364 



ward improving our understanding of where we stand today in re- 

 gard to marine science and teclmology as well as for their insights in 

 delineating the technological and scientific targets for the future de- 

 velopment of the national program. 



It is the latter aspect, the one that deals with targets or objectives 

 and the means of achieving these objectives, that is of particular 

 interest to me and will serve as the basis for the rest of my presenta- 

 tion before this distinguished subcommittee. Let me be more specific. 

 The Commission report is replete with the descriptions of objectives or 

 opportunities as well as the scientific and technical requirements that 

 will have to be met in order to achieve these objectives. The need for an 

 improved technology to facilitate the development of mineral re- 

 sources, the need for more scientific information to open new fisheries, 

 the need for improved technology and more basic science to advance 

 our capability for environmental monitoring and prediction are all 

 examples of the variety of requirements and goals that are so well 

 presented in the report. 



At the same time, however, I recognize the need for a more compre- 

 hensive treatment of the requirements and goals in those fundamental 

 sciences that provide the corpus of basic knowledge for advancing 

 oceanography and marine technology. I am particularly concerned 

 with the need to identify clearly the requirement for basic biological 

 information that serves as a foundation for the development of pro- 

 grammatic marine science and technology. 



I wonder how many of us are aware of the fact that our success in 

 developing new fisheries as well as aquaculture will depend, to a great 

 extent, on our ability to support a balanced program of taxonomic 

 research. 



'Basic information derived from the identification and classification 

 of marine organisms constitutes an essential requisite for understand- 

 ing the behavior as well as the geographic and seasonal distribution of 

 marine and animals and plants of importance to man. Yet, ironically, 

 the information gap between taxonomy and the programmatic marine 

 sciences is widening in inverse proportion to the increase in support of 

 oceanography and the related marine sciences. The incongruity can 

 be understood only if one measures available resources in taxonomy 

 against the growing demand for taxonomic information. The increase 

 in oceanographic activity within the last decade, including the increase 

 in the number of collections of marine organisms made from oceano- 

 graphic ships, has resulted in a tremendous and still growing backlog 

 of specimens waiting to be identified and classified. 



At the same time, our national resources for taxonomy have not 

 increased to any appreciable extent. Today the front line of taxo- 

 nomists is a thin one indeed. Even within the Smithsonian Institution, 

 with its relatively large concentration of competent taxonomic scien- 

 tists as well as with its Oceanographic Sorting Center, it is not possible 

 to keep up with the demand for taxonomic information. As a conse- 

 quence, our country is unable to derive full benefits from the very 

 substantial investment of dollars and manpower in the acquisition of 

 collections and oceanographic data. 



Indeed, the world situation with regard to taxonomy is not an en- 

 couraging one. Until such time as we recognize taxonomy's essential 

 role and provide the necessary resources commensurate with its high: 



