702 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1965 
nately some people -- especially brash young one trying to get ahead -- get the 
notion that they should produce ideas and theories without foundation simply to 
stir things up. The lesson to be learned from the examples of the lifeless deeps 
and bathybius is that there was some evidence at the time for these ideas, enough 
evidence in fact to justify more careful investigation. 
One of the major contributions of the Challenger expedition was the report 
on the sediments -- in which the broad outlines of the deep sea deposits were 
determined -- and the doctrine of the continuity of the chalk also fell by the 
wayside. The prime result of the Challenger was the fifty large quarto volumes 
of reports, whose familiar green bound covers are the cornerstone of every 
oceanographic library. Most of these concern the life of the sea -- the animals 
found on the bottom =-- and at the surface. Not much was collected in between 
because the gear was not suitable. The other great contributions are on the 
chemistry of sea water and the bottom sediments. As far as these aspects of 
oceanography go, we have been filling in the details so broacly outlined by the 
Challenger reports. Little was contributed to our knowledge of the circulation 
of the oceans, because of lack of instruments and the necessary hydrodynamic 
theories on which to infer circulation from the characteristics of the water. 
Such theories were not developed until early in this century, primarily by 
Scandanavian and German oceanographers.e 
We are still seeking more refined answers to many of the questions raised 
by those who went on the Challenger expedition, but many more have occured to us 
as our knowledge has improved. 
Now we want to know how many fish there are in the sea, not as kinds, but as 
populations, and how much the sea can produce as compared to the land -- in terms 
of plant production and rate of overturn in the food cycles. When the Challenger 
sailed, ecology had barely begun, with the studies of the oyster banks of Helgo- 
land by the german fisheries biologist Karl Moebius. We often hear from our 
Sunday supplement literature that as our population increases we must turn more 
and more to the sea for food and raw materials -- but if we are to do this, we 
must realise how nrimitive our knowledge is. It is often stated, for example, 
that there is no plant activity, or no active synthesis of food in the sea below 
the depths to which light can penetrate. Yet we are becoming aware that this 
may not be quite true -- some types of plant like organisms may well be actively 
producing nutrient material in a different manner. We are also beginning to 
realise that there is a marvelously complex and interrelated group of rather 
small organisms in the sediments of the deep seas. 
The questions we now ask of the chemistry of the sea water, concern elements 
and substances not dreamed of by the Challenger's chemist, for now we need to 
know about the distribution of radium, of artificial isotopes, and other sub- 
stances of man's careless devising in the sea. Much more refined chemistry is 
needed now. 
Our studies of the sediments go deeper than those of the Challenger's geolo- 
gists, for now we sink long tubes into the mud and study the layers in these 
cores to gain some idea of what has gone on in the past. By method the layers of 
ash that fell into the Mediterranean when Pompei was buried have been identified, 
We are vitally concerned about ocean currents and circulation, both as an 
aid to understanding the populations of fishes and other creatures of the sea, 
and also as a necessary adjunct to controlling our potential pollution of the sea 
