MARINE SCIENCE 135 



The Atomic Energy Commission, to which the bill also allots funds for basic 

 research, has a special responsibility in aquatic biology, since many pro))leins 

 concerned with radioactive contamination are new and insufficiently understood. 

 Hence, much of the needed research must be exploratory, and many years will 

 be required to develop a sound basis for solving the problems we face. It seems 

 proper, therefore, that the AEC administer a share of the funds available for 

 basic biological research, and the committee approves the corresponding 

 provisions of the bill. 



But we believe that the specific authorization for "* * * two major 

 open-sea tests of radiological contamination at sea, its effects on marine life, 

 and its potential effects for humanity." * * * jg scientifically unsound, because 

 the justilication for these tests on the basis of the stated biological purposes is 

 premature. The committee therefore recommends that this provision be deleted. 



The committee has noted with concern that S. 2692 does not seem to recognize 

 the fundamental role of museums as centers of taxonomic and biogeographic 

 research, and that it mentions taxonomic studies only in connection with the 

 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 



Taxonomy constitutes an indispensable basis for biological ref^earch. Studies 

 in this area have long been associated primarily with university-connected and 

 independent museums, rather than with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 

 Special mention should be made of the U.S. National Museum (Smithsonian 

 Institution), an independent branch of the Federal Government and one of the 

 major world institutions serving biologists engaged in taxonomic research. We 

 therefore believe that the reference to taxonomic studies exclusively in con- 

 nection with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries might unduly restrain develop- 

 ments in this fundamental research area, and that other institutions engaged in 

 taxonomic research should qualify for a commensurate share of the research 

 funds. The need for this also follows from the large additional burden which 

 the expanded activities authorized by the bill will place on museum personnel. 



The committee concurs in the sound policy that no agency should be assigned 

 the responsibility of monitoring itself. We thus agree with the bill's provision 

 which specifies that regulation and monitoring of the introduction of radioactive 

 materials into the ocean or other waters should be carried out by appropriate 

 agencies outside the AEC. We emphasize, however, that adherence to the prin- 

 ciple mentioned above implies that such operations should be financed by funds 

 allotted directly to the agencies responsible for these activities, rather than 

 through the AEC, as provided by the bill. 



As another matter of principle, we believe that an operating agency of the 

 Federal Government should not be empowered by law to give direction to 

 another. For this reason we feel that provisions such as the incorporation of 

 project TENOC, developed by the Department of the Navy, in the program of 

 the NSF should be deleted, since this directive infringes on the freedom of the 

 Foundation to dispense Federal research funds accoi-ding to its established 

 practices. Moreover, this clause is superfluous inasmuch as sections 13 and 

 14 of S. 2692 authorize the Department of the Navy to conduct its TENOC 

 program, and existing law also permits the coordination between agencies that 

 may be needed in such a long-range program. 



For the same reasons we recommend deletion of section 13(f), lines 14 to 17, 

 providing that the Department of the Navy may recommend to the NSF institu- 

 tions qualified to participate in the Navy-sponsored scholarship program. 



An important purpose of S. 2692 is the encouragement and support of the 

 establishment and expansion of new and existing research centers for the 

 aquatic sciences. We agree that this is desirable, and therefore endorse the bill's 

 provision that especially designed research ships be constructed as part of 

 the developing program. 



However, we believe that some of the specifications pertaining to the use of 

 these ships are unduly restrictive. We are deeply concerned about the provision 

 that they be made available to "* * * State institutions engaged to [in] oce- 

 anographic research requiring ocean-going scientific ships, with preference 

 given to such institutions which have engaged in such research prior to this 

 act." This proviso discriminates against private institutions as well as against 

 institutions which have not conducted oceanographic research prior to the enact- 

 ment of the bill. We fear that it would have the effect of hampering one of the 

 bill's avowed purposes, and recommend that such restrictive clauses be deleted. 



