92 SEA GRANT COLLEGES 



I'm perfectly willing to concede that maybe at Woods Hole there is an opportunity 

 to create out of an existing educational institution that is not a university a unique 

 sea- grant university, taking only the students who come to them prepared in 

 these other sciences. But I'd also have to point out that it seems to me that it is 

 very difficult if not impossible to develop a serious program leading to the Ph.D. 

 degree in oceanography without some supporting sciences at the graduate level 

 on the same campus. 



I've been told that we at URI can't run a decent program in oceanography 

 without a Ph.D. in mathematics, and I think that this is probably correct, at least 

 I've given in to the idea. But I come back to the point which supports Dr. Spil- 

 haus very strongly, concerning any institution that has special competence in a 

 field allied to oceanography. It would be foolish for the University of Rhode 

 Island, for example, to try to develop a program in petroleum simply because it 

 has implication for oceanography. Let's go to the best petroleum place, to Texas 

 or Oklahoma, wherever it may be, and see what it can contribute to the sea-grant 

 program. We should not, moreover, deny to a marine biologist or an ichthyolo- 

 gist on a campus that is not a sea- grant university opportunity for a grant if he 

 wishes to work on a project involving the open ocean. AH I'm saying is, we can- 

 not afford anymore to look upon this new concept the way we looked upon the 

 land-grant movement a hundred years ago, that is, to develop a full fledged grad- 

 uate program, highly developed, and devoted to research, bringing in post doc- 

 toral fellows, etc., in every one of the fifty land-grant institutions in every one 

 of the fifty states, plus maybe another twenty- five selected private universities. 



HARGIS 



In some scientific areas a long time is required from the conception of the 

 project or a program to the eventual yielding of economically measurable re- 

 sults, in others, it is not so great. In marine science, time required is usually 

 fairly short. Scientific results in marine science often quickly find military or 

 civilian application. I think that in general, while there would be exceptions, five 

 years is a minimum time to realize significant economic return from research. 

 Of course, all institutions already have programs in existence which can be im- 

 proved immediately if additional funds are available. It is also certain that more 

 emphasis can quickly be placed on development and training in ocean engineering, 

 an area which is now lacking; therefore, engineering progress can be realized 

 quickly if adequate funds are available. Administrative resources and facilities 

 are already present to improve existing programs and initiate new engineering 

 projects in most marine institutions, so the return will be relatively rapid. 



HORN 



I criticized the project-grant business in setting this up. Nevertheless, I 

 did say institutions not designated as sea-grant institutions ought to have project 

 money. I would suggest simply as a practical proposal in this connection, that 

 if this concept goes through, whatever agency, NSF or an Inter- oceanographic 

 Committee, or anyone else who's running the program in Washington, should 

 assign on a continuing non-restrictive basis 50% of whatever money is available 

 to those institutions that are designated sea-grant institutions. Suppose that 

 there are ten or a dozen of them, and let me say parenthetically, that whatever 

 ten or twelve or fifteen are designated in the beginning does not mean that they 

 will necessarily continue to be the sea- grant universities. I don't think I agree 



66 



