NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 557 



ti'oversy need exist, fear where no fear need be, and whicli can, if 

 iiot recognized in wluitever leg-islation is enacted, cause administrative 

 friction within the Government and inefficiencies in the utilization of 

 the talents of industry and of the private institutions. 



This pitfall is the failure to recognize that it is impossible to de- 

 fine rigorously the differences between oceanography, the pure science ; 

 oceanography, the applied science; oceanographic survey; and oceano- 

 graphic engineering. Neither is it possible to so categorize the peo- 

 ple engaged in these fields, nor the money they may spend in pursuit 

 of their professional goals. Neither is it possible to draw rigorously 

 defined lines between oceanography in the broader sense, meterology, 

 geophysics, mineral prospecting, or any other activity which might 

 be carried on, at, or through a boundary of the water mass, which 

 is fundamentally what we are studying w^hen we study oceanography. 



Most of the bills I have seen implicitly or explicitly recognize the 

 need for greater coordination of existing efforts in the ocean, for 

 greater Federal support of the effort, and for Government encourage- 

 ment of private effort in the field. These objectives are desirable; 

 in terms of return in the investment to our society, few programs which 

 are properly the object of Government spending look more promising 

 economically. 



However, both in and out of Government, many activities which 

 are now being associated very closely with "oceanography" have been 

 carried on very effectively for years within existing organizations. 

 In general, what duplication there has been has not been pernicious 

 and much of the activity has been conducted by dedicated people not 

 at all jealous of the parallel roles taken by others; more of it has been 

 dictated by purely economic considerations — the offshore activities 

 of the oil companies, for example — this being an example of non- 

 Government activity. 



We need a stronger Federal program for oceanic activities, but in 

 the interests of coordination, we must not eliminate or discourage 

 activities whicli have been doing an outstanding job. ^Ylien I call 

 the ""marriage" of the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the Weather Bu- 

 reau, to form the Environmental Science Service Administration, is 

 a most refreshing development and an example of enlightened admin- 

 istration seeing a true community of interest to the benefit of the 

 Nation as a whole. 



Successful legislation will provide a program which discovers where 

 such mergers are possible and desirable, while at the same time 

 recognizing that some such mergers could be administratively disas- 

 trous. Successful legislation will distinguish between engineering 

 and science in budgeting for each, but it will recognize tliat the divi- 

 sion is sometimes a hazy one. Many new engineering techniques in 

 oceanography have been funded by bootlegging from budgets nomi- 

 nally for research. 



Development funds should not and need not be labeled as "scientific" 

 funds. I believe that a witness before this committee has stated that 

 prospecting is not a proper role of Government ; I believe that in cer- 

 tain cases it may well be a proper role, but funds for prospecting should 

 be labeled as such, not as funds for science. 



I consider H.R. 6009 an example of legislation which recognizes 

 the distinction between science, exploration, and engineering. It is 



