364 OCEANOGRAPHY 1961 — PHASE 3 



six specific questions about cliapter 1 (the Introduction and Summary of Recom- 

 mendations) : 



1. Do you agree with the general recommendations contained in the report? 



2. Do you agree with the need for an increased national program in the 

 marine sciences? 



3. Do you feel that the rate of increase outlined in the report is realistic ? 



4. What comments do you have concerning the detailed recommendations? 



5. Do you feel that adequate attention has been given to a balance between 

 the various aspects of the marine sciences? 



6. What comments would you care to make concerning those aspects of 

 the report which pertain to your particular interests? 



On the first three questions we answered yes with no qualifications whatso- 

 ever. Question 4 (the detailed recommendations in the report) had to be 

 answered with some serious reservations about the proposals outlined for ocean 

 resource research (sec. Ill, G, p. 22 of ch. 1 of the report) . 



We are extremely concerned about the apparent overemphasis on applied as 

 opposed to basic research. We feel this is more than another argument over 

 definitions. The wording and apparently the intent of the specific recommenda- 

 tions for ocean resources seems to contrast markedly with much of the com- 

 mittee's chapter on basic research. The general recommendations of the com- 

 mittee properly emphasize the accepted responsiblity of the Federal Government 

 for basic research. In our opinion, however, the details of the ocean resources 

 recommendation of the report don't refiect this obligation. 



The specific recommendations for ocean resources seem to refiect an overt, 

 almost exclusive emphasis on commercially important fish stocks and on trade- 

 oriented problem areas of the moment. We wonder if this is not an overly 

 narrow, almost self-defeating focus on applied research which fails to recognize 

 the long-range problems and potential of the marine resources. 



What are some of the specific areas where the scope of proposed studies 

 needed to be broadened? 



Specifically, three major recommendations (Nos. 2, 11, and 14) propose to 

 limit research to commercial or food fish. These recommendations overlook other 

 species that are often more important, particularly the species used by sport 

 fishermen. Moreover, this limitation to specific fishes might overlook the im- 

 portance of other species as competing organisms or as important elements in 

 food chains. The limiting of estuarine research to "food fish and shellfish" is 

 clearly not justified. 



Another recommendation (No. 3) would apparently limit behavior studies to 

 the laboratory and exclude vitally important field studies. It is a well known 

 phenomenon that responses in the laboratory may differ decidely from actions 

 in nature. Both phases should be utilized ; they are often mutually comple- 

 mentary aspects of research, both necessary to full understanding. 



Recommendation 7 on the nature of the aggregation of organisms would be 

 improved by expanding its scope in order to recognize and include broad-scale 

 ecological studies and research on population dynamics of marine organisms. 

 These are woefully weak areas of knowledge and hold vast potential to benefit 

 mankind. Detailed life history studies are also badly needed. Among fishes 

 alone, for example, less than 1 percent of the world's known total of about 25,000 

 species are biologically well known. 



The promise for eventual deliberate farming of the sea depends on these par- 

 ticular areas of research. To omit these phases of the program is perhaps to 

 deny the future. It seems to us that failure to include these phases is evidence 

 of an unfavorable preponderance of emphasis on relatively narrow trade-oriented 

 commercial fishery thinking. The result, in our view, is too much emphasis on 

 applied as distinct from basic research. A greatly strengthened ecological ap- 

 proach needs to be injected to give better balance to this very important program. 



The committee's question No. 5 dealing with the balance between the various 

 aspects of marine science brings up another point which we feel should be called 

 to the attention of your committee. 



There have been a number of expressions of concern about the relative lack of 

 emphasis on the biological sciences in the NAR-NRC report. The American 

 Fisheries Society, for instance, adopted the following resolution in September 

 1959: 



"Whereas the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council has 

 recently published reports pointing out the Nation's critical need for an ex- 

 panded oceanographic research program, and 



