OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 161 



They are less interested from the National Academy's point of view 

 in the actual dollars as they are in our reseach, surveys, and ship con- 

 struction program. 



Mr. Bauer. Is there any reason why industry should not be repre- 

 sented on the panel of the ICO ? 



Mr. Wakelin. We are hoping, Mr. Bauer, in August to convene 

 a large group of industrial people who will confer with us on instru- 

 mentation and standardization m this whole area. We hope through 

 this mechanism to get a much closer association with industry than 

 we have had in the past. The only outside Government activities 

 who are concerned in this program, as you know, are those laboratories 

 such as Woods Hole, Lamont, university structures throughout the 

 country, Scripps and APL in Wasliington. We have had no indus- 

 trial people sitting in with us at all upon our general program. 



Mr. Bauer. Don't you think that would be advisable, perhaps? 



Mr. Wakelin, I think there are a number of areas in which they 

 could contribute. For example, the Geophysical people could con- 

 tribute a great deal to this field. I think also those people who are in 

 the instruments program could contribute a great deal to our problems 

 that we are discussing currently and which we will bring up to focus 

 in August on instrumentation and standardization. 



Mr. Bauer. Let me ask you a further question on coordination: 

 Let's consider the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval 

 Research. Both of these organizations are contracting agencies with 

 I'espect to oceanography ; is that correct ? 



Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Bauer. Is there an overlap in their operations ? 



Mr. Wakelin. Our review of the general programs for the 1962 

 budget included areas in which each panel and the whole ICO con- 

 sidered joint programs, either in the same field, or in different fields, 

 that appeared to overlap. We have tried to cut down any overlap- 

 ping or duplication we considered unnecessary. In certain areas 

 there are efforts going along in the same fields by line item title as 

 though they are exactly the same thing. 



In these areas they are usually attacking the same problem from 

 two different viewpoints. I do not believe, Mr. Bauer, there is a sig- 

 nificant amount of duplication between NSF and ONR in this regard. 



Mr. Bauer. Let me be specific, Mr. Secretary. 



In your TENOC program, you show the following ships will be 

 constructed for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a ship of 

 AGOR SCB-185 characteristics should be provided by 1965. A sec- 

 ond AGOR SCB-185 should be provided by 1969. 



Now, we have heard testimony, and will again later on this week, 

 that the National Science Foundation is also financing a ship for the 

 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Is there any reason why the 

 ships should not be financed from one or the other sources, or why 

 should they be financed from both ? 



Mr, Wakelin. Our program at Woods Hole with the AGOR 

 SCB — 185 is a replacement for one of the ships that is now at Wood's 

 Hole, and a followon to that. The Science Foundation's ship is a 

 little smaller than this, as I recall. Ours is 1,375 tons and I think 

 theirs is around 1,100 tons. These are both ships of a general char- 

 acter to do about the same job, but of course Woods Hole operates 



