OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 273 



There is one great difference in these methods which we believe 

 makes private ownership and accompanying control far more desirable 

 and efficient. Operational control of the vessel remains with owner- 

 ship. In the case of the Chain^ operational control is with the U.S. 

 Navy, as required by law. Each cruise plan is approved in advance 

 b}^ the Navj?^, each port of call is identified, and each modification of 

 such a cruise plan is subject to approval. 



I would hasten to point out that such approval, resting as it does 

 in the hands of the Office of Naval Research, has been wisely used, 

 and we have had no difficulty in mutually agreeing on the important 

 research work to be done. It has, however, added to the redtape of 

 operation, both in Woods Hole and in Washington, and serves no use- 

 ful purpose beyond that already served through our contractual ar- 

 rangements with the Navy. 



As I noted earlier, the creative research worker needs to control in 

 a very personal way the tools of his research. A ship, to an ocea- 

 nographer, while possessing the personality endowed by all mariners to 

 his craft, is still just a tool of research and should be so regarded. 



Creativity is essentially a personal and private process. The inno- 

 vative research worker is keenly sensitive to his environment. Even 

 though he has a firm conviction that research will pay big dividends, 

 he can be diverted quickly to areas of low risk and small thinking if 

 management shows more interest in quick-fix improvements rather 

 than in freewheeling endeavors, which may add greatly to the store- 

 house of human knowledge. This becomes hicreasingly worse as 

 management control is removed further and further from the re- 

 searcher's inunediate domain. 



Thus I speak with conviction Avhen I urge yon to elimimite section 

 8 from this bill. This is a conviction shared, I believe, by all directors 

 of oceanographic establishments, and endorsed essentially universally 

 by oceanographers. Whereas we know both systems can and do work, 

 we strongly support placing the responsibility for research planning 

 and the control by ownership within the hands of the research workers 

 themselves. This type of confidence, when placed squarely on ocea- 

 nographers by this committee, cannot fail to produce a maximum effort 

 for the expansion and developi^ent of the aquatic resources of the 

 ,,IJnited States so earnestly desired by the authors of this legislation. 



In conclusion, may I again express our appreciation for the interest 

 of this committee in marine science. The emphasis yon have placed on 

 oceanography is both timely and valuable. As oceanographers and 

 private citizens, we wish for you both wisdom and discretion in enact- 

 ing appropriate legislation. 



Mr. Vanik. Dr. Fye, thank you very much for your statement, 



I am just going to be very brief, it is near the close of our session. 



You make a great case here for uninliibited, unrestrained, un- 

 bridled, free enterprise research. 



Would you tell me something about your funds within which you 

 operate? What portion of your budget comes from private sources, 

 and whstt portion comes from public sources ? 



Dr. Fye. During the calendar year 1960, just pastjVour operating 

 budget was close to $5 million. Of this, better than 90 percent came 

 from various Federal agencies. 



Mr. Vanik. That looks like public research, then, does it not? 



