chary of any centralization of science funding, or 
centralized review and approval. This reflects both a 
concern for the “big brother” image of the Federal 
Government, which could impose unwanted direc- 
tion and governmental objectives on academic re- 
search through funding restrictions, and a desire to 
maintain flexibility for “selling” research projects to 
a multiplicity of agencies with alternative sources of 
Federal research funds. 
Three possible levels of science coordination may 
be adopted as public policy: (1) Collegial communi- 
cation—where agency representatives and the science 
community informally exchange information about 
their respective programs in the absence of a formal 
review system; (2) Agency mutuality—where a for- 
mal framework for review of agency R&D through 
rational and technical criteria operates to avoid du- 
plication, subdivides responsibilities, and integrates 
mutually supportive efforts and resources; and (3) 
Federal planning and direction—which involves set- 
ting Government-wide goals and policy objectives in 
R&D and structuring programs across agency lines 
to conform to an overall design. 
The coordination of Federal marine science and 
technology programs has relied upon a combination 
of “collegial communication” and “agency mutual- 
ity,” focused through the Interagency Committee 
on Oceanography before 1966, the Marine Science 
Council between 1966 and 1971, and the ocean- 
related interagency committees subsequent to that 
time. Moreover, as in all Federal programs, coordi- 
nation occurs in the budget process. 
Coordination of agency programs is achieved by 
agency participation in a number of formal and in- 
formal interagency committees and by agreements 
among agencies on the conduct of cooperative pro- 
grams. These arrangements have been effective in 
facilitating the exchange of information about agency 
programs and providing a basis for cooperative ef- 
fort. In addition to cooperation in a number of joint 
projects, agencies collaborate by: (1) sharing ship 
time and specialized facilities; (2) making data avail- 
able to other Federal and non-Federal interests 
through data centers such as NOAA’s Environmental 
Data Service and the Smithsonian Oceanographic 
Sorting Center; (3) participating in special advisory 
groups to review each other’s program plans, and 
(4) commenting on research proposals received by 
other agencies. 
The Navy’s Office of Naval Research, the Na- 
tional Science Foundation, NOAA’s Office of Sea 
Grant, and the Department of Energy all convene 
special workshops. or review panels of researchers 
in pertinent fields from other Federal agencies and 
universities to reyiew their research projects. Formal 
and informal meetings also are called among the 
agencies to review progress on existing cooperative 
research studies and to examine requirements for 
new ones. Examples of such projects include Bureau 
of Land Management/Department of Energy studies 
of the dynamics of petroleum cycling in the oceans, 
Bureau of Land Management/ NOAA environmental 
assessment studies relevant to Outer Continental 
Shelf oil development, NOAA/ Department of Energy 
studies on sediment transport, ONR/IDOE research 
on seafloor assessment and pollutant transfer, ONR/ 
USGS cooperative studies in sediment dynamics, and 
Coast Guard/NOAA cooperation in the data-buoy 
program. This last project includes arrangements 
for the detailing of Coast Guard personnel to data- 
buoy projects of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Engineer- 
ing. The Coast Guard also provides shore and ship 
support for the placement, servicing, and mainte- 
nance of data buoys. 
Other interagency coordination occurs in such 
forums as the National Advisory Committee on 
' Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA), the Univer- 
sity National Oceanographic Laboratory System 
(UNOLS), and the Interagency Committee on Ma- 
rine Science and Engineering (ICMSE). ICMSE con- 
sisted of representatives of ‘all of the agencies 
participating in the Federal Ocean Program. Estab- 
lished in 1971, when the Marine Science Council 
was terminated, ICMSE reviewed agency programs 
and occasionally made recommendations to OMB 
for budget adjustments. Seldom, however, were 
ICMSE’s reviews stringent and critical, and there is 
little indication that its funding recommendations to 
OMB had any effect on the marine science budget. 
ICMSE also participated in a number of studies for 
the Senate’s National Ocean Policy Study and co- 
operated with GAO on other matters of interest to 
the Congress. ICMSE’s most important role, how- 
ever, was its function as a forum for the exchange 
of information among the agencies, thus enabling 
them to maximize the mutual use of program re- 
sources. 
The Federal Council for Science and Technology 
was replaced in 1976 by the Federal Coordinating 
Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology 
(FCCSET). FCCSET established a new committee, 
the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans (CAO), 
to replace the old FCST committees, ICMSE, and 
the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric 
Sciences (ICAS). FCCSET and the Office cf Science 
and Technology Policy (OSTP) were reorganized in 
1977. Their functions have only recently been deter- 
mined within the Executive Office of the President. 
As a result of the reorganization, CAO has been 
less active than ICMSE. The interaction between 
FCCSET and OSTP is unclear, but assuming OSTP 
support, the CAO may evolve into an effective co- 
ordinating mechanism. Even if it does, the need for 
other formal and informal coordination systems will 
continue. The need to establish stronger mechanisms 
will require further appraisal. 
Vil-32 
