1''^ ! 



The panel came to the conclusion somewhat unwillingly that an 

 organization rather than a specific program was needed. Its expectation 

 had been that at least several agreed-u]X)n ocean engineering tasks 

 would emerge as outstanding and essential to the civilian sector. It was 

 aware of extensive Navy work in many of the areas of interest. The 

 panel was prepared to find that if no agreement on particular civilian 

 applications emerged as especially significant there was no real need, 

 national in scope, for a civilian ocean engineering program. 



But that did not settle the matter. Despite the fact that no "winners" 

 emerged, the panel also became convinced that we would all be the 

 losers if things were allowed to drift in ocean engineering as they have 

 over the last decade. There is need for technical alternatives to be on 

 hand when decisions are made so as not to be trapped into expedient, 

 possibly environmentally detrimental, actions. There are simply too 

 many things that should be done to avoid being caught by surprise in 

 our expanding and conflicting uses of the oceans offshore, in the 

 coastal zone, in the depth and the breadth of the sea. 



None of the needs developing from this increased activity, by 

 themselves, make for a national program. But together they seem to 

 require a stimulus to progress because they fall into the gap which lies 

 between short- and long-term programs and between the responsibilities 

 of the private and governmental sectors. The gap lies between the 

 immediately-targeted projects of the private sector in getting on with its 

 operations (during which engineering problems are solved as part of 

 the project) and the lower-keyed longer-range targeting of the govern; 

 ment sector in laying in a broad fund of knowledge upon which we 

 can all draw as time goes on. The former is quite specific, the latter 

 quite general. The question of the relative roles of government and of 

 industry is involved because each, to some extent, looks to the other to 

 cover the inbetween area. The panel speaks of this grey area in more 

 detail in its memorandum report which I forward with this letter. 



Ocean engineering is more expensive than engineering on land, the 

 panel noted, and the benefits are often harder to assess than the costs. 

 This open-ended uncertainty is one reason recommendations in the 

 past to start broad programs in ocean engineering have been unper- 

 suasive. But the panel felt it a mistake to take an all-or-nothing attitude 

 about supporting and funding this work, especially since one 

 reason ocean engineering is expensive is that its development is so 

 uncoordinated. 



While there are a number of ways in which this situation could 

 be ameliorated, and it is disappointing that it has not proved practical 

 to take full advantage for civilian purposes of the Navy's work in 

 ocean engineering, NACOA proposes that an Institute for Engineering 

 Research in the Oceans, with a strength of about 150 professionals, 



