178 



The submission of the Mohole platform design only served to in- 

 tensify the opposition by Dr. Hedberg ^* and some of his AMSOC asso- 

 ciates. The cost of acquisition and maintenance of the platform threat- 

 ened to absorb resources that they would prefer to see employed in a 

 wider range of less ambitious drilling. 



Although up to 1963 AMSOC appears to have been ambivalent on 

 the question of whether the emphasis of Mohole should be on reaching 

 the mantle or exploiting the technology of submarine drilling to ac- 

 quire scientific information, the underlying purpose was undoubtedly 

 the latter. The spectacular aspect of the former goal appears to have 

 been accepted as necessary to win popular support and funding for the 

 scientific purposes — especially as reinforced by the notion of an inter- 

 national competition. However, as the cost of the spectacular continued 

 to mount, the prospect dwindled of achieving commensurate scientific 

 information. To many members of the AMSOC committee, the pros- 

 pective scientific yield of Mohole appeared to be limited to that to be 

 acquired incidental to the drilling of one deep hole. Accordingly, by 

 late 1963, Dr. Hedberg was motivated to develop and present his case 

 that Mohole's objectives should be redefined, and its programing 

 changed. Although he made clear that he spoke only for himself, he 

 described his views, as substantially those of the other members of 

 AMSOC and, indeed, widely held. 



As matters stood, at the end of October 1963, most of the AMSOC 

 committee members were in opposition to the plan of NSF and Brown 

 & Root for the immediate construction of the ultimate Mohole plat- 

 form. The issue became paramount in hearings before two congres- 

 sional committees, and substantially the same testimony from many of 

 the same witnesses was presented at each. One was the House Subcom- 

 mittee on Oceanography (October 31, November 12, 1963) ; the other 

 was the Senate A})propriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices 

 Appropriations (October 28, November 1) . 



Before both committees. Dr. Hedberg presented his case for an inter- 

 mediate drilling program. Said Hedberg of Mohole : 



* ♦ * This project can readily be one of the greatest and most rewarding 

 scientific ventures ever carried out * * *. It can just as readily become instead 

 only a foolish and unjustifiably expensive fiasco if there is not insistence that 

 it he carried out within a proper concept and in a well-planned, rigorously 

 logical and scientific manner. There must be insistence that it not be allowed 

 to degenerate into merely another costly publicity stunt. [His aim and AMSOC'a 

 was to keep the project] on a sound and rational basis which will give to science 

 and engineering and to this country a maximum return in value received for 

 dollars spent * * *. i would far rather see this project killed where it now 

 stands than to see it carried out in a manner not worthy of its potentialities 

 or in any way which will not insure that the country gets its maximum money's 

 worth * * *.=» 



The belief that a science spectacular was needed to win popular sup- 

 port, according to Dr. Hedberg, was erroneous. 



3* Dr. Hollis D. Hedbere:, a vice prpsident of Gulf Oil Co. anl part-time professor of 

 geology at Princeton, had become chairman of AMSOC Dec. 9, 1961. He was also presi- 

 dent of the American Geological Institute and a past president of the Geological Society 

 of America. 



35 Independent Office Appropriations. 1964. op. clt.. pp. 16.S7-38 ; U.S. Congress. House. 

 Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Mohole project. Hearings before the 

 Subcommittee on Oceanography of the * * « June 25; Oct. 29, 30, Sli; Nov. 7. 12. 1963. 

 RSth Cong., first sess. Serial No. 88-14. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 1963), pp. 39^0. 



