126 OCEAN SCIENCES AND NATIONAL SECURITT 



4. How can liaison and coordination between agencies be established 

 and maintained? 



5. What adjustments to present programs will be necessary to 

 s3aichronize and coordinate with future expansion? 



Informally, the CCO went on record stating that the NASCO 

 recommendations were realistic, that the administrative problems 

 raised by an increase in effort are no more difficult than the problems 

 that the CCO encountered when it was originally formed. The}^ 

 further resolved that the CCO could provide the means by which 

 future coordination, planning, and evaluation could be accomplished. 

 In concurring with the NASCO recommendations, the CCO noted 

 that, in general, thej^ were relatively modest and that the specific 

 numbers of ships, organizational responsibilities, etc., should be 

 interpreted only as guidelines to the magnitude of effort. 



The CCO specifically reiterated the inadequacy of the present sup- 

 ply of marine scientists and heartily concurred on the NASCO com- 

 ments that converted ships were so uneconomical and inefficient that 

 they should be promptly replaced. 



Response in the scientific connnunity has been almost universally 

 favorable. While representing the work of only a segment of those 

 engaged in oceanography, Dr. Harrison Bro\vn, Chairman of the NAS 

 Committee, has suggested that it probably represents the viewpoint 

 of the entire profession: 



Mr. AxFuso. Would j-ou say Dr. Brown that your report represents the view- 

 point of most U.S. Scientists concerned with oceanography? 



Dr. Brown. Well, we haven't exactly taken a public opinion poll, but on the 

 basis of replies that we have obtained when we solicited opinions, I would say 

 that generally the bulk of the marine scientists in the country would agree with 

 the broad objectives of the report and with the recommendations that we made.*^ 



An unusual amount of publicity attended release of the NASCO 

 recommendations. An aggressive stand b}" any group of scientists 

 in support of their field is almost without precedent, and almost 

 inevitably, feelings of anxiety develop among those in other fields 

 who are concerned that their branch of science may suffer, if another 

 is given unusual attention. By and large, this phenomenon results 

 from the stiff competition for relatively limited amounts of funds 

 for research. In this case, the NASCO report was prepared by 

 individuals directly or indirectly participating in oceanographic re- 

 search and, thus, the professional beneficiaries of any expansion in 

 program. However, the stature of the members of the committee 

 and concern for national problems suggests that the committee was 

 not narrowly motivated. Moreover, and this point is developed 

 subscquentl}^ the recommendations by the NASCO Committee appear 

 to have a conservative hue. 



Ultimately, the amount of jDublicity that anj^ announcements of 

 this type receives depends to a very great extent upon the estunate by 

 reporters of the newsworthiness of the material. The fact that so 

 many newspapers, weeklies and journals of public affairs carried news 

 items, comments, and analyses of the NASCO reports may well be 

 interpreted to reflect the interest on the part of the general public on 

 a then little-known field, a sincere interpretation on the part of the 

 editors of the importance of the material and, not to be discounted, 

 the clarit.y of the reports themselves. 



M" Frontiers in Oceanic Research," op. cit., p. H. 



