258 



these problems have appeared in previous sections of this report, and others will 

 be found in subsequest sections dealing with ship operation and sea grant col- 

 lege funding. Excessive time and work is needed to justify and re-justify pro- 

 posals, planning cannot be carried out from one year to the next, and scientists 

 spend an increasing amout of time on administrative problems caused by these 

 matters. For logistical reasons the problems are far greater in oceanographie 

 institutions than in the typical university teaching department. Two solutions 

 present themselves and should be given serious consideration. They are long- 

 term and block funding. It is true to say that, if offered a choice between a large 

 increase in funds under present uncertain conditions, or a much smaller increase 

 with stable funding, with lesser burdens of negotiation and justification, and 

 with opportunity to plan for the future with assurance, then we should unhesi- 

 tatingly choose the latter. 



Under the institutional block funding concept, an institution (or its director) 

 is awarded a grant or contract on the basis of a rather general proposal. Institu- 

 tional block funding is generally justified more on the basis of the capabilities of 

 the in^^titntion and its staff than on the specific merits of the proposed research. 

 It can operate to permit exploratory research that would be difficult or impos- 

 sible to propose in advance, and has, historically, permitted a healthy growth of 

 the laboratories and resulted in rich scientific achievements. Continued funding 

 of essential support functions can automatically be cared for by this means. 



NSF has, happily, recognized the similar problems involved in ship operations 

 and has responded to them by adopting block funding. It is desirable that this con- 

 cept be extended so as to cover other areas, such as shop services, drafting, sec- 

 retarial and editorial work, etc.. the financing of which, on a continuous, stabl'» 

 basis, is essential if a qualified professional staff is to be maintained. 



It is neither expected nor projiosed that an unduly high proportion of oceano- 

 graphie research should be financed on an institutional or block funding ba.sis. 

 Individual scientists should still retain complete academic freedom to propose, 

 pursue, and control individual projects. 



The current trend to reqiiire detailed project justification by the Federal agen- 

 cies may eliminate or at least endanger an important and greatly needed type of 

 research in marine science. Programmatic research involving a team approach 

 cannot be easily funded in today's market in Washington, so that an attack on 

 the most complex fundamental problems in understanding the oceans is rapidly 

 being eliminated. The extraordinary complexity of the oceans dictates complex, 

 interdisciplinary, long-term programs that require stable, guaranteed funding 

 over correspondingly long terms. Some examples of this approach are the Interna- 

 tional Indian Ocean Expedition, cooperative studies of the equatorial regions in 

 the Atlantic, the proposed Caribbean Sea Project, and Arctic oceanography in 

 general. These programs may frequently require interinstitutional or interna- 

 tional cooperation, multiship operations and an interdisciplinary approach, and 

 always require long-term funding. In addition, they always require long-range 

 planning, the assignment of supervisory and coordinating personnel who can 

 look forward to some stability, and long range provision for the analysis of sam- 

 ples and data. The planning and funding must provide for the collation and 

 analysis of results. The scientific publications resulting from such large complex 

 projects should include interpretative studies as well as the publication of data. 

 All of these call for long-term commitments of funds at the outset of the program. 



P. The Sea Grant College Program 



Until this program has been more clearly defined in actual operation it is diffi- 

 cult to assess the effect it will have upon the development of marine resources 

 and its impact upon the academic institutions. 



Inasmuch as the program is directed towards pragmatic objectives, it may 

 provid<^ much needed support for this particular role of the institutions, as well 

 as a direct source of technical aid to segments of industry. Financial support for 

 training and research in this area is not readily available from other sources 

 except to a very modest degree. 



The institutions foresee certain difficulties in participating in the program as 

 it is now organized. These have to do with the specific prohibition of the use of 

 Sea Grant funds for construction, charter, or maintenance of vessels or the acqui- 

 sition of land and buildings. The institutions, already hard pressed to find funds 

 to meet the requirements of cost sharing provisions in basic research grants, 

 must now seek additional funds from private sources, already committed to 



