124 OCEANOGRAPHY 



I have been very pleavsed to hear the comments this morning about 

 the need for emphasis on the biological phases of this program. I do 

 not think they need to be repeated. 



We strongly support any effort to strengthen the oceanographic 

 research represented by the bills under consideration. The major 

 points of discussion in our opinion relate not to the general overall 

 tone of the bills but perhaps to specific details of broad programs 

 such as those proposed in H.R. 9;^61. 



I do not think there is any doubt but the witnesses who have ap- 

 peared before your committee — in fact, the establishment of your own 

 subcommittee, here, on oceanography and all of the testimony from 

 outside people and organizations have made it clear that the need 

 for a program has been documented beyond question. The problem 

 now, as we see it, is to plan and initiate a progi'am that will ade- 

 quately meet the national requirements. 



I would like to join with other witnesses in complimenting the 

 NAS-NRC Committee or doing a fine job on their report. It is an 

 aggressive and a thorough approach to the most complex national 

 problem we have today. 



You might be interested in knowing that we were asked to submit 

 our comments by Dr. Harrison Brown to the committee. He put his 

 letter in the form of questions. We were able to answer most of them 

 with an unqualified yes, such as the things that deal with the general 

 recommendations, needs for increased program, and the funding 

 schedules that were proposed. 



When it came to the detailed recommendations, however, we had 

 some serious questions, particularly as they related to the balance be- 

 tween various iispects of marine science and the general tone of the 

 recommendations in the ocean resources section of the report. 



We really feel that there has been overemphasis on applied as 

 against basic research in tliis section of the report. I think this is 

 more than just an argument over definitions. We can argue defini- 

 tions of basic as opposed to applied research all day. The only one 

 I ever heard that makes sense is the scientist who said that basic 

 research is what I do and applied research is what my competitoi-s 

 spend their time on. 



This is more than that. We feel that there seems to be an almost 

 self-defeating emphasis on commercially important fish stocks, 

 which fails to recognize the long-range problems and the potential of 

 the marine resources. 



We think that the potential for deliberately farming the sea — 

 which I think we are going to have to get into — depends upon a broad 

 ecological approach to these problems. Specifically, we are concerned 

 with some of the recommendations in section 3 of the report that 

 limit research to commercial or food fish and limit behavior studies 

 to laboratories. Other recommendations on the aggregation of organ- 

 isms seem to be concerned only with how to get a net around them 

 rather than the detailed life history studies that are so important, 

 I think most of our questions are probably self-evident to biologists. 



I do not think you would expect anyone concerned with sport fish- 

 ing to be wholeheartedly in sympathy with any program that appar- 

 ently limits participation of the Fish and Wildlife Ser^nce to the 

 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. This is admittedly a detail, we 

 certainly have perfect confidence in Mr. McKernan and his staff, but 



