OCEANOGRAPHY 19G1 — PHASE 3^ . 301 



I personally approve heartily the provision for a national oceano- 

 graphic data center or centers. 



I take it from the wording of this portion of the bill that the spon- 

 sors feel that several centers may be needed. I am inclined to agree 

 and am hopeful that these centers may be truly international and not 

 all necessarily located in the United States. 



In connection with data centers, I am sure you gentlemen are fully 

 aware that there are fundamental differences in operation and purpose 

 between a data center and an information center. An information 

 center is quite a different and more difficult operation than a data 

 center. 



Both are urgently needed in marine biology as well as in all fields 

 of biology. 



The information exchange problem is more acute among biologists 

 probably than among scientists of any other field. In primary publi- 

 cations alone, it has been conservatively estimated — and I am restrict- 

 ing this to serial publications, those that come out regularly one or 

 more times per year — that there are between 30,000 and 50,000 journals 

 in the world publishing original biological research. These journals 

 contribute perhaps as many as 2 million new research articles per 

 year to our already overburdened information exchange system. 



New journals are arising at an annual rate of about 4,000 and, 

 unfortunately, the journal death rate is only about 2,000 per year. 

 The situation will get worse before it gets better. Biologists are 

 aware of the magnitude of their problem and through the AIBS, 

 with support of the National Science Foundation, they are actively 

 pursuing solutions to their information problems. It is essential that 

 development of oceanographic data centers and/or information cen- 

 ters be coordinated with the efforts biologists already are making to 

 (Solve the chaotic state of their information exchange system. 



The provision in section 5 for establishment of a National Instru- 

 mentation Test and Calibration Center is undoubtedly worthwhile and 

 should be done. Probably an unnecessary word of caution is that 

 biological instrumentation has not yet reached the level of sophisti- 

 cation of instrumentation in other scientific fields. Bioinstrumenta- 

 tion as a field or as a technique is in its infancy and I am told by my 

 colleagues that there isi wide disagreement on the ;proper ways of 

 using instrumentation in biological ecological systems. I should hope 

 that the setting of standards would be done in such a way that the 

 development of instrumentation for biology is not inhibited. 



In section 6 the Council is quite rightly directed to develop long- 

 range plans for research development studies and surveys of aquatic 

 environments. I am sure that the sponsors of the bill had in mind 

 that these studies and surveys should be of a continuing nature and not 

 just single one-shot surveys. Not entirely germane to this point is the 

 fact that many of us feel that we as a nation are not utilizing to the 

 maximum our potential for making such continuing, frequent, periodi- 

 cal collections of biological materials from the oceans. As an example, 

 our merchant marine and in particular our regularly scheduled ocean 

 liners could make plankton hauls periodically. The addition of a 

 trained technician and equipment to these ships would be a relatively 

 inexpensive way of collecting samples at regular, periodical, intervals 

 over extended periods of time. 



