1018 
I think you will have a witness who follows me who was formerly 
with the Navy who can validate this statement. That is the reason I 
picked this out of the hat as an example. 
Mr. Mosuer. Of course we are talking about civilian agencies. There 
might be some compulsions in the military field in the defense area 
that would make this more true there than in some other cases. 
Dr. McEnroy. Let’s take AEC. That is another example. They are 
on a ceiling now and they have a responsibility to do certain things 
that they cannot cut. When their overall budget gets cut, the first thing 
that has to go is basic research. 
I think you will also find that this is true in weather forecasting, 
as I said. It almost would be inconceivable to think that you could cut 
out weather forecasting in this country in order to support basic re- 
search for a year or two until you recover. 
I think the same thing would happen there, as an example. I think 
it is a bad mix anyway. I think the argument of putting basic research 
and graduate training into what I call civilian technology, let’s say, 
has never been a happy mix. 
There has always been good interaction between responsible agencies 
as far as I am aware, and I think Mr. Abel can give you some good 
examples of what is going on in the sea grant program right now. 
There has always been good interaction, and this is true even in 
industry. Even in the best industries where they have a basic science 
component and a production component, when things get tight, the 
first thing that is cut is the basic science component because their imme- 
diate livelihood depends on marketing and getting the product out. 
Even in your best industries you will find that this is true. 
Mr. Mosuer. We certainly would all want to emphasize that the 
interaction is extremely important ? 
Dr. McEtroy. This I agree with one hundred percent. 
Mr. Mosner. We want to achieve the most effective arrangements 
for encouraging that interaction ? 
Dr. McE roy. That I have no objections to. If we can find arrange- 
ments to improve that interaction, which I submit is improving tre- 
mendously in a lot of areas, then I am all for them. 
Mr. Mosner. Well, we do have really very conflicting testimony 
before this committee on that subject. 
Dr. McEtrroy. I know you do. 
Mr. Mosuer. As the chairman has emphasized, it is important that 
we consider all the alternatives. 
Dr. McEtroy. Yes. 
Mr. Mosuer. On page 2 of your prepared testimony you say: 
I recognize, of course, the breadth and depth of the Commission’s deliberations. 
However, I am not persuaded that all aspects of marine science can be welded 
into one agency without some of its components drastically suffering. 
IT am sure you recognize that the proposed NOAA does not by any 
means include all aspects. 
Dr. McEtroy. Yes. : 
Mr. Mosner. The Commission considered and rejected, and I believe 
that this committee has considered and implicity at least has rejected, 
the idea of a so-called wet NASA, a really all-over concentration 
of activities of the oceans such as we have in activities in space con- 
centrated in NASA. 
