264 SEA GRM^TT COLLEGES 



frontiers of our Nation — the Continental Shelf of the United States, the Great 

 Lakes, the oceans — may hold the answers to such prohlems as food sources, fresh 

 water, and mineral resources. Indeed, the field of marine science extends far 

 beyond the academic sphere. 



The Federal Government has already made some commitments to the field 

 of marine education and oceanography. The George-Barden Act of 1946, with 

 subsequent amendments, provides funds for training students in sxjecific areas 

 of the fishing trades, as well as in agriculture and other trades. Also, the Gradu- 

 ate school of the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers nine courses in oceanog- 

 raphy for Federal employees. Such efforts provide a beginning structure to 

 elevate the importance of marine science and to implement the concept of a sea 

 grant college. Further, many bills have been introduced in Congress providing 

 Federal assistance to the field of marine sciences, indicating the concern and 

 interest of many of our legislators. 



Within the Federal Government, the study of oceanography has been sup- 

 ported by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, the 

 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Geological Survey, the Public Health 

 Service, the Atomic Energy Commission and others. 



However, in spite of these Federal programs, there is a need for further 

 development of courses of study and research capabilities in the area of the 

 marine sciences. Federal assistance to colleges desiring to develop programs 

 of study in this area would do much to bring about a wider distribution of re- 

 search and learning opportunities throughout the country. 



Seven years ago the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Coun- 

 cil Committee on Oceanography strongly recommended that universities and other 

 institutions take an active part in the recommended programs of expansion of 

 marine science. There are indications that substantial increases in research in 

 this area would be beneficial. 



Dean Athelstan Spilhaus first suggested publicly the concept of a sea grant 

 college in 1963, while he was serving as Chairman of the Committee on Ocean- 

 ography of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. 

 Subsequently this legislation to establish sea grant colleges was introduced. 

 Shortly thereafter, the University of Rhode Island and the Southern New Eng- 

 land Marine Science Association sponsored a conference to examine the concept. 



Viable grant programs can and should be based upon searching investigation 

 and continuing research. The comprehensive analysis prepared by the Rhode 

 Island conference, which supplements the sea grant college bill, is strikingly 

 indicative of the professional preparation which has always preceded successful 

 programs. 



This scholarly conference discovered that to fulfill our commitments to the 

 sea we must have university and college programs of study and research which 

 focus on the sea. These programs must concentrate all of our intellectual disci- 

 plines on the mastery, exploration, and preservation of the sea. The National 

 Science Foundation is one of the original members of, and an active partici- 

 pant in, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. This indicates the con- 

 tinuous and dedicated efforts of the Foundation in this sphere. Further indi- 

 cations are the countless research grants from the Foundation to higher educa- 

 tion for oceanographic studies. 



In spite of our favorable attitude toward the purpose of this legislation, I 

 would express some reservations concerning the proposal as it now stands. 



First, since it is proposed that the program be a continuing one with long- 

 term commitments to and relationships with institutions of higher education, 

 the administering agency should be given a fiiller expression of congressional 

 intent. S. 2439, although it does provide enough authority, does not provide 

 much in the way of guidelines as to the specific objectives of the program. 



Second, there is no question as to the excellent reputation of the National 

 Science Foundation for contributions to scientific advancement in a great many 

 areas which involve our national interest and our future goals. However, it 

 should be pointed out that the approach of this bill is one of continuing pro- 

 gram support in contrast to the primarily research-oriented National Science 

 Foundation pro.iects such as the present support of oceanographic undertakings 

 in some 18 institutions of higher learning. 



Third, concerning the proposed funding procedure, we feel that the needs 

 for an educational support program should be assessed in specific dollar terms 

 rather than being tied to a percentage of revenue as proposed in the present bill. 

 There is no indication that the revenues from offshore activities has a fixed re- 

 lationship with research or educational need. 



