interagency Coordination of Marine Science and Technology 
Government support of marine R&D is predicated 
on the value of marine science and technology in 
achieving broad political, economic, social, and cul- 
tural goals. Responsibility for the pursuit of these 
objectives has been assigned to the mission agencies. 
On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to 
treat science and technology as a whole in order to 
provide a mechanism to overview governmental sci- 
ence activities and ensure a balanced, efficient use 
and development of the nation’s intellectual and 
technological resources. The problem of govern- 
mental involvement in science and technology is 
complicated further by the nature of the R&D proc- 
ess itself. Research and development is a continu- 
ous, integrated process, beginning with basic research 
and extending through applied research and devel- 
opment. Thus, responsibilities among Government 
agencies, academic institutions, and industry are dif- 
fuse. The scientific disciplines do not separate among 
the agencies to the extent that coordination can be 
achieved easily. The programs of a single agency 
often interact with a variety of disciplines and insti- 
tutions. Furthermore, the dynamics of science itself 
constantly present new and changing problems to 
Government.*? 
Federal programs in marine science and technol- 
ogy are pluralistic; a number of agencies may be 
performing or supporting similar and related tasks 
relevant to their missions. This pluralism is consid- 
ered by many as a strength of the system. According 
to the proponents, diversity in funding and sponsor- 
ship ensures that good ideas and pioneering research 
proposals can find support somewhere in the Federal 
system. In 1975, however, GAO observed that “it is 
doubtful that the resources of the 11 departments 
and agencies are being applied to best serve national 
purposes.” °* Better coordination among the agencies 
conducting and sponsoring ocean R&D is frequently 
called for. To improve coordination, proposals have 
been made to: (1) consolidate research functions 
through reorganization, (2) re-establish a govern- 
mental entity in the Executive Office of the President 
similar to the Marine Science Council, or (3) re- 
vitalize the interagency coordinating mechanism 
through the intervention of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP). 
It is difficult to define or detect duplication in 
areas of Government-sponsored ocean R&D. Scienti- 
fic and engineering knowledge is developed as a 
52 Ronald Brickman. “Interagency Coordination in Science 
Policy: A Comparative Study of Theory and Practice.” The 
American Political Science Association, Sept. 1-4, 1977, Washing- 
ton, D.C., p. 2. 
53 U.S. General Accounting Office. The Need for a National 
Ocean Program and Plan. Report to the Congress GGD-75-97, 
1975, p. i. 
cumulative process. Seldom are major breakthroughs 
realized in a one-time effort. Some degree of re- 
dundancy in national R&D programs is not categor- 
ically bad, providing it is known and is part of 
overall ocean R&D strategy. A greater potential for 
error exists where lack of coordination results in 
omissions, lost research opportunities, or inadequate 
emphasis on specific areas of inquiry. 
GAO did not undertake an analysis of agency 
duplication but it noted that a number of agencies 
were involved in similar areas of research. Seven 
departments and agencies were administering 15 pro- 
grams to assess the structure and composition of the 
ocean floor. Six supported 14 different programs on 
marine biology and ecology. Five had nine separate 
programs to investigate the effects of pollutants on 
marine ecosystems. In technology development, five 
departments and agencies were identified as working 
on at least 13 programs to develop, test, and evaluate 
oceanographic instruments.** 
Although GAO’s findings imply overlap and dupli- 
cation, the differences in the sponsoring agencies’ 
mission requirements must be considered. Comment- 
ing on the GAO report, several agencies noted that 
the programs cited by GAO in each of the four cate- 
gories were conducted for agency missions that dif- 
fered in substance and purpose. The Federal Council 
on Science and Technology noted that many of the 
activities of the agencies are similar and require com- 
parable experimental facilities. These agencies share 
available ship time and a common data base by stor- 
ing the data produced in a central depository, the 
National Oceanographic Data Center, administered 
by NOAA’s Environmental Data Service. All agen- 
cies and many foreign scientists have access to these 
files.°° It should be noted that this system also pro- 
vides U.S. scientists with access to foreign data. 
Interagency coordination of marine science and 
technology depends largely on an informal commu- 
nication system. The need for a formal review or 
clearance system among the agencies funding marine 
science and technology must be determined by fur- 
ther examination. Scientists caution, however, that a 
formal system of review must be leavened with rea- 
son and not be permitted to encumber scientific 
initiative. 
The marine science community has its own peer 
communication system that encourages coordination 
at the bench-science level, but this in itself does not 
address the problems of interagency research admin- 
istration and the allocation of research resources 
among the agencies. The scientific community is 
54 Tbid., pp. 17-22. 
55 GAO, op.cit. note 53, p. 65. 
VI-31 
