Over 150 institutions are engaged in some 700 
different Sea Grant projects. Many of these institu- 
tions, however, are involved in Sea Grant-supported 
socioeconomic and legal research (maritime affairs) 
or in marine education and training projects. Thus, 
not all of them participate in marine science re- 
search. 
Twelve universities, university systems, or con- 
sortiums have been designated “Sea Grant Colleges.” 
In addition, 18 university programs have been desig- 
nated “Institutional Programs;” and 10 have been 
designated ‘Coherent Programs,” as distinguished 
from single project support. Institutions that do re- 
ceive institutional support have strong interdisci- 
plinary research programs and offer regional advisory 
services to transfer information and technology to 
users. They cooperate in areas of mutual interest 
with other universities; Federal, State, and local 
government agencies; and with private industry. Sea 
Grant Colleges are chosen on the basis of the quality 
and productivity of their programs in research, edu- 
cation/training, and marine advisory services. Sea 
Grant College status entitles these institutions to a 
large degree of autonomy in developing and manag- 
ing their programs. 
Among the Stratton Commission recommenda- 
tions was one for the establishment of coastal zone 
laboratories to conduct research and advise States on 
coastal zone management. The Sea Grant Program 
was to provide institutional support to these labora- 
tories.° Although not in the form proposed, Sea 
Grant has implemented the Commission’s recom- 
mendations. The Sea Grant program has assumed 
major responsibility for the funding of coastal zone 
research and has made contributions to the 
knowledge of coastal regions. In 1976, the legislation 
for the Sea Grant College Program was significantly 
altered by the removal of the statutory prohibition 
against contributing to ship support costs with Sea 
Grant funds and by establishing fellowships and 
national and international programs. 
The Oceanographic Fleet 
Marine science and technology is limited by the 
ability of scientists and engineers to work on the sur- 
face, in the water column, and on the seafloor. 
Therefore, surface vessels, submersibles, buoys, air- 
craft, and satellites are as necessary for the advance- 
ment of ocean science as particle accelerators and 
research reactors are to particle physics. 
The U.S. National Advisory Committee for 
Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), in its 1973 re- 
port, observed that the oceanographic fleet had been 
reduced by 25 percent over the years as a result 
of budget reductions for ship support. It cautioned 
16 H.R. 8470, 90th Congress, Ist Session (1967); H.R. 17590, 
9Ist Congress, 2d Session (1970); H.R. 9492, 92d Congress, 1st 
Session (1971). 
then that “underinvestment in the capital structure 
needed for marine . . . research of the next decade 
could mean losing ground which could be costly to 
regain in later years.” ‘’ As a result, the then Secre- 
tary of Commerce, Frederick Dent, requested the 
Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) 
to undertake a study of the capital structure available 
for marine science. 
The study was performed under contract by the 
Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) and sponsored by 
the agencies participating in the Interagency Com- 
mittee on Marine Science and Engineering. Based on 
5-year projected needs of the ocean-related agencies, 
CNA considered four classes of capital assets: (1) 
ships, (2) aircraft, (3) submersibles/habitats, and 
(4) high-capacity computers. The major focus of the 
study, however, was on the oceanographic fleet. 
CNA analyzed the adequacy of investment during 
the 1975-79 fiscal years by using agency 5-year 
program projections as the basis for determining 
requirements. Projections for available assets were 
based on current inventory and agency plans for 
future procurements and retirements. The study 
found that there would be a shortfall in shipdays- 
at-sea under several different assumptions about 
future inventories and requirements. However, the 
number of shipdays-at-sea would be adequate if re- 
quirements remained constant and retirements from 
the ship inventory were limited to those planned at 
the time of the study.’* 
The Interagency Committee on Marine Science 
and Engineering (ICMSE), in its comments on the 
study, noted that fleet inadequacies could become 
serious in the 1980s, as aging ships are dropped 
from the inventory, and that a renewed shipbuilding 
program in fiscal year 1978 or later would not rem- 
edy the situation in the early 1980s because of the 
lead times required. Agencies would then have to 
lease more ship-time or convert existing hulls to 
ocean science purposes. Neither of these steps result 
in ships as well suited for ocean science as those 
specially designed for that purpose, although leased 
ships may be appropriate to fill the needs of many 
short-duration programs. 
ICMSE also commented that both short- and long- 
term projections suggested that the greatest need for 
new ships would be for small, light-displacement 
vessels for use in basic and mission-oriented research 
as well as environmental monitoring in coastal 
waters.'” The projections cited by ICMSE, are ap- 
17 US. National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmos- 
phere, Annual Report: 1973, Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, 1974, p. 3. 
1s U.S. Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engi- 
neering of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. 
The Capital Structures for Ocean Science. Arlington, Va., Center 
for Naval Analyses, 1975, p. v. 
19 ibid., Appendix A to forwarding letter for ICMSE Chair- 
man to FCST Chairman. 
ViI-15 
