212 SEA GRANT COLLEGES 



acadeniic colleagues over the wordino: of section 2 of S. 2439 wliicli 

 stresses applied research and the training of technical people to serve 

 in an extension capacity similar to the agricultural extension program. 

 Their concern, I believe, is based on the assumption that overemphasis 

 of tills facet would be harmful to the basic science programs now being 

 conducted generally in the graduate progi-ams of our universities. I, 

 too, would be opposed to a lack of balance of that kind, but I am far 

 more concerned with the present reverse lack of balance. There is a 

 virtual absence of institutions devoting themselves to the applications 

 side of marine exploitation. Thus in my view, the intent of the bill, as 

 clearly stated in the language of the bill, is directed toward the critical 

 problem area. Tlie authors of S. 2439 are to be congratulated on their 

 explicit wording of this point. It is heartening to find so much 

 support for filling the present application gap. 



As a member of the Governor's commission, I have had many dis- 

 cussions with local fishing fleet operators and buyers in California. 

 They are convinced that more and better technical information in the 

 hands of the individual fisherman is a prime requirement for increasing 

 the productivity of the fishing industry. In fact, they rate this re- 

 quirement second only to hard work as the criterion for success of an 

 individual fisherman. They consider technical knowledge far and 

 away more important than such matters as Federal loans for fisliing 

 vessels, new gear, and the like. Thus, I would like to underscore the 

 necessity for giving preference to practical applications and to creating 

 the marine equivalent of the coimty agent. This will not be a short- 

 term effort. It will take several years before seagoing county agents 

 can be trained and more years before they will be accepted by the 

 individual fishermen. You can appreciate that it will take a long 

 time to gain the confidence and respect of men who have spent 30 years 

 at sea learning their business, and who regard any tricks of the trade 

 which they have picked up as propietary information within their own 

 family group. 



The two administrative points which I would like to raise have to do 

 with the administration of the program by the National Science Foun- 

 dation, and also the need for fimding of institutions as distinct from 

 funding for specific projects. The National Science Foundation seems 

 to be somewhat hesitant to accept the responsibility for administering 

 the sea grant college program, which is certainly understandable. 

 Historically the Foundation has maintained the i^oint of view that they 

 should fund worthwhile projects conducted by men of stature and 

 demonstrated competence, primarily in basic science. As a practical 

 matter the Foundation has preferred to take a passive role in the devel- 

 opment of a field by choosing among programs which are presented to 

 it rather than the active role of giving direction by soliciting proposals 

 in particular areas. It is clear that the administration of the proposed 

 sea grant program would require a significant departure from the 

 present National Science Foundation philosophy in order to be success- 

 ful. A major aid to NSF in administering the program would be the 

 creation of a special advisory group having detailed knowledge of the 

 program objectives. 



A second administrative problem which has given rise to contro- 

 versy, is the kind of institution which is required to carry out the con- 

 cept of the sea grant college and the nature of the funding to be sup- 



