« PreviousContinue »
I am now a professor of oceanography at the University of Miami and have served as director of the University's Institute of Marine Science since it was founded in 1943.
I am also president of the International Oceanographic Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to the encouragement of scientific research and education in oceanography.
I would like to endorse the statements made by Dr. Spilhaus this morning, and particularly the idea that such objectives as elucidation of the laws of the sea, the economics of oceanography, basic science and engineering technology should be brought together in colleges, sea grant colleges which might be developed in existing institutes.
This is especially desirable, I think, in view of the necessary and undoubtedly building increase in engineering and technology as applied to the ocean.
I don't feel particularly qualified to discuss methods of administration, but I certainly strongly endorse Dr. Schaefer's statements in support of S. 944. Rather, I will confine myself to the necessity of maintaining an orderly and coordinated growth of oceanography in order to insure that we take full advantage of our share in the world
In particular, I am concerned with the training of graduate students to supply the demands of oceanography and with the necessity of coordination and cooperation between government agencies and research organizations so that these demands can be met in an efficient and orderly manner.
In addition to conducting a broad research program in oceanography, the Institute of Marine Science has over 100 graduate students enrolled for courses leading to the M.S. or Ph. D. in oceanography.
We estimate that this represents about one quarter of the total number of graduate students enrolled for such courses in the United States. For this reason my colleagues and myself have a very special interest in the maintenance of a balance between the number of students being trained by the universities on the one hand and the present and future demands likely to be made upon them by the growth of oceanography in the various government and private agencies on the other.
The growth called for by the ICO long-range plan for development of oceanography requires a 9 to 10 percent annual increase in manpower during 1963–72, compared with a 7 to 8 percent annual growth average for all fields of science and technology. This is only a slight increase above the average growth predicted for all sciences and technology
The conclusions we have reached are that the present rate of enrollment and training of graduate students is below the minimum requirements to support the growth of oceanography recommended by the ICO as a long-range program for 1963–72, and that the required rate of Ph. D. production will not be reached until after 1970.
This conclusion is reached after consideration of additional sources of trained oceanographers from graduates in other fields and older scientists who enter the field of oceanography from the basic sciences.
The present enrollment of students will certainly not, in the immediate future, support any great increase in the rate of development in any existing agency, nor will it provide for the founding of any
new large research organizations, such as a national oceanographic institute or regional oceanographic institutes.
Such developments would throw the orderly growth of oceanography completely out of balance through their demands, not only upon the graduate training program but upon the small pool of oceanographers with the mature judgment and experience needed for leadership.
Last year Drs. Hedgpeth, Pritchard, and Koczy, and myself, organized a study of the oceanographic manpower in the United States, in behalf of the National Science Foundation.
The results of this survey indicated that, out of about 3,700 persons working on oceanographic projects in the country, about 650 possessed the qualifications in research experience or training equivalent to that of a Ph.D. degree in oceanography.
This is a fairly reasonable ratio, since it represents about six assistants or technicians to each scientist at the Ph. D. level. It was found, however, that the ratio in Government agencies generally was more than 7 to 1, compared with less than 5 to 1 in private institutions and universities.
If we include fishery management and engineering, then the rates become less than 3 to 1 in universities, more than 4 to 1 in Federal agencies. These figures suggest that there has been a somewhat more rapid growth than average in some of the Federal agencies, with a resultant dilution of experienced and trained personnel.
Percentage of total respondents who are qualified as oceanographers, fishery specialists, and oceanographic engineers, 1964.
The present enrollment of students in oceanographic institutes is over 400. The present level of oceanographic effort would require that 100 students be enrolled merely to keep pace with the loss of scientific manpower through the normal processes of attrition such as retirement or death.
Probably 600 would be needed in order to provide for the program recommended by ICO as well. On the other hand, oceanographers are also recruited from persons with degrees in the basic sciences, rather than in oceanography, who take up oceanographic research and become, as it were, oceanographers by experience. These account for a significant proportion of oceanographic recruitment, and help to reduce the burden on the schools of oceanography.
