716 
(4) To establish coastal zone laboratories (page 29) ; 
(5) To establish national projects (page 37) ; and 
(6) Toexpand the Sea Grant Program (page 44). 
SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES REQUIRING RESOLUTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 
BROAD NATIONAL OCEAN GOALS 
Within the framework outlined by these recommendations there are 
activities and procedures that will require a great deal of innovation 
especially at the interfaces among universities, government, and in- 
dustry. Many alterations in our programs of research, education, and 
information dissemination will be required; and the following com- 
ments are submitted to clarify some of the problems and to delineate 
some of the issues which may be important in this process. 
ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND LONG-RANGE ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT— 
UNIVERSITY, GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY 
Let me first turn to some of the problems at the interface between 
university and Government in the pursuit of the university’s educa- 
tional and research function relative to the oceans. 
One important group of problems arises from the growing require- 
ment for cost-sharing with nonfederal funds—matching funds” as 
they are usually called. The concept of cost sharing is opposed in many 
academic quarters as a device to generate further taxes for imple- 
menting a policy established by Congress in support of education and 
research. 
On the other hand, the concept is often justified by the belief that 
these programs are of sufficient Importance to the institution that they 
would be carried out, at least in part by the institution even in the 
absence of Federal support. Whatever one’s point of view, it appears 
that the cost-sharing requirement provides the logical justification to 
enlist support from the other necessary partner in this utilization of 
the seas—namely private industry which can benefit from the ocean- 
related program. There seems to be some problem, however, in enlist- 
ing this source of support. 
Another problem related to cost sharing is the establishment of the 
proper and clear definition of scope for which the agency sponsor is 
providing a contractual commitment. Is it the total program scope, 
including that funded by the matching funds, or is it only the scope 
funded by the agency? And if the institution is already pursuing re- 
lated work under its own funding, is the cost of this segment of the 
total program scope eligible to be counted as matching funds? 
Equally important is the question of what privileges, what pre- 
rogatives, and what authority over the total program does the party 
hold which provides the matching funds? Should he not have a pro- 
portionate share of responsibility for determining project scope, and 
for evaluating program progress and quality, and for sharing in the 
patent rights? 
Another concern is the matter of maintaining quality of perform- 
ance and of project effectiveness in programs of long duration which 
have been promised stability and financial continuity over several 
years. Institutions cherish and even demand this funding stability, but 
are not always able or willing to provide full accountability for the 
