OCEAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, INC., Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: This is in answer to your request of April 22 for my views on S. 2439. I am sorry that I have not had time to think through the implications of your bill which may be far reaching and important in the development of ocean science. Therefore, I will discuss only a few points rather than the broad issues. Generally it is believed that oceanic work will develop rapidly in the next few years and it is entirely proper that the Federal Government should support programs intended to develop new knowledge and to train people. I think that no one will disagree with that idea; although arguments will arise as to exactly how this should be done. On page 3, line 7, it is suggested that the Federal Government, presumably through the National Science Foundation, "give preference to programs that translate the findings of basic research into practice.” In that phrase, you have run head on into the aims and objectives of this company. It is entirely proper that the Federal Government do the basic research and perhaps do some things which might be termed practical research. However, the translation of these into commercial practices and useable tools is a function which can better be performed by companies such as ours. I am a little uneasy at the idea that much of this program will be carried out under the National Science Foundation. From Government-organizational point of view, I suppose that is the proper agency to do the job. However, the past record of the National Science Foundation in dealing with engineering at sea and ship operations has not been good and has been notably subject to political pressures. In carrying through with this work, I think it would be well if you and other senior legislators would try to find time to review the actual operations under the law to see that they conform to the objectives which the Congress has in mind. Yours truly, WILLARD BASCOM, President. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In view of your demonstrated interest in Oregon's fisheries, I am providing you with the enclosed statement on the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965 (S. 2439, 89th Cong.). This was prepared by a group of biologists at Oregon State University, who are named on the last page of the statement. There is a critical need for financial support for marine biological research. To my mind, this need is brought into sharp relief by the presence of the Russian fleet presently exploiting the fishery resource off the Oregon coast. For, as a consequence of inadequate funds to support basic research on fishes of the sea, we are not prepared to engage in effective discussion with foreign powers for the purpose of establishing a sound treaty to conserve our marine fishery. The Russians may know more about some segments of our fishery resource than we know ourselves. We are concerned about whether the National Science Foundation is the best choice of agencies for administration of the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965, because it has a well-established policy of nonsupport to research with any visible applied values. This policy would be in direct conflict with the intent of the proposed sea grant colleges and programs. Oregon State University, with its new marine science center, would be well situated for initiating and developing the basic research and extension programs envisioned by the act. Respectfully yours, THOMAS G. SCOTT, Head, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. A STATEMENT ON THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE AND PROGRAM ACT OF 1965 (S. 2439, 89TH CONG.) This is an expression of views supporting the biological sciences aspects of the sea grant colleges and programs as proposed in the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965: 1. WHY SHOULD SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND PROGRAMS BE ESTABLISHED? A. The orderly development and exploitation of marine resources is essential to the world's resource demands of the future. The value of the materials and commodities presently obtained from marine sources can be used only as a very conservative index of the potential value of the resource. The problem is not a lack of resources but a need to identify and locate the stocks of useful items and to develop techniques for their harvest. It is well established that there are large untapped fisheries off the coast of the United States. The U.S. catch in 1963 was approximately 4.8 billion pounds of all species of fish, while a recent conservative estimate places the potential catch in the vicinity of 20 billion pounds (McKernan, D. L., 1965, "The Fish Boat." H. L. Peace Publishers, New Orleans, pp. 14-15). B. Deveopment of aquaculture will benefit the United States as well as other countries and enhance the position of the United States as a producer of food for worldwide consumption. Decline of the ability of the United States to compete in harvesting the marine fishery has resulted in a drop from second to fifth place in world production between 1948 and 1963. During this interval America's contribution to the world catch decreased from 12.4 to 5.8 percent. From 1949 to 1963 our imports rose from 20 to 59 percent of the U.S. market for fish (anonymous), 1965, "The Fish Boat," H. L. Peace Publishers, New Orleans, pp. 29-52). From these data, it may be inferred that the United States has entered the world market in competition with countries less able to produce their own supplies of scarce protein. C. The gap between basic and applied marine research must be narrowed. Any discussion of this topic must include recognition of the substantial deficiencies which exist in our store of basic information on biological, marine resources. Equally critical is the need for application of existing knowledge. Secretary Stewart L. Udall, U.S. Department of the Interior, has summed up the problem: "Clearly what is missing is application of the results of our research scientists to the technological problems