639 
14. In the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), 
the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of 
Health are in a minor way involved in ocean related activities. 
The consolidation of ocean programs in NOAA following its 
establishment in October 1970 did not go far enough according to 
most qualified observers. Not only are 11 departments and agencies 
involved in marine science and oceanic affairs, but according to a 
recent GAO study there is a great deal of overlapping research effort.” 
For example, the study found that in 114 of the 180 Federal programs, 
more than | department or agency was performing work in similar 
areas.*° The GAO study gives a number of illustrations of departmental 
overlap in research activities. It lists 7 departments and agencies ad- 
ministering 15 programs relating to the study of the geological struc- 
ture and composition of the ocean floor; 6 departments and agencies 
investigate the biological aspects of marine organisms under 14 pro- 
grams; 5 departments and agencies develop, test, and evaluate oceano- 
graphic instruments under at least 13 programs; and 5 departments 
and agencies conduct at least 9 programs which study the effects 
of pollutants on marine ecosystems.?! And these are just the few 
areas investigated in some detail by the GAO. 
NACOA, in its second report to the President and Congress (June 
29, 1973) stated: 
There are too many actors, too many separate chains of com- 
mand, too many crosscutting policies, too many separate budgets, 
appropriations, and programs. In this confusion, national priorities 
have no perspective and neither the executive branch nor the 
Congress is in a postion to lead effectively, much less enforce 
accountability for results.*? 
Some observers have maintained that existing interagency coordina- 
tion of Federal marine activities are sufficient to see to it that Federal 
resources are used effectively and efficiently and that the proper pri- 
Orities are selected. On the other hand, many who have had the 
experience of working with interagency committees are less optimistic 
about their usefulness. 
The impotency of interagency coordination schemes has been com- 
mented on by several notables in a colorful way. Harold Seidman 
has observed that ‘interagency committees as a general institutional 
class have no admirers and few defenders.” 3% The point was made 
by Secretary of Defense Robert Lovett that the coordinating commit- 
tees have blanketed the whole executive branch so as to give “‘an 
embalmed atmosphere,” composed of ‘‘some rather lonely, melancholy 
men who have been assigned a responsibility but have not the authority 
to make decisions at their levels, and so they tend to seek their own 
kind. They thereupon coagulate into a sort of glutinous mass. . . .”** 
Seidman further quoted W. Averell Harriman as condemning commit- 
tees “as organs of ‘bureaucratic espionage’ employed by agencies to 
obtain information about the plans of other departments which 
29 U.S. General Accounting Office. The Need for a National Ocean Program and Plan, op. cit., p. 
17. 
30 Ibid., p. 17. 
31 [bid., pp. 17-22. 
32 Ibid., p. 27. 
33 Seidman, Harold. Politics, Position, and Power, 1970, p. 11. 
34Tbid., p. 11. 
