Nevertheless, an attempt to apply project-by-project analysis to 
oceanography exists... It is imaginative and pioneering, but can be 
criticized on several grounds: 
1. An inadequate distinction between gross and net benefits; 
2. A casual approach to estimation of future demands and 
benefits ; 
3. The assumption that the future benefits from different invest- 
ments will not vary too irregularly over time; 
4, An incomplete effort to estimate the probable effect of other 
changes in technology and economic preferences on benefits de- 
rivable from the oceanographic program ; and 
5. A failure in some instances to distinguish whether the relevant 
area or economy over which benefits are to be calculated is na- 
tional or international. 
The application of benefit-cost analysis to oceanographic research 
(as differentiated from oceanographic programs) is also of uncertain 
value. There is considerable evidence that most Government-spon- 
sored research is supported because it contributes to certain national 
objectives. Thus, oceanographic research, as such, probably should 
be construed as an overhead, staff or support activity for achieving na- 
tional objectives related to the ocean. Consequently, it is not partic- 
ularly fruitful to evaluate the specific benefit. of individual research 
efforts in oceanography, because they are rarely directly identified 
with any particular mission. 
For oceanography, and apparently many other research activities 
as well, two levels of research support seem to exist: The first tier in- 
cludes research activities undertaken quite directly by an agency as- 
signed with a specific operating responsibility; the second relates to 
a more general level of research support with benefits accruing to a 
broad group of missions. National Science Foundation support seems 
more akin to the second type. By contrast, many research activities 
conducted within and directly under the control of an operating agency 
with specific missions are fairly attributed directly to those missions. 
1“Heonomic Benefits from Oceanographic Research,” National Academy of 
Sciences, National Research Council (Publ. 1228), 1964. This is referred to in 
this section as the NASCO Report.’ 
2? Wor a critical evaluation of the NASCO Report, “Economic Benefits,” see be- 
low and James A. Crutchfield, Robert W. Kates, and W. R. Derrick Sewell, 
“Benefit-Cost Analysis and the National Oceanographic Program,” to be 
published in the Journal of Natural Resources, October 1966. 
56 
