580 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



could, without proper direction, literally flood scientific laboratories with plank- 

 ton samples. This is rather easily done. It would be disastrous. 



"We need careful planning. The ship-of -opportunity program needs to be 

 a part of a system operation, integrated with the necessity for collecting data. 

 We must have a need for the data, and a valid use for it. We do not wish to 

 collect data for data's sake." 



John Walsh. 



Mr. Rogers. We have a statement to insert in the record. 



Mr. Downing. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of you and the 

 committee I would like to submit the statement of Dr. William J. 

 Harris, Jr., who was here to testify last week but unfortunately was 

 not able to be accommodated. 



Dr. Hargis is the director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

 and the dean of the School of Marine Science of the College of Wil- 

 liam and Mary. He is one of the foremost scientists in oceanography 

 and I hope that the members of the committee will have an oppor- 

 tunity to read his statement, and I submit his statement for the record. 



Mr. Rogers. Without objection it is so ordered. I am sure the 

 members of the committee will be pleased to have this testimony. 



(The document referred to follows :) 



Statement by Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director, Virginia Institute of 



Marine Science 



I am convinced that a strong restatement of national purpose and a thorough 

 review of marine science activities would be useful. Recent growth of marine 

 science has been so rapid that some reorganization and regrouping would be 

 productive. Because of the nature and history of marine science this will not 

 be easy to accomplish properly and effectively. In contrast to space and atomic 

 energy activities, oceanography has a long history and many Federal agencies. 

 State marine laboratories, private institutions, and industrial establishments 

 have developed or been assigned missions and acquired special interests in the 

 field. General interest in space and atomic energy developed almost de novo. 



As problems with the marine environment, long hidden by the vastness of the 

 sea, itself, and obscured by society's terrestrial diflficulties, increase and as 

 public awareness of marine science grows, and knowedge of the seas expands and 

 stronger national interest in oceanography develops, the essential unity of marine 

 science emerges. With this emergence the interests and missions of the various 

 agencies and institutions appear to, and — in some cases, do overlap and duplicate 

 one another. This overlap and duplication have evolved quite naturally and 

 independently of design on anyone's part. 



Recent years have seen several efl:orts at defining a national purpose, laying 

 out a national program and affecting coordination in marine science. The excel- 

 lent efforts of the National Academy of Science-National Research Council, the 

 activities of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and the proposals and 

 actions of your own Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in this 

 direction are noteworthy. 



As much as any other individualist, and most scientists are individualists, I am 

 leary of coordination from outside or above. However, a definition and statement 

 of purpose for the national oceanographic program and some coordination are 

 probably necessary. 



In deciding which agencies and institutions are to be consulted and/or coordi- 

 nated the Congress must decide whether it wishes to deal with the national 

 oceanographic program (total national oceanographic effort) or the Federal 

 oceanographic program, which are two different things. The former includes 

 all marine science activities and agencies, non-Federal and Federal, and is some- 

 what diffuse. The latter is confined to the oceanographic activities of various 

 Federal activities, which constitutes a much neater package for coordination. 

 Because this basic decision evidently has not been made, it may be premature 

 to provide for a permanent council at this time without examining the matter 

 more carefully. 



I know that study commissions often are delaying mechanisms and that their 

 recommendations often go unheeded but an effective study and determination of 



