focuses on current personnel; it does not attempt to 
project the future demand and possible supply of 
academic oceanographers. In addition, education and 
employment trends in marine sciences are being stud- 
ied by a new Manpower and Curricula Panel estab- 
lished under the National Research Council’s Ocean 
Sciences Board. It is not yet decided when this panel 
will report its findings. It has received no specific 
Government funding to support the activity. The 
Council’s Maritime Transportation Research Board 
has done considerable work concerning seagoing 
personnel and recently has begun a new study on 
“Manpower and Skills for a U.S. Seagoing Work- 
force.” 
Also, the National Academy of Engineering’s Ma- 
rine Board is considering undertaking a study of 
general marine personnel supply and demand, in 
cluding the need for technicians and skilled craftsmen 
as well as professionals. No formal study has yet 
been begin or funded, though. 
A number of people are concerned about the lack 
of good marine personnel data, but the general 
marine community appears to feel little sense of 
urgency about this issue. Perhaps a major reason is 
that some of the same studies that have called for 
improvements in data collection also have pointed 
out that there is no major problem in balancing sup- 
ply and demand. This is partly because of the ease 
with which professionals can enter or leave the 
marine field as the employment picture situation 
changes, and partly because the need for new per- 
sonnel has not expanded as rapidly as was predicted 
during the 1960s.*° There is also the question of how 
accurate or useful marine personnel projections can 
be, given both the unpredictability of the field and 
the fact that informal communication among educa- 
tors, government officials, and industry may turn out 
to be more timely and more trusted than statistics 
gathered by a central office in Washington. More 
formal studies could help highlight special problems 
and opportunities warranting the attention of edu- 
cators, students, government, and others. The policy 
issue, however, is whether something beyond the 
existing informal communications network really is 
needed and, if so, what form it should take to be of 
most use to the highly decentralized marine education 
system. 
Coordination 
Historically, the main interagency coordination 
mechanism in the marine field was the Interagency 
Committee on Marine Science and Engineering 
(ICMSE), now replaced with the Committee on 
Atmosphere and Oceans (CAO) of the reconstituted 
Federal Council on Science and Technology. ICMSE 
had some interest in marine education and published 
an annual listing of marine programs in colleges and 
universities around the Nation.*° CAO, as yet, has 
not looked at marine employment and education, nor 
does it appear likely to resurrect any of the now 
largely defunct data-gathering mechanisms of the 
1960s.3” 
Again, the Stratton Commission manpower panel 
recommended a new organizational mechanism, both 
to collect marine statistics and to be “a central co- 
ordinating body to study total needs, balance Federal 
agency funding activities, and prepare and admini- 
ster a national marine education and training pro- 
gram consistent with changing needs in the marine 
environment.” The panel recommended creation of 
an Office of Marine Education, Training, and Man- 
power. None has been established. 
Today, such ideas still are proposed occasionally, 
but the issue apparently is not considered urgent by 
either the Federal agencies or the general marine 
community. Perhaps this ts because there is little 
opposition to the present system of several different 
agencies funding marine research and education, 
perhaps partly because the relevant agencies stay in 
touch informally and perform the necessary program 
coordination. 
Recently, however, another kind of coordination 
mechanism—the interagency agreement—has been 
used in the related area of precollege marine educa- 
tion. During the summer of 1977, Sea Grant and the 
Office of Education signed an agreement to consult 
with each other and keep each other informed.*® 
Whether such an agreement could improve the co- 
ordination of college level marine education pro- 
grams is an unanswered question. 
Major Current Issues 
To summarize, while there now appear to be no 
major policy controversies in this area of training 
marine professionals, several issues have been raised 
which are likely to be part of future discussions about 
marine education. In turn, how these issues are re- 
solved will affect the operation and direction of the 
Federal Government’s marine education effort. These 
* National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, 
op. cit. note 21. 
issues, most of which already have been mentioned, 
are discussed briefly below. 
The broadest issue probably will be whether sup- 
port of university education and research is declining 
“ Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering, 
op. cit. note 19. 
* Robert B. Abel, op. cit. note 34, p. 19A-2. 
“Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States 
Office of Education and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration,” signed August 25, 1977. 
VITI-14 
