The panel is under the impression that the creation of such an 

 Institute could best be accomplished by the legislative process during 

 which the details of its composition, procedure for operation, and 

 immediate tasks would be worked out in detail as a result of the 

 broadest possible input from interested parties. It believes that the 

 legislation should provide for an early review starting two years after 

 startup to monitor the course the Institute is taking and a major review 

 in five years to ascertain the Institute's contribution and the value of 

 continuing it. The panel sees no conflict between its requirement for 

 excellence and its suggestion that it come up to speed in a few years. 

 Five years is a long time in which to make a case. 



Recapitulation 



To the Secretary's Question: What specific civilian ocean engineer- 

 ing applications to meet national requirements are not now being 

 pursued? No major area seems to be without some attention, but it is 

 less a question of specifics than of sluggishness in response to a whole 

 category of mid-range problems in materials, techniques, and engineer- 

 ing characteristics, many having to do with responding forcefully to 

 questions regarding environmental factors. 



To the Secretary's Question: What are the relative roles of govern- 

 ment and industry? Broad stimulation of the field by the former and 

 specific development by the latter. If, as a nation, our development of 

 technology in the oceans seems to be lagging (for which there is evi- 

 dence, it is said, in the more rapid progress being made by other 

 nations), it is not unreasonable to charge the Federal Government with 

 trying to do something about it. 



To the Secretary's Question: What do you recommend be done 

 about it? We recommend the establishment of an Institute for Engineer- 

 ing Research in the Oceans, to report to the Administrator of NOAA, 

 whose mission it would be to catalyze activity in the mid-range term 

 3 to 5 years ahead. This is not the only beneficial step which might be 

 taken, but we believe it to be that most promising in effectiveness. 



An Institute for Engineering Research with modest funds to expend 

 in- and out-of-house should prove its own usefulness in about five years 

 or rightfully sink out of sight. It would not be a sluice for funds nor 

 would it have to wait on agreement on stated national goals and objec- 

 tives—it would take off on those implicitly agreed to. 



18 



