1035 
Mr. Detiensack. The question was somewhat in that strain. 
Dr. Gauter. I think that there is advantage in any action taken 
either at the Legislative level or the Executive level that focuses at- 
tention on the need to bring together our knowledge and our interests 
on the central problem of maintaining the quality of the total environ- 
ment. 
To the extent that any piece of legislation does encourage that 
pulling together of what today are diverse and separated interests, 
yes, sir, there is advantage. 
Mr. Detitensack. Although the Smithsonian has apparently de- 
voted most of its efforts in this field to searching out basic knowledge 
from which applications will flow—and I am not suggesting changing 
the Smithsonian’s operations at all—is there any great advantage in 
separating research for basic knowledge and applications of that 
knowledge? Or might not there be under some circumstances desir- 
ability to at least some overall blending of basic research and applied 
research ? 
Dr. Gatier. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that question on a 
personal basis, venturing a personal opinion, not as a representative 
of the Smithsonian Institution? Do I have your permission ? 
Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir. 
Dr. Gauter. It has been my experience, sir, that there is not neces- 
sarily a direct correlation between the acquisition of new knowledge 
and the application of that knowledge in technological advances, and 
the juxtaposition of basic research and applied research. 
Let me clarify that, if I may, and I fall back on my previous ex- 
periences in the Navy, especially my associations with the Office of 
Naval Research, and I should say immediately very happy and very 
challenging associations. 
I would like to submit that the Office of Naval Research was en- 
gaged in the support of fundamental investigations among many aca- 
demic institutions throughout the United States. It was fundamental 
research, but it had a mission-oriented objective. It was to acquire 
knowledge to advance the Navy’s mission. 
In the course of my years of being associated as the head of the 
biology branch of ONR, and in that capacity being in charge of what 
we called the hydrobiology program, involving biological research, 
we came up with a number of potentially important technical ad- 
vances based on fundamental science that the Navy had paid for that 
never really saw the light of day, and I want to emphasize that here 
we had in my view, at least, an organization that on the charts at 
least showed a smooth communication flow from the very basic level 
up to the wet Navy application. 
But in practice, there were many cases where for admittedly ob- 
scure reasons, the technical advances could have played an important 
role both in facilitating applied research and in actual applications, 
never saw the light of day. 
For example, I had the privilege of being associated with this sub- 
committee, and with a number of distinguished confreres, some of 
whom are in the room today, particularly Dr. Wallen and Professor 
Bauer, in developing the concept of research ships of opportunity. 
I think the fact that the research ships of opportunity concept led 
to three demonstrably successful field experiments is a credit more to 
26-5683—70—pt. 234 
