50 



management. It would be like comparino; the mana^rement of the pro- 

 duction of the first A-bomb with nianag-ino: the production of the 

 equation E = Mc-. They are qualitatively different ways of looking at 

 things. 



Based on my experience over the years, I think that in order to ob- 

 tain the best background, to make the best operational decisions about 

 problems involving the choices among the proposed multiple uses of 

 tlie oceans, unfettered research in the general ai-ea must be supported 

 by the Federal Government. I find, however, that there are organiza- 

 tional hindrances to the accomplishment of such a plan. 



1. Within the special programs of the NSF such as RANN and 

 IDOE, I sense that there is uncertainty as to who should underwrite 

 support of coastal marine research. If it is RANN's domain I have a 

 clear indication that they are unwilling or incapable of making deci- 

 sions regarding the level of involvement in supporting research aimed 

 at solving problems through the unfettered research approach. IDOE 

 appears to be shackled in supporting coastal research because of the 

 preemptory role assigned to RANN in this region. 



2. Although there is good reason to support various agencies in im- 

 plementing research in the coastal zone, I would like to understand 

 how nongovernmental researchers are involved or can be involved in 

 the major NOAA, Corps of Engineers, and EPA marine projects 

 whose work is done part in-house and part out-house. The mechanism 

 of the RFP — Request for Proposal— violates the very principle of un- 

 fettered research by productive scientists and should not be the instru- 

 ment of involvement of researchers in universities and research 

 institutes. 



3. To an outsider there is the recurring image that both the Corps 

 of Engineers and the EPA wants to see "work done" in coastal waters 

 in order to proceed with either their activities or their endorsement 

 of activities but it is not always clear what the "work" to be done is. 

 If it is "activity" in a general sense, certainly the important thing is to 

 support unfettered research in the general area. However, it appears 

 that both organizations, although occasionally supporting such inves- 

 tigations almost by accident, are not heavily committed to the concept. 



In summary the highly productive university and nonprofit insti- 

 tutional laboratories who have been successful in advancing the under- 

 standing of the coastal zone are in jeopardy of being excluded from 

 the concern over the multiple use of the oceans problem by the down- 

 playing of the unfettered research concept. Universities, by nature, are 

 most productive in the generation of concepts and the training of suc- 

 cessive generations of scientists when they are least hobbled directly 

 or indirectly. 



Senator Hollixgs. What would you do about it ? 



Dr. TuREKiAN. I would get the Federal organizations for one thing 

 to cut out the confusing intranuiral discussions about who should 

 support what problem area as a device to establish power in one area 

 of marine environmental policy or another. 



EPA, vei-sus the Cori)s of Engineers, versus NOAA, versus the 

 Coast Guard versus the State agencies. This is the sort of thing that 

 comes to an outsider. I see all these guys, sympathetic to the work 

 that is being done, but scared they won't be identified as having the 

 priorities in an area so their support of research becomes one with 



