140 MARINE SCIENCE 



University op Miami, The Marine Laboratory, 



Virginia Key, Miami, Fla., February 24, 1960. 

 Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, 

 Congress of the United States, 

 U.S. Senate, Washington, D.G. 



Dear Senator Magnuson : May I express my appreciation to you for your 

 bill on oceanograpliy (S. 2692). I am liappy to endorse tlie bill in its general 

 aspects, and especially as it relates to biological oceanography and fisheries. 

 I have noticed, however, with a good deal of surprise some of the recent 

 criticisms, especially by biologists. I am convinced that many of them are based 

 on a lack of understanding of the situation. 



Several groups and individuals have taken an ill-informed and excessively 

 critical position in regard to the role of the Bxireau of Commercial Fisheries in 

 basic research, following this attack by stating that the Bureau should not be 

 entrusted with the support of such research. As you know, the committee on 

 oceanography, including men with the highest qualifications among the various 

 branches of science in the country, spent some 2 years evaluating the program 

 and performance of the agencies which sponsored the study, including the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service. Their report, on which your bill is based, implied a high 

 degree of confidence in the quality of the work of the Bureau of Commercial 

 Fisheries. This view is concurred in by myself and by many other persons 

 familiar with fishery research in this country. 



The critics whose opinions I have seen are in many cases unqualified to judge 

 this matter through lack of contact with the work and of careful study of the 

 facts. They particularly question whether the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

 has carried out or has the ability to carry out, or support, basic research in the 

 fisheries. Most scientists find it very hard to define "basic" research and even 

 harder to draw a line between "basic" and "applied." It is, therefore, not par- 

 ticularly useful to argue about the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries' record in 

 basic research, as opposed to applied but since this record has come under 

 criticism, I will attempt to refute it by mentioning some of the activities of the 

 Bureau which are undeniably "basic." 



These include the discovery of a deep equatorial countercurrent in the Pacific 

 (widely regarded as the most important oceanographic discovery since the war) ; 

 the methods of culturing larvae of invertebrates, including mussels and clams; 

 work on the uptake and concentration of radioactive substances by marine organ- 

 isms ; the distribution of salmon in the high seas ; the taxonomy program of the 

 Bureau in the Smithsonian Institution. 



This does not pretend to be a complete list of even the most important pro- 

 grams of basic research of the Bureau, but it should serve to deny statements 

 about the interest and skill of the Bureau in this area. Their ability to do this 

 should be enhanced and this has already been provided for in your bill. 



I am anxious also to see the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries given the author- 

 ity and the proper means of supporting basic research in fisheries outside their 

 own laboratories. They do not now have the proper authority and means. This, 

 again, is not realized by the critics. The Saltonstall-Kennedy program is so 

 constituted that the money can be used by the Bureau either to increase its own 

 program, or to contract with others to do specific jobs. This creates an internal 

 conflict in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries which is being more and more 

 resolved for them by the Bureau of the Budget, which substitutes Saltonstall- 

 Kennedy money for regular appropriations, thereby gradually removing these 

 special funds from their original purpose. What is needed is funds for grants 

 for basic fisheries research. 



The National Science Foundation has been suggested as the proper agency to 

 receive all the money for research grants and contracts under the bill. NSF, 

 as you are fully aware, has a broad responsibility to support basic research on a 

 nationwide and sciencewide basis. NSF has, on occasion, operated in special 

 fields on a crisis basis, but this is not their chief responsibility nor their intended 

 role. In the long run, we cannot expect them to maintain a sustained interest 

 at a high level of support in any special field, including oceanography. 



On the other hand, the Navy has a clear mission to operate in the field of 

 oceanography. Its activities, by necessity, are largely in the physical aspects and 

 not in the biological and fisheries aspects. This leaves a gap which must be 

 filled, I feel, by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, since here is where the 

 responsibility for fishery research is placed in the Government complex. It is 

 necessary, then, to give them the capability of supporting such work, in addition 

 to their own research. 



