234 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



Mr. Miller. I may say that although the bill bears my name, it 

 represents the thinking of a lot of people. I am very happy to hear 

 you say this. We realize that the bill is not perfect. I think that 

 you have heard Professor Lewis' statement, here. I think that he 

 has made a lot of very constructive recommendations, as did Dr. 

 Wakelin the other day. 



Of course, some of us were a little disappointed that the bill did not 

 get a favorable report. On the other hand, the report on the bill is 

 not one that is entirely unfavorable. It has a neutral approach. 



Do you feel that there is a necessity for positive legislation in this 

 field to coordinate its activities? 



Dr. Olson. I feel strongly that there is such a necessity. 



Mr. Miller. You heard me speak a minute ago of the biological 

 phase of oceanography. Would you care to address yourself to 

 that? 



Dr. Olson. Yes, I can. I would like to state also that as far as 

 physical oceanographers are concerned, I have had perhaps more ex- 

 perience with the biological end than most of them. I have long been 

 associated with the biological oceanographers, and at the Florida 

 State University I was minor professor for I do not know how many, 

 perhaps 15, masters and several doctors who got their degrees in bio- 

 logical oceanography. So I think I have been fairly conversant with 

 some of the aspects of that field. 



I was pleased, in this bill, that biological oceanography has been 

 given the consideration which it is due. I believe biologists are very 

 poor press agents. 



Mr. Miller. I agree. 



Dr. Olson". They have not been selling themselves properly. And 

 I think biological oceanography is a very important field, and it has 

 been neglected terribly. 



As an oceanographer, I believe that we should look at all fields, 

 but we cannot neglect one completely. 



I would like to make one remark about certain expressions which 

 I have read about the seas as a food source for our world. And there 

 seems to be a bit of hysteria connected with that, too ; that eventually 

 we are going to run out of food and we will have to go to the seas for 

 food. Now, I like to be right, and I like to be right for the right 

 reason. 



And I think there is a danger in emphasizing this aspect of the seas, 

 because this is my personal opinion, but I think that with good en- 

 gineering practices and good scientific practices there is plenty of 

 space on this earth for raising all the food that humans could use for 

 a long time, if we do it right. We do not have go to the seas for food. 



But I think the fact is that many of us like shrimp and like oysters, 

 and we like fish, and it is a good food source, and it is readily available, 

 and we should use it, and we should use it sensibly and to its fullest 

 extent. 



But I am afraid that if, shall we say, the pitch is, on biological 

 oceanography, that it is going to save the world from starvation, that 

 is a wrong slant, a completely wrong slant. 



We should look at the oceans, as far as a food source is concerned, 

 as a source of very good food, tasty, delectable, nutritious food, a 

 valuable supplement and a valuable source of other foods and mate- 

 rials. But we can do without it if we have to. 