The available data show that the present supply of graduate students in oceanography, plus the recruitment from other sources, will barely suffice to meet the projected rate of growth-provided that no explosive or crash programs are developed and that no new major institutes are set up, and allowing for a lag of several years, due to the time required to train each student.
To establish large new institutes would place a further drain on the small group of experienced leaders and teachers. Instead, it is important that more support be given to graduate oceanographic programs in existing universities and teaching institutes to enable them to keep pace with the demand.
This can be done through the Government agencies providing active financial support for teaching faculties and for fellowships which will attract and support graduate students of good quality.
Since an important source of recruitment is from nonoceanographic graduates, it is also desirable that adequate provision be made for research participation of these graduates in established oceanographic programs at universities and elsewhere.
Since the growth of research and of graduate training must advance hand in hand, we believe it necessary that any coordinating committee or council for oceanography should be in a position to receive a direct input of information from those universities in which oceanographers are being trained as well as from Government and other agencies engaged in oceanographic research.
It must also be composed of individuals in a position to speak for and to make decisions for the agencies to which they belong. It must also have sufficient control over the development of the total oceanographic budget to insure that the agencies are able to fulfill their proper missions, while preventing unnecessary duplication of effort.
With regard to the method of coordination, it seems to be generally agreed that ICO has done its level best to undertake the responsibilities of coordination and cooperation but that it has not had adequate authority.
Most of us would agree that the individual members have worked hard and well to obtain and channel information and to recommend support for orderly plans of development. To the extent possible within the limitations of their authority they have been successful.
The effectiveness of ICO would be increased, however, if the agency representatives had a higher level of authority. I am not sufficiently versed in government to venture an opinion as to whether a Council could better achieve this effectiveness.
In fact, the only detailed study of this that has come to my attention is that of Dr. Donald Price, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration, but this, unfortunately, was given to me verbally and secondhand.
In summation, we respectfully urge that adequate powers of integration and control be provided to insure that the activities of all agencies in oceanography be coordinated with those of the educational institutions which offer professional training in this field.
Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith.
Also at this point, I wish to submit a letter of this date to the chairman from Senator John G. Tower, of Texas, a cosponsor of S. 944, and a copy of a speech on oceanographic needs delivered by Senator Tower in Houston, Tex., on March 15, referred to by the Senator in his letter to the chairman.
(The letter and speech referred to by Senator Bartlett follows:)
March 16, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that I will be out of town and will miss your March 16 hearings on establishment of a National Oceanographic Council. As a cosponsor of that bill, I had hoped to present a statement to the committee.
However, since on March 15, I made a short speech on the Nation's oceanographic needs in Houston-a city vitally interested in this field—I hope that you will be able to incorporate this speech in the printed record of your hearings so that my support of the legislation will be noted therein.
I enclose for you a copy of the speech, and once again express my thanks for your leadership in this field. Sincerely yours,
JOHN G. TOWER.
SPEECH OF SENATOR JOHN G. TOWER TO THE SOUTHWEST ASSOCIATION OF STUDENT
It certainly is a great pleasure for me to be here today with so many deans of students and deans of men from Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. As you all know, I have in my time worked for several deans. So it is with both caution and satisfaction that I speak to such a select group.
Inasmuch as deans are rather flexible people by the nature of their jobsdealing as they do with varied and often unexpected problems and woes day in and day out-I hope I may be permitted the flexibility necessary for academic survival here.
Of course, I'd like very much to be able to lecture you upon how to be better deans and administrators, but rather obviously you all know more about that than I. Luckily, one of the speech topics suggested for me by a dean who is here, but shall not be named, was discussion of major needs and changes in higher education over the coming decade.
Starting from that general topic, I would like to draw upon some of the experience and background that I have had as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I'd like to talk to you about something that I think you all are going to have to work more fully into your curricula this next decade. I refer to a very large topic and a very deep topic; the oceans.
I must say that the oceans are a rather obvious topic for increased attention to those of us who have traveled on them and over them. The various applications of national seapower are equally obvious to those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committees of the Congress.
But, too many of our colleges are academic landlubbers. And in the next decade the national survival of our Nation will increasingly depend upon development of a new generation of students of the sea. For we are being sorely challenged at sea by international communism.
