37 



Mr. MosHER. I am not sure Avhether this is to Dr. White, but 

 I note on this highlight document the statement on page 3; "* * * 

 There is now no strong civil marine teclmology program." I think 

 it is very striking throughout all your comments that repeatedly 

 you indicate there is a lack of fundamental technology, that there 

 is a need for the development of such technology in nearly every 

 area. So I raise the question whether in the creation of NOAA 



Dr. Stratton. This is a suggestion we have made. 



Mr. MosHER (continuing). Or "the Ark," as some newspaperman 

 said 



Dr. Stratton. We had some fear of that. 



Mr. MosHER. In the creation of NOAA, do you contemplate it 

 will operate its own laboratories, establishments for the development 

 of such fundamental marine technology, and testing of such tech- 

 nology, similar to NASA's laboratories for the development of their 

 hardware and technology for space exploration? Will NOAA have 

 its own laboratories? There is a reference here to NOAA subsidizing 

 private industry development. What about the use of other Govern- 

 ment laboratories? 



Dr. Stratton. I am going to suggest Mr. Perry respond. He 

 chaired the panel on technology. I suspect after he is finished there 

 may be other comments here. 



Mr. Perry. Mr. Mosher, we treated this subject in the Commission 

 report and also in the panel report on technology at considerable depth. 

 Basically it will all depend on what the problem is. One of the concepts 

 of NACO was to help advise NOAA, the civilian government agency, 

 as how to best solve a particular problem. 



For instance, take the technology of glass development. There are 

 several private companies and research institutions doing work on 

 glass. They have built up a certain amount of test facilities, and so 

 forth, and it would be unnecessary and perhaps unwise to have the 

 Government bnild another one or parallel-type facility. 



The Navy itself has tremendous capability in this field and we 

 propose having the NOAA use it on a reimbursable basis. On the other 

 hand, there are certain fundamental technology research facilities 

 which nobody has and which are too expensive for a single mdusty or 

 single university to build on its own. It would be the decision of NOAA, 

 witb the advice of NACO, to decide whether it was more economical 

 and satisfactory to have the Government actually build or build and 

 lease or to have a private industry build on a cost-reimbursement 

 basis. You have to get down to each individual case to determine 

 what is the wise course. The fundamental structure which we proposed 

 here is the NOAA and NACO plus the help of Navy technology, and 

 their present facilities should enable the best and most economical 

 course. 



Mr. Mosher. You are saying that the Commission is remaining flex- 

 ible on this subject and that NOAA might well find it had to develop 

 some of its own labs, but you don't know for sure? 



Mr. Perry. That is right. It depends on the problems you are going 

 to encounter. 



Mr. Mosher. You refer to NACO. In these highlights there is no 

 reference to staffing for that body. Do you contemplate a professional 

 staff? 



