310 



Mr. Abel. At this point, Mr. Lennon, I would like to run for cover 

 and allude to the authorship of the document as the Marine Council. 

 However, I am quite sure the context you see the word "politics" in 

 refers more to political science and therefore oceanography's place 

 in international affairs. 



Mr. Lennon. I think we had better stop right there. 



Mr. Downing. Mr. Rogers, do you have questions? 



Mr. Rogers. I am very much concerned about really moving this 

 program. 



When do you think we can expect to have a full sea-grant college 

 program operating? 



Mr. Abel. First let me preface my remarks, Mr. Rogers, by saying 

 I can speak for the Foundation, and Dr. Robertson can bear me out 

 here. The Foundation views this as a very, very important program ; 

 the implications are awfully far reaching. The program, therefore, 

 has been designed with consummate care. We have not wanted to be 

 overhasty about issuing these documents in order that they be as 

 comprehensive as possible and as clear as possible at the same time. 



We are now in position to receive proposals, and indeed proposals 

 are coming in. Sea-grant project support can be allocated relatively 

 simply. Sea-grant institutional support is another matter. The pro- 

 posals we are receiving are page-numbered in the hundreds and in 

 some, cases over a thousand. This is a diificult proposition to evaluate 

 because, as the author of the act, you know that the scope is broad, 

 and it is complicated. We must evaluate in the same arena, proposals 

 for law of the sea development, economic considerations, basic science 

 considerations, submarine biology and submarine geology, and all 

 their applications, and in no case to my knowledge have any of these 

 institutions been shy in approaching these applications. They are all 

 concerned for this problem we call multiple use of the sea. 



So there is tremendous balance necessary in evaluating fisheries as 

 opposed, for instance, to mining development as opposed, for instance, 

 to aquatic recreational use of the shoreline. 



These considerations make it rather difficult to evaluate these pro- 

 posals. We have selected our panelists with care. We would hope the 

 selection of the panel will be complete and our invitations accepted 

 in about 2 weeks, at which time I would like to submit to you a list 

 of the panel membership. They have the responsibility of evaluating 

 our own screening of the proposals, and from that point we must 

 make the decision. 



I would hope that at least the first of these decisions would be made, 

 if not by the end of this year, at least very early next calendar year. 

 Judging from the very careful manner in which some of these pro- 

 posals have been prepared, I would prefer not to put myself on record 

 sa predicting a- definite schedule. 



Mr. Rogers. You mean you do not know when your first grants will 

 go out? 



Mr. Abel. No, I cannot predict this accurately. 



As I say, I would hope that we could do this by the end of the year. 

 I would not want to make a guarantee to that effect. The proposals 

 that we have received for institutional support are tremendously com- 

 plicated, Mr. Rogers. 



