26 MARINE SCIENCE 
“Continued long-term research grants” is an item listed under the general 
problem of training of oceanographers because it is the existence of such grants” 
which supplies one of the ingredients absolutely essential to their training. 
Marine scientists cannot be taught their profession unless they practice it, 
and Government contracts are the sole source of this work. 
We may now turn our attention to the problem of support of oceanographic 
research by the Federal Government, apart from the consideration of training 
students. Some of the most important aspects of the bill under consideration 
are the provisions for Federal support of research groups outside the Federal 
Government. In the past this support has been too small and largely of the 
wrong kind, since it has been year-to-year contracts for the solution of specific 
problems. To quote again the report of the President’s Science Advisory 
Committee: ““* * * in itS essence the concept of ‘purchase of services,’ which is 
implied in any Government contract, was and is a doubtful one, when applied 
to basic research * * * the support of university research has been hampered 
by contract rules which strictly limit the ways’ in which universities can be 
compensated for their costs. The whole framework is Somewhat arbitrary 
and unrealistic.”’ The report emphasizes the enormous difficulty faced by super- 
visors of research programs in recruiting and holding able staffs when research 
support is on a year-to-year basis. Longer term grants are an absolute neces- 
sity if stable and productive programs of research are to be established in the 
universities. 
I would like to comment more specifically on this aspect of the bill as it 
concerns the support of fisheries research. In the past, Federal support for ~ 
this aspect of oceanography in agencies outside the Federal Government has 
been neglected. This is because the responsibility seemed to fall between two 
schools.. It does not appear to be the responsibility of the Navy, whose mission 
is to operate in the area of physical and chemical studies of the ocean and not 
on biological or fisheries problems. Fisheries research is not the responsi- 
bility of the National Science Foundation either, since this agency was not 
conceived to operate permanently in any special field. In addition, NSE ap- 
pears to regard all fisheries research as “applied.” Clearly the responsibility 
for fisheries research seems to fall to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 
S. 901 provides for authority and for substantial funds to enable the Bureau 
of Commercial Fisheries to expand their own research substantially. Our in- 
stitute in Miami supports this wholeheartedly. Im addition, however, we are 
anxious to see this Bureau given the authority and resources to support long- 
term basic research in fisheries in institutions outside the Federal Government. 
They have had means to support some contract work from year to year under 
the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, but this has all the defects of the “purchase of 
services” concept criticized earlier. In addition, the Saltonstall-Kennedy funds’ 
ean be used either by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries or to contract with 
outside agencies. Then the Bureau is faced with the unenviable choice of 
using the money to increase their own activities (with sufficient good projects 
to absorb many times the money available) or to support research at other 
laboratories. The Bureau of the Budget is leaving less and less choice in this 
by substituting Saltonstall-Kennedy funds for regular appropriations. 
I believe the bill (S. 901) should be more specific in authorizing the Bureau 
of Commercial Fisheries to establish a grants branch comparable to ONR in 
the Navy and the National Institutes of Health in Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare, and in providing funds to implement this. 
Section 5 of the bill gives the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries authority and 
direction to “Make grants * * * for basic and applied research programs * * *,”” 
but section 6 does not clearly follow this with authorizations of appropriations, 
since section 6(f) authorizes funds for studies “of utilization of marine products 
for human consumption * * * etc.” while the funds for “marine population sam-’ 
pling, biological surveys, etc,” are given solely to supplement the Bureau of 
Commercial Fisheries budget, under section 6(d). Furthermore, the money in’ 
section 6(f) can, apparently, be used either by the Bureau itself or be used for 
grants and contracts. This opens the way to the same fatal difficulties faced by 
the Saltonstall-Kennedy program. 
It is suggested that the intent of section 5, that the Bureau of Commercial 
Fisheries make grants and contracts, be spelled out more clearly in section 6. 
I suggest that half the sums named in sections 6(d) and 6(f) should be set 
aside for grants and contracts, the other half to be used by the Bureau to ex- 
pand its own operation. 
