1006 
We studied many problems, and I think basically we arrived at the 
same position as the Commission’s report with regard to effective 
science, that is, the scientific objectives. 
However, we differed with the Commission with regard to govern- 
mental organization. 
Mr. Lennon. You are speaking when you make this statement as 
the Director of the National Science Foundation and as a representa- 
tive of the administration ? 
Dr. McEtroy. No, sir. I am speaking personally now. 
Mr. Lennon. I see. Thank you. 
Dr. McE roy. I have not, even after studying the Commission’s 
report, changed my original views with regard to the organization. 
I personally think that a different organization would be much more 
effective, less disruptive and probably less costly. 
I would like to take this opportunity to divide marine science ac- 
tivities up into four broad categories as we originally did in our 
study back in 1965 and 1966. These are four basic areas which I think 
are covered roughly on page 4 of my prepared statement. 
Mr. Lennon. Let’s get the record straight since you are putting 
your statement in. You make the statement on page 2, beginning on 
line 6, “I believe that an organization of the scope envisaged by the 
Commission would become too unwieldy and perhaps provide more 
problems than it would solve.” 
You are speaking to this? 
Dr. McEtroy. Yes. 
Mr. Lennon. All right, sir. Go ahead. 
Dr. McExroy. I think if we look at the marine environment, we 
can see four categories: The environmental forecasting and services; 
resource development, scientific research and education; and civilian 
technology development. 
Those are the four broad categories which cover all principal activi- 
ties of marine sciences that we were able to identify. I do not believe 
that has changed over the past few years. 
Now, when one considers marine science and oceanography from 
that viewpoint, I think it follows logically that existing agencies 
might be directed to take on the additional responsibilities that the 
Commission has indicated. 
For example, I think Commerce with ESSA could expand its activi- 
ties to undertake the problems with regard to environmental forecast- 
ing and services, and particularly to establish a national environ- 
mental monitoring and prediction program which is one of the high- 
priority recommendations. 
In effect, ESSA is carrying out at the present time most of the 
activities identified in the Commission’s report in this regard. 
Tn the case of resource development, I think that interior, given 
additional direction, could effectively carry out the missions identified 
by the Commission’s report including the expansion of the Bureau of 
Commercial Fisheries and undertaking other resource activities. 
The civilian technology development could logically be assigned to 
interior, and in this case I think with cooperation from the Navy with 
their technology knowhow, it would make a significant contribution 
to civilian purposes, augmenting that which has actually been carried 
out over the years. 
