MARINE SCIENCE 139 



entirely too weak. It places educational institutions, private and State marine 

 laboratories completely at the mercy of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

 as tliey have been when they tried to obtain contracts under the Saltoustall- 

 Kennedy Act. 



(4) It is noted that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries will handle most 

 of the funds for bioloj?ical oceanography. On page 13 it is suggested, for ex- 

 ample, that it be given sums of money to carry out investigations in (c) 

 marine population sampling, biological surveys, ecological mapping, taxonomic 

 development, genetics of marine organisms and estuarine studies. We believe 

 that these are problems in basic research, many of which can be efficiently 

 carried out by marine biologists in private and State laboratories. Many of 

 the scientists in these latter laboratories have a great deal of experience in 

 these areas and this experience should not be wasted. Up to now, basic studies 

 in marine biology conducted by, or with the aid of, these investigators have 

 been largely supported by the National Science Foundation, and this support 

 should continue. Of course, some basic research problems (such as large-scale 

 population sampling of oceanic fishes, for example) are perhaps better con- 

 ducted by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Nevertheleiis, the marine 

 biologists in the Bureau have up to now been more concerned with applied 

 research such as pond fish culture, fisheries exploration, the utilization of 

 marine products for human and animal consumption, etc. 



Therefore, we suggest that the bill be altered to make certain that marine 

 biologists in private and State laboratories be given an opi)ortunity to share 

 in the basic biological research to be supported by funds of the Tenoc program 

 equal to that given biologists associated with the Bureau of Commercial Fish- 

 eries. A major part of the funds allotted for basic research in marine biology 

 should, therefore, be assigned to the proposed Division of Marine Sciences of 

 the National Science Foinidation. 



(5) It is recommended that all oceanographic vessels carrj^ scientists in bio- 

 logical, chemical, geological, and physical oceanography and that plans be 

 made for each group to do its work effectively. It is necessary that the results 

 of research by marine biologists be correlated with the findings of the physical 

 oceanographers, and vice versa. This bringing together of biological and 

 physical data is of fundamental importance in understanding the complexities 

 of the oceans. 



(6) It is recommended that section 13(c) which relates to the construction 

 and operation of shore facilities and laboratories, should specify the support 

 of research in all areas of oceanography including biological, chemical, geo- 

 logical, and physical studies. 



(7) Section 3(b), page 7. The last line in this section is vague. Why is 

 the provision made that the Division of Marine Sciences shall include "at least 

 six scientists from the universities and institutions receiving assistance from 

 the foregoing agencies"? Why not make this just "six oceanographic scientists 

 from universities and institutions, some of whom, at least, should be marine 

 biologists" ? 



We again thank you for the opportunity to review the bill and hope that our 

 proposals will be given serious consideration. 

 Sincerely yours, 



The Executive Committee of the Duke 



University Makixe Laboratory, 

 C. G. Book H out, 



Director. 

 F. John Vernberg, 



Assistant Director for Ilesearch, 

 Duke University Marine Lahoratory. 

 Karl M. Wilbur, 



Chairman, Zoology Department. 

 I. E. Gray, 



Professor of Zoology. 

 Wanda S. Hunter, 



Associate Professor of Zoology. 



H. J. OOSTING, 



Chairman, Botany Department. 

 W. DwiGHT Billings, 



Professor of Botany. 

 Terry W. Johnson, Jr., 



Associate Professor of Botany. 

 55401 — 60 10 



