of 1969 and the President's goals and policies for environmental 

 enhancement. 



Statement of Chairman Russell E. Train 



to the CEQ-FCST Ad Hoc 



Committee on Ecological Research 



This is to express my personal appreciation, as well as that of this 

 council, for the work this Committee is doing and to indicate the 

 importance which I attach to this work and the directions I believe it 

 should take. 



The past several years have seen a great increase in environmental 

 awareness and concern, and with it the growing recognition that we 

 must take into account the impact of our activities on the environment. 

 Ecologists have been saying this for many years. However, it is only 

 recently that the general public and the Government have awakened to 

 the fact. One result is the enactment of the National Environmental 

 Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the main thrust of which is to assure that 

 environmental considerations receive adequate attention at all levels 

 of Government planning, decision making, and action. The 

 environmental impact statements required by NEPA created within 

 Government an almost instant need for ecological 

 understanding — and it has become ever more clear that our present 

 ecological knowledge and capabilities are grossly inadequate. 



Ecology is basic to environmentally responsible action. I use ecology 

 here in the scientific sense of the body of information, knowledge, and 

 the scientific discipline which underlies management and use of the 

 environment in the same way that physics underlies engineering. 

 However, ecology has become so academically and politically stylish 

 that it has become a catch-all term, frequently applied to anything 

 vaguely dealing with the environment. One result is that we do not 

 have a clear understanding of where we stand in terms of ecological 

 knowledge, nor where we must go. This situation can pose several 

 serious problems: 



First and most important, without clear guidance we may not 

 obtain the ecological foundation necessary to achieve our 

 national environmental goals. 



Second, without clearer definition of "ecology," we may 

 foreclose our options for obtaining the necessary information. 

 If the Federal budget lumps a wide variety of items under the 

 heading of "ecology," it will give Congress and the Office of 

 Management and Budget a grossly inflated idea of the amount 

 of real ecological research that is being undertaken, and may 

 make it exceedingly difficult to obtain recognition and 

 authorization for the additional real ecological research which 

 is required. 



Third, recognizing that our ecological capabilities are currently 

 limited, if we do not have a clear idea of where we now stand or 

 where we need to go, we run the risk of ill using the scarce 

 resources we have. 



This is where the mission of this Committee on Ecological Research is 

 so important. The basic objective of the Committee is to advise and 



12 



