meteorological processes. Many air-sea interactions can be better studied here than in the sea. Their circulations vary from short-term, wind-driven motions to longer term quasi-permanent circulations; free and inertial oscillations, both surface and internal, and much more easily studied than in the oceans. Since most oceanographic processes occur in these lakes, they represent an ideal training ground for students.

Sea grant colleges in the Midwest could take full advantage of the Great Lakes and could play a major role in the management and preservation of these unique bodies of water. It may be instructive at this point to mention the major research and training institution recently established on Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union. This impressive institution was described in detail last August by Russian scientists at the International Limnology Congress in Warsaw, Poland. This international congress also gave major emphasis to the Great Lakes of the world when it met at the University of Wisconsin in 1963.

Marine sciences at the University of Wisconsin: The marine sciences program of the University of Wisconsin is characterized by numerous separate research projects in various departments such as geology, meteorology, civil engineering, and zoology. These research activities range from the study of the world ocean and the Great Lakes to experiments using smaller lakes as laboratory models of oceanic processes. We have recently established a Ph. D. program in oceanography. We have also set up a center for Great Lakes studies at Milwaukee.

With modern transportation, scientists anywhere in the United States are only hours away from the sea. Hudson Bay is less than 700 miles from the campus of the University of Wisconsin. It is readily accessible by modern research aircraft, and I might mention that we are already taking advantage of its relative proximity to make infrared surveys of its surface temperature. Hurricane research is another of our activities in which we are directly concerned with the sea. Wisconsin scientists have also been active in ship and airborne studies of the Arctic Ocean. Our geophysicists are cooperating in the Mohole project near Hawaii. Marine biologists at the University of Wisconsin now collaborate with marine laboratories at Duke University, the University of Hawaii, the University of Washington, the University of British Columbia, and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. From these examples it is clear that geography presents few problems to the modern oceanographer.

When viewed as a whole we believe these research and educational activities represent a "critical mass" which could serve as a nucleus for an even broader based marine science program as envisioned by the Sea Grant College and Program Act.

In conclusion I wish to repeat I speak for the University of Wisconsin as a whole in endorsing this bill and recommend that it receive favorable consideration from your committee.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Ragotzkie.

One question here in connection with this matching funds provision. I have been informed I was incorrect in saying the National Science Foundation never did have matching fund programs. It has a 50–50 matching facilities program. Also there is the development program that was matching requirements.

Do you think there should be matching provisions in this legislation or not? What would be your view?

Dr. RAGOTZKIE. I think the institutions should display a tangible commitment to a program in the marine sciences. By a tangible commitment, however, I think one should include intellectual resources in terms of professors who teach courses in marine sciences and who are paid by State funds. Also space, facilities, lands on the coasts, and this sort of thing should be considered a commitment. Furthermore, a statement by the administration of the institution that they are behind a program in the marine sciences should be considered tangible. I agree fully with Dean Spilhaus' reasoning on the idea of matching dollars. It is sometimes difficult for the individual States, especially those in the center of our country, to defend dollar expenditures for research programs on regions of the world ocean that do not appear to offer any immediate benefits to the people of that State.

Senator PELL. It might be even more difficult for private institutions as opposed to State universities as well in this connection. Dr. RAGOTZKIE. It certainly would.

Senator PELL. And I must add here that the term "sea grant college" could apply to a private institution. It does not necessarily mean a State institution, which is the meaning and effect in the land-grant college.

Dr. RAGOTZKIE. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. Thank you very, very, very much indeed, and I am so glad you have come from the Great Lakes area because the action resultant from this bill will have fully as much effect and benefit, I believe, in your part of the country as on the salt water area. Thank you so much.

Dr. RAGOTZKIE. Thank you very much.

Senator PELL. I would like to direct a question if I could to the father of the bill, which I neglected to do before, Dean Spilhaus, and that is on the use of the term "oceanography," and the more I have studied this legislation as a layman, the more I have come to the conclusion that "oceanology" would perhaps be a better term. It is used in more countries abroad now, is being steadily used more, and covers a wider field of knowledge, and I think it comes easier to the tongue of the layman. What do you think?

STATEMENT OF DR. ATHELSTAN SPILHAUS, DEAN OF INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-Resumed Dr. SPILHAUS. Well, these are two considerations in semantics which we are discussing now. Oceanography is difficult to pronounce. Oceanology seems to be easier and that is an important consideration to consider when we want to communicate with all people.

Senator PELL. Particularly in this program which is for the practical application.

Dr. SPILHAUS. Right. And certainly oceanography although, of course, the acceptance of the word is an important consideration and oceanography in English-speaking countries has become accepted, basically from the roots of the word it is not a very good word. Supposing we called our living science biography. It is a little confusing. We actually call it biology.

Senator PELL. There is a lot of difference. Biology can produce biography.

Dr. SPILHAUS. Biography really is a true good root for what we understand of biography, the writing up of life. So that in a way, from the root point of view, oceanology is a better word. But I would like to say this, that neither oceanology or oceanography are what we are talking about here nor are we talking about marine science. We are talking about ocean technology, ocean engineering, ocean techniques. We are talking about extracting the science from marine science, oceanology and oceanography, and putting it to work. So that I would prefer in the context of exploiting the seas to talk about ocean engineering or some such term that avoids the confusion with the basic science.

We now have biological engineering and biological engineering is going to be a very important thing in the future. We have biochemical engineering. So we have marine engineering in the new sense and ocean engineering.

Senator PELL. I very much like your analogy to the use of the words "biology" and "biography," and I was quite struck by it.

In this legislation I have somewhat ducked the issue by my bill mentioning neither, adopting the coward's approach, using the words "marine sciences," but I thought in rewriting the bill we might use the word "oceanology." Do you see any objection to that in the professional field?

