OCEANOGRAPHY 121 



The witnesses that you have invited to appear before your committee, the 

 establishment of your Subcommittee on Oceanography, the various reports you 

 have secured from committees of scientists, are all effective testimony to your 

 committee's awareness of the need for expanding the Nation's oceanographic 

 research program. We believe the need has been documented beyond question. 

 The problem now is to plan and initiate a program that will adequately meet 

 the national requirement. 



Much of the initial interest and action on this problem was due to reports 

 on oceanographic needs prepared by the Committee on Oceanography of the 

 National Academy of Science-National Research Council. As you know, their 

 recommendations have been largely incorporated onto H.R. 9361, which is one 

 of the bills under consideration. We believe that the NAS-NBC Conmiittee 

 did an excellent job. The aggressive, thorough approach they tools in attacking 

 a most complex national problem is commendable. 



A few months ago Dr. Harrison Brown, the Chairman of the NAS-NRC 

 Committee, asked the Sport Fishing Institute for comments on the completed 

 chapters of the report. The institute's comments were transmitted to Dr. 

 Brown in a letter by our executive vice president, Richard H. Stroud. Those 

 (ibservations form the basis for discussing the bills under consideration. Dr. 

 Brown asked six specific questions about chapter 1 (the "Introduction and 

 Summary of Recommendations") : 



1. Do you agree with the general recommendations contained in the report? 



2. Do you agree with the need for an increased national program in the marine 

 sciences? 



3. Do you feel that the rate of increase outlined in the report is realistic? 



4. What comments do you have concerning the detailed recommendations? 



5. Do you feel that adequate attention has been given to a balance between 

 the various aspects of the marine sciences? 



6. What comments would you care to make concerning those aspects of the 

 report which pertain to your particular interests? 



On the first three questions we answered ""Yes" with "No" qualifications what- 

 soever. Question 4 (the detailed recommendations in the report) had to be 

 answered with some serious reservations about the proposals outlined for ocean 

 resource research (sec. Ill, G. p. 22 of ch. 1 of the report) . 



We are extremely concerned about the apparent overemphasis on applied as 

 opposed to basic research. We feel this is more than another argument over 

 definitions. The wording and apparently the intent of the specific recommen- 

 dations for ocean resources seems to contrast marketly with much of the Com- 

 mittee's chapter on basic research. The general recommendations of the Com- 

 mittee properly emphasize the accepted responsibility of the Federal Govern- 

 ment for basic research. In our oi)inion. however, the details of the ocean re- 

 .sources recommendation of the report don't reflect this obligation. 



The specific recommendations for ocean resources seem to reflect an overt, 

 almost exclusive emphasis on commercially important fish stocks and on trade- 

 oriented problem areas of the moment. We wonder if this is not an overly 

 narrow, almost self-defeating focus on applied research which fails to recognize 

 the long-range problems and potential of the marine resources. 



What are some of the specific areas where the scope of proposed studies needed 

 to be broadened? 



Specifically, three major recommendations (Nos. 2, 1], and 14) propose to limit 

 research to connnercial or food fish. These recommendations overlook other 

 sx>ecies that are often more important, particularly the sjiecies used by sport 

 fishermen. Moreover, this limitation to specific fishes might overlook the im- 

 portance of other species as competing organisms or as important elements in 

 food chains. The limiting of estuarine research to "food fi.sh and shell fish" is 

 clearly not justified. 



Another recommendation (No. 3) would apj>arently limit behavior studies to 

 the laboratory and exclude vitally important field studies. It is a well-known 

 phenomenon that responses in the labortaory may differ decidedly from actions 

 in nature. Both phases should be utilized: they are often mutuaily complemen- 

 tary aspects of research, both necessary to full understanding. 



Recommendation 7 on the nature of the aggregation of organisms would be 

 improved by expanding its scope in order to recognize and include broad-scale 

 p'-ological studies and research on population dvnamics of nr^rine organisms. 

 These are woefully weak areas of knowledge and hold vast notential to benefit 

 nnnkind. Detailed life history studies are also badiv needed. Among fishes 

 alone, for example, less than 1 percent of the world's known total of about 

 2.5,000 si>ecies are biologically well known. 



