I go back just a minute.

I was talking to our counsel here. You make the statement that you were tremendously impressed by the increasing number of students who are applying for admission in graduate schools of marine sciences.

I suppose you are referring to your own institution, but do you find in talking with other men in your field, and other universities and colleges that the same is true in those places?

Dr. SCHAEFER. Yes; the general impression, and I think I can speak for most of my colleagues, is that in the last 2 or 3 years increasing numbers of people who are extremely well prepared in the basic sciences, chemistry, mathematics, physics and so on, have been applying for admission to the graduate schools; that is the amount of interest.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that as least we have created in the past 10 years a great deal more interest among young people in this field.

Dr. SCHAEFER, Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There was a woeful lack of interest in this field prior to, well in the 1930's, and most of the 1940's. Go ahead.

Dr. SCHAEFER. The other thing of course that has happened just in recent years, in addition to the great interest of the Federal Government, we are now commencing to attract considerable attention to the possibilities of the ocean from industry and from our State governments.

For example, in California, the State now is giving fairly major attention to the ocean resources in the formulation of our State development plan. The Governor has recently established an advisory committee on ocean resources that includes representatives of government, industry, and the scientific community to assist in the development of State policy and programs toward the utilization by our citizens and industry of these resources.

I point these things out because the national needs in oceanography involve not only the activities of the 20 or so different bureaus and agencies that have been involved in their traditional roles, but the increasing needs and interests of industry, the increasing needs and interests of States governments, and even on the Federal side, very great interest is growing in development of ocean engineering.

This essentially means that the task is getting larger, more comprehensive, and probably more complex.

I have reviewed in the background document here, the development of the ICO, as a coordinating group for the 20. or so bureaus and agencies that are involved, and I won't review this here.

My personal opinion in regard to ICO is that it has done a magnificent job with a very difficult task of coordinating the activities of this multiplicity of agencies involved.

I notice that the Select Committee on Government Research of the House of Representatives has, in its recent report, used the ICO as an example of multiagency coordination. However, it seems to me that despite the indispensable coordinating function which the ICO has performed, there tend to develop certain imbalances and deficiencies in the oceanographic program, the national program.

The ICO performs an essential function, as a means whereby these many agencies of Government can develop a more inclusive and better coordinated program pursuant to their individual missions than would be possible.

But it seems to me that by its nature, there are certain things that it can't adequately deal with. Two of them have to do with the administrative branch, and one essentially has to do with the Congress.

Since the members represent the individual agencies, and since the staff of the ICO is seconded from the agencies, it is most difficult for it to establish relative importance of different programs that are proposed by different agencies or the relative merits of different components within each agency.

Secondly, the budget for the national oceanographic program is composed of the budgets for the individual agencies that are incorporated into the President's budget, as it comes to the Congress, and this is arrived at, of course, by each'department head within the overall budget limitations for his department.

Fragments of the oceanographic program in each department have to compete with the other unrelated programs of the department. The ICO representing individual departments and agencies has to work within the limitations of the budget ceilings for the individual departments and this may not always properly reflect the relative desirability of these different elements in a broader frame of reference. This is simply the way the business operates.

Finally, another difficulty is the fact that these individual components come to the Congress not in a single package, but the components consisting of agency components are considered individually by some, I believe 14 different subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee.

Each agency component is judged individually by different subcommittees in relation to the multiple missions of each agency rather than a unified program and budget.

Well, this has all been talked about for quite a few months, in fact, for the last 2 or 3 years, and I think the fact that there have been so many different bills introduced and so much debating going on, emphasizes the importance of establishing some new machinery to make it possible to do the job that is now needed since the program has expanded much beyond what it was when the ICO was first set up.

It seems to me the necessity for this is particularly urgent for those elements of the program that involve the present missions of several different agencies.

Such, for example, as the study of air-sea interactions, or particularly research and development on the extractive resources of the sea, things like fisheries, minerals, and so forth.

Finally with this eminent rapid development of applied engineering in the ocean, which I mentioned earlier, there will certainly arise difficult problems concerning the proper balance between the application of knowledge that we have already attained for engineering pulposes and acquisition of new knowledge on which to base future engineering developments.

Again these problems I believe will demand consideration in a broader contention than the individual missions of the individual agencies.

« PreviousContinue »