And where we are confronting communism today it is seapower that is keeping our side of the fight alive. However, even in Vietnam our landlubber strategy did not recognize until very recently that the enemy was using sea lanes of supply fully as extensively as he was using land lanes.
So you deans are going to have to educate a generation that knows more about the sea than my generation does. It will be fully as important to them as is outer space.
You deans are going to have to do something about the fact that only some 40 American colleges conduct formal courses in oceanography. A statistic that is further limited when it is noted that many of these schools are newcomers to the field and that only a handful offer extensive and sophisticated programs.
And those of you from Oklahoma and Arkansas will need to convince some of your landlocked legislators and benefactors that the geopolitics of seapower and the exploitation of minerals from the sea is fully as important to the economy and progress of your States as it is to Texas and Louisiana—two States that have made some steps to meet this challenge of the future.
I must today urge—indeed implore you—to work in your colleges and universities to take out an insurance policy covering the seven-tenths of this planet's surface that is liquid space. Liquid space—the oceans—is fully as important as the outer space in which Americans appear so eager to participate.
Besides, it is on the liquid space of earth that the most serious long-range challenge to American freedom and national security is developing.
Plans of the Communist bloc—involving both the Soviet Union and Red China-for exploitation of the oceans are becoming graphically clear. The oceanic activity of the Communists is as dynamic and as challenging as their space feats. Communist sea strategy is big and bold. No area of activity is neglected in their determined push for world domination through sea domination.
The race in liquid space is one America cannot afford to lose. Yet few Americans really understand the stakes involved, and too few American universities are preparing their political scientists and journalists and engineers to understand the magnitude of this challenge.
To get the problem in perspective, there are some fundamentals we should note. Fundamentals that will help you and retrain the next decade's explorers and writers and Government officials.
First, North America is virtually an island. Right at our doorstep is an almost unexplored jungle. Huge mountain ranges, canyons, and strange creatures are found in these millions of cubic miles of sea water. This liquid space, about which we know so little and about which the Communists are finding out so much—this liquid space is a murky mass of discontinuities * * * full of sound ducts, currents, and thermal layers. Most incredible of all is the racket of noise rebounding through this undersea jungle.
Like the air above it, the sea is fluid, but many times as dense; and because of this it has the capacity to support objects on its surface with no expenditure of energy needed to keep them buoyant, but energy required only to move them from place to place over the quadrillions of molecular ball bearings in every cubic centimeter of sea water.
That's a rather basic concept; yet, how many of the students at your schools have ever given it any serious consideration? No doubt many more would do so if football were played in a swimming pool.
At any rate, movements of goods over the surface of the sea, in great bulk, has become an easy, inexpensive and essential business for every member of the oceanic confederation. This use of the sea has shaped history in a way that no other human activity has.
Today, more than 99 percent of all oversea tonnage travels on the surface of the sea. Ships are the sinews and strength of the free world alliance. Our strongest allies have a coastline and all our allies have access to the sea.
Have any of your students stopped lately to consider that this may be a major factor in why those nations are free?
It is my observation that we have too long taken for granted the doctrine of “Freedom of the Seas." This is not in fact a natural condition and no divine authority guarantees the sea's continued use to us. Actually, the sea is free only because freemen have chosen to make it so, and it will remain free only so long as freemen have the strength and resolution to keep it free.
Our Nation and our allies depend upon the more than 60,000 miles of world sea lanes for economic survival and well-being in peacetime and for physical survival in war. Close or narrow the sealanes and our America would begin to strangle and die.
Of the 77 strategic raw materials which the United States requires for survival, we are self-sufficient in less than a dozen. Many of these vital items are taken entirely for granted by today's American student.
Our students needs to be asked to make a simple experiment. For instance suggest that in their mind's eye they take out all those things that depend upon the sea and stack them on the front lawn of the fraternity or in the dormitory driveway.
First, they will have to resign themselves to loss of their automobile, because its steel and alloys require cobalt, manganese chromium and antimony-and we import up to 90 percent of these metals by ship.
Let me immediately caution you that this little experiment is not really the answer to the campus parking problem.
Next they will have to pitch out the radio, TV set, and hi-fi record player, because the copper and mica essential for their operation are imported. The