sonal opinion without necessarily implying a position on the part of the Board of Regents. I would like to point out that the Smithsonian Institution has indeed served as the parent body for organizations of scholars and scientists later becoming incorporated into new agencies. For example, harking back to the comment made previously in response to your question, Spencer Baird was indeed a part of the Smithsonian Institution and was in many ways the father of research activities now residing in the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior. Similarly, the Smithsonian Institution has fostered, not by premeditation I might add, basic research research leading to the development of the NACA, the Weather Bureau, and in some ways the National Bureau of Standards. Senator PELL. Excuse me. I was diverted for a moment. You say that the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries did start in the Smithsonian or did not? Dr. GALLER. I did not wish to give that impression, Mr. Chairman. Spencer Baird laid the scientific groundwork for what later became the research program now vested in the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. To be specific, as one of the great marine biologists of our Nation and as a person with considerable foresight, envisioning the exploitation of the sea resulting from basic research, he was instrumental in establishing a fishery commission which was later to become the organization that we call the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. So that indirectly one of the Secretaries of the Smithsonian Institution was instrumental in introducing the scientific climate which led to the establishment of an independent agency, and as I point out, this was true also for other agencies formed from Smithsonian activities. Their formation however, was not by premeditation. It was, rather, recognition by the Regents that a body of scholarship had reached a point where it could become not only intellectually self-sustaining but also programmatically self-sufficient. If we were to take on the organization sponsored in this bill, it would be one of the first premeditated actions of this kind in the history of the Smithsonian Institution. Let me say, also, that the Smithsonian Institution has always attempted to be responsive to the wishes of Congress and the Chief Executive. That is the extent that I would be prepared to speak on that particular question, Mr. Chairman. Senator PELL. It is a somewhat circumferential reply, but I think I get the message. I had another question here. Do you think the bill's emphasis on the application of science is correct or wrong? Dr. GALLER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the emphasis is quite correct, provided it does not close the door to the need for basic knowledge in order to sustain the applications. I would hope sincerely that the bill would not emphasize or accentuate the schism that appears to exist between the scientists who are engaged in the acquisition of fundamental information and those agencies who have large national responsibilities of a mission-oriented character. There is indeed a schism. It is one that is unfortunate, but it is perhaps a natural product of growth of research and development in this country where we have found that agencies responsible for mission oriented research are naturally inclined to select those fundamental research proposals which appear to be relevant to the fulfillment of the missions of the agencies. This, however, has created serious gaps in the support of fundamental science, so-called unfashionable science, which nonetheless must provide the informational coherence needed in order to apply the data resulting from other kinds of basic research. I envision that S. 2439 would provide the transitional or translational mechanism that the Hatch Act provided for the land-grant colleges and actually pull together programs for basic research which could in turn nurture the mission-oriented interests of the several agencies. Also, it would also provide a feedback mechanism, if you please, whereby the agency interests and needs could be conveyed to a center of scholarship and research and provide the broad program frame of reference for fundamental research of primary concern to the scholars and scientists but consistent with the long-range interests of our Nation. Senator PELL. I find your answers a little confusing. To boil it down, do you feel the emphasis on the application of knowledge, of exploitation of knowledge, is good or poor? Dr. GALLER. Good. Absolutely necessary. But I would also like to point out, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that application is only as sound as the pool of knowledge upon which it is based and I feel that we have not acquired sufficient knowledge of the sea and the biota in the sea to feel confident that we are ready for a broad, comprehensive, in-depth application without additional basic research. Senator PELL. The purpose of this bill is not to add to that pool of knowledge. The purpose of this bill is to utilize the knowledge we already have. Dr. GALLER. Yes, sir. I understand this. It is also my thought, however, that the bill will provide a point of focus for more fundamental research. Senator PELL. I want to make it very clear that my own personal thinking in proposing this idea was not that