unity of environmental science and observational technology.” This unity is one 
of the themes of this report and has been discussed at length in sections 2, 3, 4, 
6, and 9. For example, progress in description and prediction of the ocean environ- 
ment. Exploration of mineral resources on the Continental Shelf requires the 
coupled system, each affecting the other in important ways. 
The second basic motivation for reorganization is the fact that the ability to 
work within the oceans, to develop the oceans’ resources and to use the oceans 
depends very heavily on our proficiency in describing and predicting the environ- 
ment. Exploration of mineral resources on the Continental Shelf requires the 
ability to work not only along the sea bottom, but in the water column above 
as well. Prediction of sea-bottom conditions and conditions in the waer column 
will be as important in the next 20 years as the prediction of weather and wave 
heights at the surface. 
In summary the reasons for the proposed reorganization are: 
1. Unity of environmental sciences and observational technology. 
2. Dependence of oceanic development for industry and commerce on our 
ability to predict the environment. 
8. Clearly establishing responsibilities for executing national objectives 
and nondefense missions for the oceans. 
In broad ouline the reorganization would combine activities of the Environ- 
mental Science Services Administration, the Geological Survey (both its land 
and ocean activities), oceanographic activities of the Bureaus of Commercial 
Fisheries and Mines, and a portion of the Coast Guard’s oceanographie activities. 
Such grouping would provide an agency competent to deal with the four func- 
tions of government listed in section 1. The Panel does not make any recom- 
mendations as to whether the new agency should be independent or part of an 
existing agency. : 
With the creation of a new agency oceanographic activities of the Nation 
would be supported in five ways: 
1. By the NSF in its traditional role in support of fundamental studies 
through grants and fellowships with special emphasis on aspects that con- 
tribute to manpower education for ocean science and technology. 
2. By the new agency in carrying out its responsilibity for management 
of the environment and ocean resources and for providing description and 
prediction services through a balanced program of direct participation and 
support of industry and universities. 
3. By the Navy in carrying out its mission of national security through 
its laboratories and industry and through ONR support of civilian institu- 
tions, aS well as by its supporting role in the development of undersea tech- 
nology and provision of national test facilities. 
4. By agencies such as AEC and HEW in earrying out their missions. 
5. By the Smithsonian Institution in fulfilling its unique obligation to 
systematic biology. 
In summary the proposed new agency would be an operating agency whose mis- 
sion is to provide for effective use of the sea by man for all purposes to which we 
now put the terrestrial environment. The agency’s responsibilities would be 
broader than just the quest of new knowledge and understanding. In addition, in 
the provision of prediction and description services the agency would be respon- 
sible for the atmospheric and solid-earth environment. 
The creation of a mission-oriented agency with major responsibilities for ocean 
development of science and technology does not by itself provide a clear mech- 
anism for coordination, planning, and budgeting. Several agencies, the Navy 
and NSF in particular, will continue to have major responsibilities in ocean- 
oriented activities. The need for information interchange and dissemination now 
discharged. by ICO will continue and we recommend formation of an interagency 
group under the Federal Council for Science and Technology to provide services 
now rendered by ICO and the interagency Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. 
This group should also have responsibilities for information interchange involv- 
ing the solid-earth sciences. This group would thus link the activities within the 
new agency with those in other agencies for all the environment sciences. 
Budget allocations between the new agency, NSF and the Navy would be on a 
competitive basis, recognizing the mission responsibilities of the new agency 
and the Navy. The Federal Council, the Bureau of the Budget, and Congress 
would all participate in the budgeting process. Though the proposed agency does 
2 See app. V for a note on the testimony of J. W. Powell who recognized the same unity 
and recommended roughly the same reorganization to Congress in 1884. 
