224 SEA GRANT COLLEGES 



One other point needs clarification. Throughout most of the discussions on 

 S. 2439 the term "oceanography" has been used without real definition. Ocean- 

 ography is not a science anymore than you can speak of "land science" ; it is 

 merely the application of many basic sciences to problems of the sea. There- 

 fore, you need to know what this bill is intended to finance. 



The land-grant colleges did not set out to solve all terrestrial problems. 

 They were mission-oriented to perform specific functions — undergraduate train- 

 ing for future farmers, graduate training for research and teaching, basic and 

 applied research applicable to food production, and extension services at a local 

 level to assure maximum use of research findings. They certainly were not 

 chartered to engage in developing materials and techniques for defense. Some 

 such structure of purpose needs to be given the sea grant colleges. 



There has been much discussion of the inadequacy of available funds for 

 the purposes of S. 2439 ; several have suggested limiting the number of sea 

 grant colleges to those who have already shown competence. What is meant 

 by "competence" is hard to define except in terms of costly research vessels for 

 deep sea work. Whether possession of such a vessel always means competence 

 is open to serious question. 



One of the top participants in the symposium on sea grant colleges held 

 in Rhode Island last October and a member of the National Committee for Sea 

 Grant Colleges, in discussing S. 2439, named only seven imiversities he thought 

 should be sea grant colleges. At least one of these commenced oceanographic 

 work after 1960. Five are in the Pacific, only two are on the Atlantic coast, 

 and none was on the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. This would mean a 

 sea grant college in all 5 States bordering on the Pacific with only 2 left for 

 the remaining 25 maritime States : What if the land-grant colleges had been so 

 poorly distributed? 



Dr. Paul Fye, director of perhaps the world's largest oceanographic laboratory 

 ,at Woods Hole, Mass.. stated at the October symposium. "* * * we're not 

 very far from the time when we need to have a form of marine science and 

 ocean engineering in every decent university." I agree entirely ; and S. 2439 

 should be designed to accomplish this result. 



Funds considered inadequate, on the one hand,. to embark on a deep sea venture 

 requiring a research vessel and a large corps of scientists to analyze the data 

 gathered may be sufficient, on the other hand, to cai*ry on a very ambitious and 

 equally or even more important program of mariculture, for example. Because 

 one form of research is much more expensive does not guarantee that it is either 

 better, or likely to produce more lasting results. I favor allowing latitude to 

 each sea grant university to develop its own marine program, unhampered by the 

 necessity of conforming. This diversity of program has been the most clearly 

 identifiable source of success for our land grant universities, and for American 

 education in general. 



It seems clear from the discussions held at the October 1965 meeting in Rhode 

 Island that many of the participants believe we already have enough basic knowl- 

 edge to enable us to decrease emphasis on basic research and plunge headlong intot 

 marine engineering for the conquest and occupation of the sea. It was even 

 stated that management of shallow coastal resources was easy, and that we 

 should move on at once to the more challenging problems of the deeper waters. 

 These parochial views remind me of the early workers in limnology who worked 

 chiefly on the larger lakes where stable conditions were easier to understand 

 than those in the smaller, but vastly more productive, shoal waters, ponds, and 

 streams. After years of poorly financed work we do not have sufficient knowledge 

 to manage intelligently even our common estuarine species. Yet, the basic re- 

 search needed could be acomplished at a fraction of the cost of deep sea 

 engineering. 



In the foregoing context I should now like to address my remarks to certain 

 provisions of the bill before you. This bill would authorize the making of grants 

 to, or contracts with, not only universities, but also public or private agencies, 

 museums, foundations, industries, laboratories, corporations, organizations, or 

 groups of individuals. In short, the funds could be given to anyone at the 

 pleasure of the Federal administrators of the program. 



I cannot in good conscience support such a provision. The strength of the 

 land grant colleges lies in the fact that they provide research, teaching, and 

 service. To grant funds to industrial and nonuniversity groups merely to ac- 

 complish a particular piece of research defeats the avowed purpose of the bill. I 

 should like to see this sec'tion 3(a) (10) revised to read "Programs to carry out 



