MARINE SCIENCE 51 



Mr. ScHAEFER. I would say equal to ours. One example of this is 

 the use of the Severyanka in the herring fisheries in the Norwegian 

 and Barents Sea. By using this submarine they were able to make 

 observations on the behavior of the herring. On the basis of these 

 observations they were able to design gear to greatly improve their 

 catches. This is just one example. 



I wouldn't say they are ahead o-f us, but they are certainly abreast 

 and they are certainly working at it very hard. 



Senator Lausche. What do you suggest in brief words is essential 

 to be done by our Government to properly attack this problem so that 

 it will be developed to the best advantage of our country ? 



Mr. IsELiN. Well, we suffer from projectitis. That is, we get our 

 money in relatively small packages and the package specifies in rather 

 considerable detail what you do with the money. In other words, 

 there is very little untagged money available in support of the marine 

 sciences. You have to dream up a project, the project has to look 

 good, you come down to Washington and you get the money but the 

 fact that you were able to dream up this project means you almost 

 knew the answer before you came. So projects are not basic research. 

 But the money comes to you as projects. 



Now, projects are good because you have to have some control over 

 the money and all I am really saying is that you need perhaps 30 per- 

 cent of untagged money in order to be able to use these ships imagi- 

 natively and get at entirely new things. 



Senator Lausche. That is to apply the 30 percent in the field of 

 scientific research instead of applied 



Mr. Iselin. No ; we get applied money for applied research. I am 

 talking entirely about basic research. It is just that you need a certain 

 amount of "adventure" money, money that you. can't tell a fellow 

 sitting at a desk here in Washington just what you are going to do 

 with it. 



Senator Lausche. That is all I have. 



The Chairman. And the size and number of Russian research ships 

 exceed ours, do they not ? 



Mr. Iselin. Yes. We think their ships are too big, that they are 

 inefficient, and that we couldn't possibly afford to run such big ships, 

 and I think they are quite unnecessarily big excej)t they are using them 

 as a kind of a graduate school for trained technicians. 



The Chairman. We do have a lack, do we not, in your opinion, of 

 equipment — let's say ships, and equipment ? 



Mr. Iselin. Yes. Our sliips are getting old and we know how to 

 design very much more effective ones. They have got to be replaced. 

 The Government laboratory ships are all on their last legs and were 

 conversions in the first place. We have got to start a building pro- 

 gram both for the Government laboratories interested in the sea and 

 for the private laboratories. 



Now, the main thing that you have to design into these new ships 

 is great quietness. Many of our techniques involve using underwater 

 acoustics. We are exploring the sea in many different ways, includ- 

 ing biological ways, by using acoustical devices. Well, if you are 

 using acoustical devices, you want a quiet platform on which to use 

 them. So that getting great quietness in the new ships is a primary 

 design difficulty. Other factors such as stabilizing the ship is fairly 

 straightforward. We know how to do this. 



