734 
ing development is concerned, would the functions that you mention 
be fulfilled by NOAA as it is presently envisaged? How do these 
functions relate to the needs of other users of the oceans, to the best 
of your knowledge? 
Mr. Wueaton. The Commission proposed that NOAA be given a 
technology development function. The function should include Dr. 
Kavanagh’s four points indicated at the close of my statement. The 
key to a successful technology advancement program is protection of 
the funds for engineering development from the operational needs 
of the mission orlented groups in NOAA, as we have done with our 
R. & D. divisions in industry. An alternative, assuring protection of 
the technology advancement budget, would be to fund the technology 
group under NACO, as I indicated in my response to question 3. 
Agency mission needs must not be allowed to override the goal of 
advancing ocean technology as NASA allowed its operational mis- 
sions to retard its basic assignment—advancement of fundamental 
technology in aeronautics and space. 
In either event, the technology development function is critical to 
the effective development of the oceans as a resource by the users of 
the oceans. Examples of the needs of others which could be met are 
an order of magnitude improvement in capability for such a key mis- 
sion as exploration, including the U.S. Government survey function 
for both minerals and fish; a great improvement in weather forecast- 
ing: and significantly lower costs for ocean operations such as mapping 
and oceanographic research. In addition, spin-off to both military and 
commercial operations could be expected from the resultant advanced 
technology. 
Mr. Lennon. Can an effective program including research, data col- 
lection, data dissemination, and technological advances, be effectively 
developed without a new organization for government? If so, how 
should it be done? 
Mr. Wueraton. I do not think a really effective program in these 
areas can be achieved without a change in the existing situation, at least 
to the step of creation of NACO and the technology development 
group. However, organization per se is not a panacea. What is needed 
is the formation of a critical mass of competent personnel with a clearly 
stated direction of purpose and sufficient funds to do the job. 
Mr. Lennon. Assuming that NOAA were not to be established, how 
could industry mobilize to achieve the necessary goals ? 
Mr. Wueaton. Industry responds to the profit motive and a proper 
economic and political environment. NOAA was proposed to fulfill 
government functions which are not the province of industry. The cre- 
ation of NACO, the formation of an adequately funded technology 
development group, plus a pronouncement by the President that the 
United States has adopted a set of national goals in the oceans could 
go a long way toward providing the environment required for indus- 
try and the States to step up their oceanic activities. I believe this could 
accomplish much of what the Commission intended. But, because the 
industry is in an infant state, the above steps should be viewed as to 
the very minimum required to start to open the potential benefits of the 
oceans to mankind. 
Mr. Lennon. Do any other members have any questions ? 