development. Obviously you want basic research encouraged, but there is too little money and it would be spread too thin and it is the practical application and the use of it for the fishing industry, the tuna fisheries out in California, the trawlers out of our own part of the country, the mineral people in the South who could better use the knowledge we have. Dr. GALLER. Yes. May I also take this opportunity to point out that the bill will have a byproduct impact on basic science. It will tend to stimulate scholarship, whether it is the primary intent of the bill or not, and I think this augurs well. For example, I think it could close a gap that has existed between the so-called limnological or fresh water sciences and the marine sciences. Let me point out, if I may, that many of the leaders in oceanography today are either first or second generation fresh water biologists, fresh water geophysicists, who took their early training in institutions not located on the coast but located in the interior of the country. Limnology, or fresh water science has been and continues to be an important educational resource for the training of scientists in the marine sciences. Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Senator MURPHY. No questions. Thank you very much. Dr. GALLER. Thank you. Senator PELL. Our final witness today is Rear Admiral Waters, the oceanographer of the Navy, and I would like to thank Admiral Waters particularly for being kind enough to come up here today on short notice as opposed to tomorrow. Admiral Waters, I hope you will proceed as you will, and let us know your views on this bill and its application to the Navy and your own thinking. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. ODALE D. WATERS, JR., OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY, U.S. NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Admiral WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of my change in schedule, it may be that copies of my statement have not arrived yet. I have accepted your kind invitation, sir, to appear this morning with a great deal of personal pleasure. Because of my present assignment in the billet of the Oceanographer of the Navy, I have a continuing interest in the subject matter involved in these hearings. At present I have held this position for a period of only 8 months. Last fall the term "oceanography," I must admit, was somewhat poorly defined in my own mind, although I had been associated with the sea for many years. The overall field appeared to hold interest for both young and old, military and civilian alike. Many highly trained and qualified personnel were drawn into governmental ranks under the terminology of "oceanographer." In the intervening months I have come to realize that by far the greatest numbers of persons working in this field, both within my own office as well as other Government agencies, are not oceanographers in terms of academic background but in terms of on-the-job training in the Office as well as at sea. Recruiting problems are great and the Oceanographic Office has no greater drawing power than any other agency involved with the hiring of qualified personnel in this field. At last count we are still averaging from 50 to 70 persons short of our requirements in this category. Young people apply for work and then must be trained after acceptance. The end result is a relatively long period of training before we can allow these people to go to sea on surveys. Everyone associated with oceanography today feels the impact of the acute personnel shortages involved. This same holds true for many other fields, but I doubt they can also claim the general lack of university-type training which exists for the young man or woman about to enter this limb of scientific endeavor. These shortages are felt throughout the entire oceanographic world but at present appear to be most acute in the disciplines of physical and chemical oceanography. The governmental, industrial, and academic communities are all clamoring for additional personnel to fill the gap. The oceanographer of the Navy is the curriculum adviser for all naval officer personnel enrolled in academic oceanographic study throughout the United States. In addition, the assignment of officer subspecialists in oceanography is coordinated between the Bureau of Naval Personnel and my Office. In this role we are continually striving to reach a fine mix of academic oceanography with those environmental processes which may affect both naval operations and systems. Consequently, as oceanographer, I favor the "sea grant college" concept of training and research, since all output from this type endeavor must, of necessity, eventually assist the Government and Navy. While the sea grant college program is not designed specifically to produce additional oceanographers per se, it relates to training in many disciplines as they pertain to the sea. In addition, the direction of pure and applied research in study areas associated with the sea cannot. help but benefit both military and civilian approaches aimed at the conquest and use of that environment. Thus, the main purpose of my testimony this morning is to advise you that my Office fully supports the major objectives of this proposal. I have no specific knowledge of or recommendations to make with respect to the various avenues which may be utilized