EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 139 



Mr. Pelly. I just have one question. I hate to refer to this matter 

 that has been gone into considerably, the matter of duplication of 

 facilities, but I notice in the letter of Dr. Wakelin's to you, as Chair- 

 man of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, that you were 

 charged with reviewing the research programs and under (d), to review 

 any unnecessary duplication. 



Now my question is, did you review the duplication as between the 

 lisli and wildlife laboratories and the new laboratories of the Depart- 

 ment of Health, Education, and Welfare? 



Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Pelly, yes; our Committee did take into 

 account the programs of the Public Health Service and the Bureau of 

 Commercial Fisheries in our research report under objective 3, and 

 also under objective 1, which concerns the general physical ocea- 

 nography. 



We did not discuss this matter of duplication in great detail in our 

 panel, but we were well aware of the situation and what the Public 

 Health Service was doing. 



Mr. Pelly. Well, you are actually charged with the responsibility 

 of reviewing any possible duplication, and you knew that both these 

 investigations were going into research for shellfish, and I wondered 

 actually if you felt that your group was so constituted that you could 

 in the national interest have enough authority to avoid any possible 

 duplication, or whether there would be some procedure or change in 

 formulation of the setup, so that we could in the national interest save 

 the taxpayers some monev that might go into duplication? 



Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Pelly, I do believe that if our group felt that 

 there was duplication in one of these cases, that our efforts and voice 

 would be heard in this. Whether it would be critical in making any 

 decisions on it or not, I cannot say, but certainly we would bring it 

 to the attention of the ICO. We have done this in some cases, I 

 might add, in particular a case in Seattle, where there are a number of 

 different laboratories that would like to build facilities in the same gen- 

 eral area. 



Again, as a research group, we looked into the research program 

 there, but this included the facilities needed to carry out this research 

 program. We suggested at our meeting in Seattle that the people get 

 together out there, instead of building duplicate facilities, look into the 

 feasibility of building a joint facility, both in terms of laboratories, 

 pier facilities, or other things of that nature. 



I am happy to say that as a result of our meeting in Seattle, the 

 University of Washington, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and 

 the Coast and Geodetic Survey have sat down several times since and 

 have discussed this whole program. We hope — -and I say "we hope" 

 because I have not heard of the final results of this — -they are proceed- 

 ing along the lines of at least a coordinated effort. Whether this will 

 turn out in the final instance to be one single, large pier facility or 

 laboratory, or two or three of them, brought together, remains to be 

 seen. But the}* are certainly looking along the lines of a coordinated 

 effort now, whereas before our group met there, they were thinking 

 as individuals. 



Mr. Pelly. I am aware of the meetings that you had out there in 

 October, and I realize, though, that there are so many in the area, so 

 many particular projects and facilities that are being sought by various 

 agencies of Government, and the area is so vast that it would be very 