of our fishing industry. The problem is to bridge, on a continuing basis, the gap between the basic and the applied. The fisherman requires more widespread application of advanced location devices and the development of new ones. He needs strategic information, the kind that can be derived from analysis and dissemination of the latest available information on ocean currents and water temperatures so that he can proceed with a minimum of delay to the ocean areas most likely to yield an abundance of fish of the kind he is seeking. He likewise needs the most economical means of preserving the catch against deterioration between the sea and the consumer" (Udall, 1965, Fishing Gazette, Fishing Gazette Publishing Co., New York, p. 10). The commercial fisherman needs to be continually informed on matters that will make it possible for him to become a more efficient fisherman, and thereby improve the economic status of the fishing industry as well as his own standard of living. The industry engaged in processing fishery resources also needs to be responsive to advances in food technology. In a sense, a gap also exists between basic knowledge and its application when a renewable marine resource goes to waste for lack of markets. D. It is imperative to the well-being of the United States that knowledge of the marine resources off our shores be expanded and refined. How can we hold intelligent discussions with foreign powers aimed at the signing of treaties for the conservation of fishery resources if we do not have information on the species present and on their populations, rates of production, and requirements? It would not be surprising to learn that some foreign countries-Russia, for example might be better informed on some of our fishery resources than we are. 2. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND A. Many potentially valuable marine resources will remain unrecognized and, therefore, unexploited. B. Human activities such as pollution, excessive exploitation, and destruction of productive areas by activities unrelated to exploitation may endanger the continued well-being of these resources, possibly even without our being sufficiently informed to know what is happening. C. Unplanned and uncontrolled exploitation of marine resources will result in ineffective exploitation, including damage to or loss of the resources. D. The United States will become increasingly dependent on outside sources of supply for marine products which are potentially available to us off our own shores. E. Failure to develop economically feasible methods of exploiting fishery resources off our own coasts will cause the United States to import fishery products for which less fortunate nations may have a critical need. F. Incomplete and faulty information on fishery resources off our coasts will leave us in an untenable position in discussions with foreign powers exploiting fishery resources off our shores. 3. WHAT THE BILL MUST PROVIDE Adequate financial support to initiate and develop basic and applied research programs and training programs in the marine sciences, and initiation and development of programs of education to make the results of research available to those engaged in harvesting these marine resources. 4. EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH WHICH SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE BILL Preparation for rational exploitation of the natural resources of the sea must be based on a sound understanding of the resources. Basic to management programs is knowledge in the following areas: A. Inventory: (1) Survey.-What is there? (2) Distribution.-Where are these marine resources in both time and space? (3) Standing crop.-What is the magnitude of the resource? (4) Rate of renewal.-How heavily can the resource be exploited through aquaculture? B. Requirements for Management: (1) Determination of conditions necessary for optimal production and yield. (2) Manipulation of resources to obtain optimal yield. (3) Experimentation with artificial measures for augmenting the natural production through aquaculture. (4) Evaluation of the effects of human activities on the well-being of the resource. 5. RESULTS TO BE EXPECTED FROM THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE AND PROGRAM ACT OF 1965 A. Development of adequate information for judging the total potential of marine resources. The scientific community can, at present, provide only a very imperfect inventory of the kinds and numbers of organisms (plants and animals) to be found in marine waters and of their distribution. B. Provision of information concerning the natural interrelationships of organisms composing the marine communities. C. Establishment of requirements for the protection of the resources located in the intertidal and upper sublittoral areas surrounding oceanic basins that are most vulnerable to damage by human activities by improper exploitation because of their accessibility. These areas also are biologically the most productive of all marine environments. D. Translating the basic information into a program of training operations for the business of harvesting the resources in a responsible fashion. 6. WHAT ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS ARE BEST SUITED TO DEVELOP A COMPLETE PROGRAM? A. Land-grant colleges and universities have a framework in their schools of agriculture, engineering, science, and in their extension services for initiating and developing basic research programs, applied research programs relating to management and harvesting practices, and programs of scientific training and public education. B. Some of these institutions already have excellent facilities for research, training, and educational programs in the marine sciences, which, with additional financial support could serve the purpose for which this bill is intended. Thomas G. Scott, Ph. D., head, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Carl E. Bond, Ph. D., professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Peter Dondoroff, Ph. D., professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Howard Horton, Ph. D., associate professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Raymond E. Millemann, Ph. D., associate professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Harry Phinney, Ph. D., professor, Department of Botany; and Charles E. Warren, Ph. D., professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. RAYTHEON Co., SUBMARINE SIGNAL DIVISION, Newport, R.I., May 3, 1966. