230 



tance both in terms of our defense effort and in terms of the civilian 

 uses of the sea. So we don't distinguish uniquely unless it has some 

 rather specific application. And as I indicated, there has been a shift 

 over the last decade. 



I feel it is important for a laboratory like ours to continue in both 

 military and civilian aspects of work. I personally believe we should 

 continue to be a strong supporter of the Navy requirements. At the 

 same time we should concern ourselves more and more in the days 

 ahead with the peaceful applications of the uses of the sea. 



Mr. MosHEE. I have interj)reted the congressional interest which was 

 represented in the act we adopted in 1966, which created the Commis- 

 sion and the Council, as emphasizing the need for a much greater im- 

 petus and effort in the civilian aspects of ocean sciences and engi- 

 neering. 



I assume we would accurately interpret the Stratton report, the 

 thrust of it, where it recommends the creation of these new laboratories 

 and the support of this laboratory effort, as being a new emphasis on 

 the civilian uses of the ocean and giving that a higher priority and 

 emphasizing the need and the demand and the opportunity in those 

 areas. 



Would you agree with that ? 



Dr. Fye. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I would certainly accept your 

 interpretation of what the Commission has done. I think the only addi- 

 tional comment I might make is that in my opinion it is not so much a 

 shift of priorities as it is a natural evolution from science to engineering 

 and technology— the capability of learning, to the capability of doing. 

 As I assess our progression in oceanography, we have now reached a 

 point where it is logical to turn toward engineering and technology 

 and do more of the projects, such as are outlined in the report. 



I would hesitate to say that these national projects are put at a 

 higher priority than the defense requirements. I think they are of 

 comparable importance. I hope in my own institution that we can 

 continue to emphasize both. 



As the engineering activities expand in the next decade, and I am 

 confident they will, and I think this is the main thrust of the Com- 

 mission's report. We may find ourselves doing a larger ratio of work 

 applicable to civilian uses as compared with Navy applications, but 

 only because we have done so little of this before. 



So that in a way ocean engineering is just coming into its own, as 

 I see it. 



Mr. MosHER. I am sure you are right. It seems to me historically 

 that it is more difficult to get support for some of the Nation's civilian 

 needs and therefore a new emphasis is needed. 



I have one other question. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 



Dr. Fye, on page 3 you say : "We do not endorse every proposal in 

 the report." 



Do you want to give us an example or two of the type of proposals 

 in the report that you do not endorse? 



Dr. Fye. These are relative matters, Mr. Mosher. I don't have any 

 list of affirmatives and negatives out of the report. I think it is more 

 a matter of emphasis. I think in general the report has been beauti- 

 fully done and is a magnificent job. I would prefer not to isolate out 



