278 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — ^PHASE 3 



I have just a few brief points to make on H.R. 4276. For example, 

 it is well titled, "An Oceanographic Act of 1961," but by referring 

 to "aquatic" resources the scope of the bill is made too broad. It leads 

 to, let us say, the inclusion of the Great Lakes, smaller lakes, ponds, 

 rivers, and streams. One does not know where to stop on "aquatic 

 resources. I believe this bill should simply refer to oceanography as 

 such. 



I merely want to reinforce what Dr. Fye said about ship titles 

 und only add this thought : The National Science Foundation is to be 

 commended for going about its award of a ship to Woods Hole in the 

 way it has. A ship is merely an instrument for oceanography. It is 

 no different than a large computing macliine. In both cases, the title 

 must rest with the using institution if the instrument is going to be 

 used to get the best research value for the dollar. This will be the 

 case for research sponsored by public money or private funds. 



We have had experience with computing machines given by the 

 military, in which the military retained title and control of their use. 

 This was not as satisfactory as when the title to the computing ma- 

 chine, however the funds were derived, rested with the using 

 institution. 



On the matter of the Council : I have been the representative of the 

 National Academy Committee on Oceanography, on the Interagency 

 Committee on Oceanography. I am the only member not in Govern- 

 ment. I feel that the work of that committee has been extremely use- 

 ful. I am not an expert on how this kind of thing could be made per- 

 manent. I commend those who wish to make it permanent. 



I suggest that there be more representation on the council from the 

 people doing science. There needs to be a better balance between the 

 people who are doing science, who come from the institutions, and, 

 what I would call the "Potomac" oceanographers. The council is now 

 entirely "Potomac" oceanographers. 



On the matter of industry and oceanography: Mr. Chairman, I 

 read the testimony given by an "oceanographer" by the name of Savit, 

 whom I do not happen to know. He took issue to Dr. Ewing's com- 

 ment in regard to instrumentation, that instruments for oceanography 

 should arise from research problems. 



Mr. Vanik. Can I correct you, sir, for the record, that it was not 

 Mr. Savit. 



Dr. Spilhaus. Well, it was the other industrial representative. 

 Thank you very much. 



I want to reconcile these two statements. I have been the member 

 of the National Academy Committee on Oceanography that has urged 

 the involvement of industry in standard oceanographic instrumenta- 

 tion for survey work. I think there is no conflict in these two views. 

 Dr. Ewing is quite right that instruments for research must be de- 

 veloped in institutions of research. 



In the past industry has been unwilling to get into the oceano- 

 graphic instrumentation business because the volume is not sufficient 

 for them to make it pay. 



I think the time has come, now, when we have large surveys, when 

 we can involve industry, and very usefully, in standard instrumenta- 

 tion. This is not in conflict with Ewing's statement. 