Dr. SPILHAUS. I see no objection except that it does diminish our goal which is to the practical applications of oceanology. Marine science, too, implies the basic science, whereas our goal is the application of the scientist.

I think that you can duck the issue by saying oceanology and ocean engineering, or oceanology and ocean technology, or marine sciences and ocean engineering. Couple the two as indeed they must be coupled if we are to get anywhere.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, and forgive me for asking you this question, but I wanted to get it on the record.

We are lucky enough to have with us another witness, Dr. George Rounsefell of the University of Alabama, and in behalf of the chairman of our committee, Senator Hill, who I know would welcome you here if he could, I am so glad you have come and I hope you will proceed as you will.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE A. ROUNSEFELL, PROFESSOR OF

MARINE BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I am very glad to come and testify, Senator Pell. Senator PELL. I notice you have a fairly lengthy statement. Would you like to read it or digest it or what would be your will?

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, if it is your pleasure, Senator, there are portions of this that are a little long. If you would rather have me summarize it

Senator PELL. Why don't we put it in the record in full and you might summarize those portions of it that you feel you should. Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Very happy to.

62-996-66- -15

I want to commend the dedication of yourself and your committee in backing this bill. However, the terms of reference are a little broad and there are some suggestions I would like to make to the committee for some changes that I personally feel are essential.

To begin with, I agree that we do need the extension services as well as the basic and applied research. The idea of having a sea grant university in every State in contact with the fishermen is sadly needed.

Over the last 30 years our fisheries have not advanced. Fisheries in other countries, such as Japan, have made tremendous strides, similar to what has happened in agriculture where they have had their land-grant-college system.

In Japan they have fishery education, research, and extension services at all levels and in all the prefectures. We need a similiar type of thing, as you have indicated in this bill. However, the bill as now worded permits this money to be given to groups of individuals, industries, corporatons, foundations, museums, and so forth, which somewhat belies the title of the bill, which is a sea grant college bill.

Also I would like to address the attention of the committee to the idea that at least a good part of these funds should be used for institutional support, rather than the project type of support, which I feel greatly weakens the university's participation. I feel that what we need is continuous support, even if it is at a low level, so that the universities can have a hard core of teachers, scientists, and extension service people working continuously.

It is very difficult to carry on any kind of continuous and worthwhile program on fluctuating funds. If a few of these small changes I have indicated could be made in this bill, I would be willing to vigorously support it. As it now stands, I am afraid I would have to oppose it, sir.

Senator PELL. You feel because it doesn't have enough of an emphasis on this practical relationship to the fisherman.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, no. I agree with the practical relationship to fishermen. I believe we have to have basic science, applied science, and extension all working together as a team.

Senator PELL. Good.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I do think that we have enough knowledge to start this exploration of the sea but we also have to continue a certain level of basic science or our information will dry up and in the long run we will suffer. I do believe in the extension service and I think we have got to do it, and it has to be done at the State level, the same as was done with the land-grant colleges. You see, I disagree with the idea that all these funds should be put in a few institutions who are now competent in certain types of oceanographic research, especially deep sea research, which is exceedingly expensive.

At a very small fraction of the cost you can do a fine piece of work in mariculture, in the estuaries. A quarter of all our fish landed comes from between Port Arthur, Tex., and Pensacola, Fla., yet there is no provision to help our fishermen in an area such as this. We are very much in favor of having this bill, sir. But we would hope that it would be so amended that a portion at least of these funds would be put into continuing support of a sea grant college in every State. And I would not oppose having them in inland States because inland States can share seacoast facilities with a seacoast State.

Senator PELL. To draw on your reasoning a little bit in this connection, the thought here is not just to confine it to the few States or institutions that presently have programs. It is to make the program or the concept available to any State that develops an interest in doing so.

For instance, if the State of Utah developed an interest in this kind of program and developed a program to do it, it could become a sea grant college, but I am sure you don't visualize the relatively small amount of the money being divided on a specific population basis or something of that sort among the States.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I think any State who wishes to have a sea grant college should be able to have it by the wording of the bill.

Senator PELL. But it is only, say, $15 or $10 million and you have got 50 States. That would mean, let us say for the sake of argument, of $15 million, 50 States, you would see that would amount to maybe $300,000 a State.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, $300,000 on an estuarine program and to develop education and extension in a State would be a very fine start. I also feel that when this program starts you will find a great many other sources of local and State funds that will be funneled into the sea grant university. Thus we will receive enough money to develop a strong program.

I had experience while running laboratories, in trying to hire personnel, and we do not have the trained personnel today because there is not enough education in the marine sciences.

Senator PELL. You believe, then, that it should be available to any State that shows an interest and wants to develop such a program. Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. But it should not just be divided up, as we suggested earlier, like appointments to Annapolis among the States.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, if a State doesn't want to go ahead with it, then they shouldn't get their share, but if they want to go ahead, they should be able to.

Senator PELL. You don't believe there should be a degree of competition between the States so that if the State of Utah comes up with a good program they could get it. If another State saw a need of just getting some added money, wasn't really interested in it, but saw it as a means of bolstering something they were already doing, they should in my mind not get it.

What would be your view?

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, if a State is not interested in it, it shouldn't have it.

Senator PELL. But if Federal money is available, no matter if it is to teach Siamese or astrology, the States will probably go after it. There has to be a degree of competition to winnow down the degree of interest.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, I think that we have got to try to establish these programs in as many States as possible if we are going to compete in our fisheries. We are losing out in the race. We have failed in the last 30 years to do anything for our fisheries in spite of all the money spent for oceanography and for fisheries. I think our failure stems from not having proper education at the grassroots level. Senator PELL. And your thought is, too, the money should be equally