to finance such a proposal or, in fact, the requirements which should be laid upon any college or university seeking grants under this program, if approved. These are problems which fall outside the province of my Office. I can only reiterate that a program along the fines as that discussed in the "Conference on the Concept of the Sea Grant University" held in Newport, R.I., in October 1965 along with the broad guidelines proposed by the National Sea Grant Committee in February of this year, cannot help but advance the state of academic preparation of our young men and women. It is also quite evident that the additional educational programs provided in a sea grant college toward both pure and applied oceanographic research, will be of immense importance to the many fields of endeavor developing in the oceans, whether they be military or civilian, educational or operational, commercial or recreational. A greater output of personnel trained in either basic oceanography or in fields such as engineering, meteorology, mining, food resources, or shipping as they apply to the world ocean, cannot help but give a great boost to the efforts toward more effective utilization of the oceans by our country. Thank you, sir. Senator PELL. Admiral Waters, your very title provides me the opportunity to bring up a point that has bothered me a little bit, and that is the term "oceanographer," or "oceanography." I found sometimes the very mouthing of that word a little difficult as opposed to oceanology and to my mind oceanology is a broader term. Oceanography— I have just had it looked up in the dictionary-has more to do with something written on a chart or map, the mapping of, while "ology" means science, a branch of knowledge. Would not your title perhaps be more correctly that of "oceanologist of the Navy"? Admiral WATERS. Well, there are many opinions about this, sir. Senator PELL. What would be your views? I would be very interested. Admiral WATERS. Well, sir, I suppose my views can best be stated by saying that the title of "Oceanographer of the Navy" was created by Congress. It is pretty well understood throughout the country and the world, although some of the foreign countries are adopting oceanology. I believe the Soviet institutions use that term. But since it is so well known, so well accepted, and covers such a broad field that a succinct definition is rather difficult to arrive at, I have no quarrel with either term, sir. Senator PELL. When we speak of oceanography as a general rule, are we not really talking as a rule about oceanology? Admiral WATERS. Yes, sir; because oceanography, going back to the pure definition of it, is concerned with writings concerning the oceans, whereas oceanology covers the whole field of science. Senator PELL. It reminds me a little bit of some phases of our foreign policy. We start out with a policy and we just keep the same policy because it is a matter of tradition, and I am wondering if as time goes on-I am seeking to do this in this bill-we might bring in more and more the term "oceanology" which would perhaps, as you point out, be more understandable abroad and by the developing body of oceanological knowledge that would be developed in the world. You would not be adverse to that idea? Admiral WATERS. No, sir. Senator PELL. Do you see in the application of this bill any direct relationship of the application of this bill and the U.S. Navy? Admiral WATERS. Yes, sir. Senator PELL. In what ways? Admiral WATERS. Well, as I tried to bring out in my statement, sir, the great impact on this bill on the Navy will be the production of more trained people and trained people are the big bottlenecks today across the country, both in the Federal Government and in industry. Senator PELL. Now, in trained people, are you speaking of technicians, bachelors with a proficiency in the field, or graduate scientists? Admiral WATERS. I am speaking of all of them, sir, but I would like to point out that the need for subspecialists or technicians is rising at just as rapid a rate as the need for professionals, not that we do not need professionals, but we also need technicians and because the proportion of technicians that you need has increased with the increase in the complexity and sophistication of our instruments. In the old days it used to be that you could send a group of professional oceanographers to sea and if they could operate a screwdriver, they could usually keep their instruments going. These days it is not that way. So you have to have a mix of technicians, electronic technicians, electricians, and so forth. Senator PELL. Reverting to the earlier discussion then, you would welcome the thrust of this legislation which is really to turn out more technicians, and people proficient in the ways of working at the sea, and it is not designed to increase the number of scientists. I realize we need both, but the production of scientists is a responsibility of the institutions of learning, the National Science Foundation, but it is not the end of this bill. Under this bill the man will finish 2 years training, without his college degree, and must come to you for his military service and might prove quite proficient in his work. This program you like, I gather. Admiral WATERS. Yes, although as a personal opinion I would tend to agree with Dr. Galler's testimony in which I believe he indicated |