SEA GRANT COLLEGES 225 



the purposes of section 3(a) (10) shall be accomplished through grants to 1 

 fully accredited university in each of the 30 States that boi-der the sea or the 

 Great Lakes. Such university shall be one that is accredited to grant doctorate 

 degrees in the natural and physical sciences." 



I should not mind if the wording were such as to permit a sea grant university 

 to be established in any or all of the 20 inland States as well. Many of them 

 have faculty interested in the sea, and each one could arrange to share costs of 

 maintaining any needed seacoast facilities with one of the coastal sea grant 

 universities. 



My reasoning is simple. The total funds available under this bill as now 

 worded have been variously estimated as between $10 and $17 million per year, 

 with the later figure probably the closer estimate. It is well known and under- 

 stood that this sum is only a small fraction of the amounts already being spent 

 on oceanography — in fact, less than the annual budgets of only two or three of 

 the existing oceanographic laboi-atories. Instead, then, of using this money as 

 a supplement to existing projects, or for funding other organizations (as the 

 bill provides), it needs to be used to broaden the base of our competence by 

 providing funds in every maritime State to strengthen academic teaching and 

 research. 



The few institutions that have achieved, largely through public fimds, the most 

 competence or physical facilities in some field of oceanography seem to feel they 

 alone should participate in the sea grant college program. This is because they 

 are well aware of the great expense of maintaining and operating ocean research 

 vessels. This, however, is a very narrow and selfish view of the problem. There 

 are many phases of marine science, possibly less glamorous, but equally or even 

 more rewarding, that do not require this tremendous outlay in expensive 

 hardware. 



Every sea grant college should be free to develop its own program, just as 

 the land grant colleges diversified their attack. The result will not and should 

 not be unhealthful competition, but an urgently needed opportimity to awaken 

 and maintain a widespread attack on all phases of marine science. 



I also question the naming of the National Science Foundation to administer 

 the act. The land grant colleges work through the Department of Agriculture. 

 The sea grant college program should be administered through the Department 

 of the Interior, which has jurisdiction regarding submerged lands, minerals, 

 desalination, and fisheries. The National Science Foundation was set up to 

 encourage basic research ; it was not set up to administer programs of applied 

 science, teaching, or training. The latter are the most important in develop- 

 ment of marine science. 



Earlier I mentioned the fact that our fisheries are lagging far behind those 

 of other countries. This failure is continuing despite the enormous sums that 

 have been spent on oceanography. We need not only the diversified approach 

 that can be provided by a number of sea grant colleges, but also the means of 

 translating discoveries in basic and applied research into action programs at 

 the State level. Such work cannot be achieved by a few super universities but 

 must come from local sources working closely with fishery operators. 



In the impending year 2000, only 34 years hence, our present population may 

 be doubled. We may or may not need to know more about the Mohole, but we 

 still .shall want to eat, and food will likely be a scarce and expensive commodity. 

 If we are to farm our coastal waters and control our pollution, we shall have to 

 start now to accumulate the necessary knowledge. 



It was stated at the Newport. R.I.. symposium that "At the outset it would 

 seem best to utilize the resources of institutions which have already established 

 a reputation of leadership in oceanography * * *." This concept entirely ig- 

 nores the proportionately much greater need for support of the smaller marine 

 lajboratories already in existence in most coastal States, including Alabama. 

 The funneling of so-called sea grant college funds into a few oceanographic 

 laboratories would result in furthering the existing sad imbalance that is losing 

 us our share of the world's fishery harvest. By our failing to provide sufllcient 

 funds at the State level for research, education, and service, our marine 

 sciences program has been marking time. 



This bill, S. 2439. could be the vehicle for rejuvenating our failing fisherie.<? 

 and developing new sources of marine wealth. Senator Pell should be con- 

 gratulated for his foresight in introducing it. With suitable modification, such 

 as I have suggested, the bill should be .supported vigorously. As it now stands, 

 the bill should be opposed. 



