MARINE SCIENCE 145 



of biological ooeanographic and estuariiio work, considering the interrelation of 

 the various portions of the marine onvironnient. 



If our country is to be strong in the marine fields in all segments, it will be 

 necessary to upgrade the economic status of the industry, although this aspect 

 of the development of the fisheries is alluded to in page 13, subsection (e), we 

 question if relatively enough money is being spent on learning more about the 

 economic, social, and legal phases of the industry. 



We do hope this bill, or an amended version can be enacted, and money made 

 available to implement it, at the coming session of Congress. 

 Sincerely, 



Robert L. Dow, Research Director. 



State of California 

 Department of Fish and Game, 



Sacramento, Calif., March 1, 1960. 

 Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, 



Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

 U.8. Seriate, Washington, D.C. 



Dear Senator Magnuson : This is in reply to your request for comments on 

 your bill, S. 2692, a bill to advance the marine sciences and to establish a com- 

 prehensive 10-year program of oceanographic research and studies. Several 

 requests for comments were addressed to members of this department. Their 

 comments are consolidated in this one reply. 



We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for sponsoring a 

 bill which will be the means of bringing about an increased understanding of the 

 marine environment. The people of the entire world must turn more to the ocean 

 as a source of food, not to mention a place of recreation. Our knowledge of the 

 sea and its resources must be brought to at least a par with our fast-growing 

 knowledge of outer space. 



Perhaps it is because we are close to the problems as we see them in our 

 everyday work, but it seems that your excellent bill has by implication slighted 

 two totally different aspects of ocean research. I am sure that this was not 

 intended, and I would like to suggest that the bill could be strengthened by 

 taking these aspects into consideration. Slight amendments would be sufl3cient. 



I refer first to the insistent emphasis on physical oceanography throughout 

 S. 2692 as compared to the modest mention of biological research, and second 

 to the virtual omission of research agencies other than the Federal Government 

 and universities. 



As you know, there is a twofold approach to a study of the sea — physical and 

 biological. The physical approach, of course, is of extreme importance to the 

 satisfactory understanding of an area where defense fleets operate, where 

 commerce moves, and where fisheries and mineral resources exist. We do not 

 wish to play down the importance of physical studies which have been dramatized 

 so effectively in man's imminent conquest of outer space and atomic energy. At 

 the same time, we feel that the biological aspects of the ocean are important 

 from their strategic and food-producing significance and are equally demanding 

 of expanded researcn. 



Tne emphasis is on physical oceanography throughout the bill, but I should 

 like to call your attention to those specific statements which could be improved. 



Following a most excellent general declaration of policy, the bill on page 3, 

 line 24 commences to stress oceanography. Perhaps this is because the term 

 "oceanography" as used throughout the bill is intended to refer to marine science 

 as a whole. If so, I would suggest changing the words "oceanography"' and 

 "oceanographer" to "marine science" and "marine scientist." Otherwise there 

 will be considerable misunderstanding of the purpose of the bill. Of all the 

 many branches of marine and allied sciences, oceanography is only one. 



On page 4, lines 8, 12, and 23 we find reference to oceanography whereas on 

 line 20 there is a reference to marine sciences. On page 5, lines 17 and 18, both 

 terms are used in such way as to leave the meaning unclear. On page 8 appear 

 many references to oceanography which might imply exclusion of other marine 

 sciences, and also at the top of page 9. 



Of perhaps greater significance than terminology is our concern over the 

 emphasis on physical science in the section on the Atomic Energy Commission. 

 We believe biologists rather than physicists should be called on to judge biolog- 

 ical and health aspects of atomic radiation in relation to the living resources 

 of the sea and to the people who consume them. 



