The Panel’s work was aided by the availability of numerous ocean- 
ographic reports and studies, some of which are cited herein. Spon- 
sored primarily by the National Academy of Sciences and the Inter- 
agency Committee on Oceanography, these reports have greatly aided 
formulation of the Panel’s recommendations. 
Considerations of marine biology appeared especially important in 
evaluating the national program. Because of this, a subpanel under 
the chairmanship of William D. McElroy was formed to examine 
problems and prospects in biological oceonography. This subpanel 
met as a group on 11 days (see app. I). 
Meeting for formal sessions on 18 days, the PSAC Panel heard about 
50 invited experts and agency representatives. Early meetings were 
devoted to gathering information about the scope, content, and nature 
of the wide range of activities being conducted in and on or associated 
with oceans. Opinions about future actions were sought, and con- 
sideration was given to limitations and constraints imposed by man- 
power, funds, prospects of economic returns, and laws or the lack 
thereof. In general, these meetings were held at places where ocean- 
ography or related scientific work was being conducted. Smaller 
groups under Panel members’ leadership also worked in such areas 
as the law of the sea and technological possibilities for seagoing or 
underwater engineering. 
In addition to formal Panel activities, individual members visited 
facilities, discussing oceanography with interested members of the 
scientific and industrial communities. Indeed, it is not an exaggera- 
tion to state that many Panel members have devoted a substantial part 
of the past year to these activities. A more complete listing of Panel 
activities is given in appendix I. 
There are limitations on this report. It is not a blueprint with 
detailed projects or activities whch would constitute a national ocean 
program for the years to come. Rather, it is an attempt to identify 
the current problems of national interest and to present a framework 
within which program details can be most effectively planned by those 
responsible for carrying them out. We have identified important op- 
portunities which such a program should recognize and attempt to 
exploit and have given an assessment of the priority which we feel 
should be attached to the national ocean program as a whole and to 
its expected major components. 
