154 MARINE SCIENCE 



It is very heartening indeed to observe the congressional interest in oceanogra- 

 phic research which the actions of your committee express. 



The history of oceanographic research in the United States reflects the peri- 

 odic reviews of the subject by special committees established by the National 

 Academy of Sciences. The first such committee, appointed in 1927, recom- 

 mended the establishment of an oceanographic research center on the east 

 coast of the United States and this Institution at Woods Hole was created in 

 response to this recommendation. 



The latest report of the National Academy on this subject entitled "Oceanogra- 

 phy 1960-1970" reflects a great deal of study and consideration by distinguished 

 scientists engaged in the several parts of the study of oceanography. Although 

 people in this field are not unanimous on any particular feature of the program 

 recommended, I believe oceanographers everywhere subscribed to the general 

 objectives and recommendations of the report. Similarly, the TENOO report, 

 which has been approved by the Chief of Naval Operations, represents an imagi- 

 native and carefully considered estimate of the general kind of program needed 

 in this field. 



I would like first to comment on Senate Resolution 1S6. It is heartening to 

 those engaged in this field to observe these warm and prompt expressions of in- 

 terest in oceanographic research and the recognition of its importance, not only 

 for our national security but also for the potential benefits which are certain 

 to result from a greater knowledge and understanding of marine sciences. At 

 Woods Hole we have been pleased with the interest shown by another committee 

 in Congress, the Special Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on 

 Merchant Marine and Fisheries, some of whose members visited this laboratory 

 last summer. 



We were particularly impressed by the thoughtful drafting of Senate Reso- 

 lution 136, in its enunciation of policy and avoidance of restrictions which 

 might hamper the flexible growth of such a long-range program. It is certain 

 that new knowledge growing out of the program itself will furnish the basis 

 for changes in emphasis and that new discoveries will require the inclusion of 

 wholly new kinds of activities. 



The first recommendation concurred in by your committee in its declaration 

 of support of oceanographic research in Senate Resolution 136 concerns the need 

 for substantial expansion of basic research. Our knowledge of the oceans and 

 the phenomena which occur within them is still relatively primitive compared 

 to the other geophysical sciences. Additions to our knowledge of the oceans can 

 come only from basic research in which the investigator is seeking to discover 

 new facts and is without immediate concern as to the way in which these facts 

 may become usefully applied to economic or other practical objectives. 



There seems to me to be wise and appropriate recognition of the need for inter- 

 agency cooperation in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Senate resolu- 

 tion. Likewise the recognition of the benefits from international cooperation in 

 oceanography which were so vividly demonstrated in the course of the Interna- 

 tional Geophysical Year program are suitably highlighted in your resolution. 



It is more difiicult for me to evaluate S. 2692. The declaration of policy fol- 

 lows closely the provisions of Senate Resolution 136. The remaining sections 

 are evidently intended to constitute a legislative expression of means for im- 

 plementing the program recommended by the National Academy committee and 

 also embodied in the TENOC report. As such, it seems to me that such ex- 

 pressions of congressional approval and support are to be welcomed. The ques- 

 tions I would raise relate not to the purposes which seem to me admirable but 

 to the particular means proposed in the bill for the achievement of these ob- 

 jectives. Questions which arise from careful consideration of this bill are as 

 follov/s : 



1. Is the enabling authority in the bill needed to allow the several departments 

 and agencies to carry out their parts of the proposed 10-year program in 

 oceanographic research? To the extent that the departments and agencies al- 

 ready have adequate authority, further legislation on this subject may confuse 

 instead of promote the objectives which the committee has so clearly in mind. 



2. May not the freezing of niunbers of ships or dollars for specific purposes 

 at this time reduce the flexibility which is so important in capitalizing on new 

 knowledge which may call for changed emphasis? It is my impression that 

 the numbers used in the Academy report and in the TENOC report were intended 

 to be illustrative and minimal rather than definitive. An expression by your 

 committee of its support of the scale of the programs proposed by the Academy 