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I would like to offer my full support for early passage of the national sea grant college and program bill (S. 2439) which you have sponsored and is now under consideration by your subcommittee. There is no field for scientific progress and engineering development more critical than oceanology to the future of industry represented in this division of Raytheon Co. Vastly greater knowledge of ocean phenomena and more reliable means for their exploitation are requirements which daily command our attention in efforts to meet the needs of defense and commerce as well as those for scientific exporation itself. It is equally apparent that progress commensurate with the need and the intellectual potential of this country is not being made. It is continually more difficult to obtain scientific and engineering personnel with skills disciplined to handle problems peculiar to the ocean environment. More importantly, the fund of knowledge available to them in the scientific and technical community at large is not adequate to the size or complexity of their tasks. Government and private investment in the material means to achieve progress will become increasingly restricted in proper application, if the sources of trained manpower are not expanded. I believe that the proposed legislation for sea grant colleges is the most rational approach to give early and continuing relief to the problem. It will build upon a well-established educational foundation to preserve the interrelationships which should exist among the many disciplines needed for ocean science and engineering and to expand experimental facilities for timely application of research findings. Not only will the products of these institutions add to the vitality of our industry, but, as has been the experience of this division, industry can bring to their facilities new concepts for instruments and processes which require experimental verification and adaptation. Sincerely yours, W. ROGERS HAMEL, Vice President and General Manager, Submarine Signal Division. NEW YORK, N.Y., May 2, 1966. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Thank you for extending me the opportunity to comment on S. 2439, the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965. While I am not well informed enough in this field to make a constructive contribution by commenting in depth, I do applaud the general purposes of this legislation. It is clear we need to know much more about the sea around us, and I welcome your efforts to extend Federal participation in this field. With all best wishes, Sincerely, LAURANCE S. ROCKEFELLER. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. TEXAS A. & M. UNIVERSITY, College Station, Tex., May 11, 1966. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Your invitation to comment on the proposed sea grant college program is greatly appreciated. As one of the few educational institutions in the country with a large oceangoing oceanographic program, Texas A. & M. University endorses the objectives of S. 2439, the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965. Increased Federal support of research and education in marine sciences and technology is in the national interest for it is the key to mastery of the ocean environment and to development of ocean resources. We do wish to suggest, however, that the bill might be strengthened by providing for a distinction between sea grant colleges, a title that might be reserved to those institutions where the full range of education, research, and services pertinent to the occupation and exploitation of the oceans would be developed, and sea grant projects and programs, which might be initiated at any institution with the requisite competence. Full implementation of the aims of the bill would seem to require pursuit of the land-grant college analogy at least to the establishment of marine research stations and aquacultural educational services to the public as operating arms of sea grant colleges. In our view, such research-education-service systems would need more assurance of long-term funding than is implied in the bill. The support of such sea grant college systems would not preclude, but should be coupled with, support of sea grant projects and programs at other institutions. I hope these comments will prove useful to you. Sincerely yours, EARL RUDDER, President. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am delighted to have this opportunity to comment on S. 2439, the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the national conference on the concept of a sea grant university, sponsored by the University of Rhode Island in October 1965; however, I have carefully read the proceedings of the conference and have discussed this program with a number of my colleagues. All those whom I have approached have been intrigued and have liked the concept. As for myself, I am strongly in favor of such a program. I believe that passage of S. 2439 will provide the necessary foundation and catalyst for the long-term development of our natural resources in the sea. The bill, as presented, is completely acceptable to me. KENNETH H. DRUMMOND, UST/UNDERSEA TECHNOLOGY, Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, 325 Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Thank you very much for your letter of April 22, 1966. soliciting our comments related to S. 2439. As the Nation's first and foremost specialized business magazine within the oceanographic community, UnderSea Technology welcomes this opportunity to express its views. May we commend you on your bill S. 2439. We share your view that education is a key factor to the beneficial harvesting of the seas. |