Skip to main content

Full text of "Effective use of the sea; report"

See other formats



The White House 
June 1966 






'-'O' - \j'^j\~i ■■'■ ■ 


June 1966 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 60 cents 



June 17, 1966 

Nature has lavished incredible bounty on this earth. Warmed 
daily by the sun, nourished by the land, sustained by atmosphere 
and water, man takes these riches largely for granted and often 
complains when they fail to suit his convenience exactly. But 
man can also use his energies and talents, constructively, to 
improve his surroundings. 

Much of our natural bounty consists of -water. A source of fish 
and transport to the ancients, as they are today, the oceans of 
the world hold great promise to provide future generations -with 
minerals, food, energy, and fresh water. We must turn our 
attention to finding nnore appropriate ways and better means of 
transforming this promise into achievement. 

This comprehensive report presents the findings and conclusions 
of a group of outstanding men who are deeply concerned to learn 
more about the oceans and how^ they can be made to serve mankind. 
I commend it to all who share that concern and ask the appropriate 
agencies and councils of the Federal Government to consider its 




Dr. Donald F. Hornig 
Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

Vice Chaimian 

Dr. Herbert F. York, Jr. 

Professor of Physics 

University of California, San Diego 

Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, Jr. 
Johns Hopkins Hospital 

Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb 

Joint Institute for Laboratory Astro- 

Dr. Melvin Calvin 

Professor of Chemistry 

University of California, Berkeley 

Dr. Sidney D. Drell 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

Dr. Marvin L. Goldberger 
Professor of Physics 
Palmer Physical Laboratory 
Princeton University 

Dr. Philip Handler 


Department of Biochemistry 

Duke University Medical Center 

Mr. William R. Hewlett 
Hewlett-Packard Company 

Dr. Franklin A. Long 
Vice President for Research and Ad- 
vanced Studies 
Cornell University 

Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald 
Chairman, Department of Planetary 

and Space Physics 
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Dr. William D. McElroy 


Department of Biology 

The Johns Hopkins University 

Dr. George E. Pake 


Washington University 

Dr. John R. Pierce 
Executive Director, Research 
Communications Sciences Division 
Bell Telephone Laboratories 

Dr. Kenneth S. Pitzer 


Rice University 

Dr. Frederick Seitz 


National Academy of Sciences 

Dr. Charles P. Slighter 
Department of Physics 
University of Illinois 

Dr. Charles H. Townes 


Massachusetts Institute of Technology 





Introduction ix 

Findings and Recommendations x 


1.1 Goals for a National Ocean Program 1 

1 .2 Panel Objectives and Organization 3 


2.1 Introduction 5 

2.2 Protein Production in the Sea 7 

2.3 The World Fish Catch 7 

2.4 Utilization of Fish for Human Consumption 9 

2.5 Aquiculture 10 

2.6 Summary 15 


3.1 Introduction 16 

3.2 General Considerations 16 

3.3 Specific Considerations 17 

3.4 What Needs To Be Done 18 

3.5 Summary 19 


4.1 Materials 21 

4.2 Instruments and Tools 21 

4.3 Positioning Problems 21 

4.4 Identification of Objects 22 

4.5 Tools Problem 22 

4.6 Services 23 

4.7 Standards 24 

4.8 Surf Zone and Beach Engineering Problems 25 

4.9 Buoys 26 

4.10 New Lightweight, Compact Power Plant 26 

4.11 Man in the Sea 27 

4.12 Marine Minng 28 




5.1 Introduction 30 

5.2 Vital Navy Missions Heavily Depend e: t o . Ocean 
Science and Technology 30 

5.3 The Navy's Oceanographic Program 34 

5.4 The Navy's Role in Education and Research 37 

5.5 Interaction of Navy Programs With Civilian 
Technology 39 

5.6 Conclusions 39 


6.1 Observation 41 

6.2 Prediction 42 

6.3 Physical Processes 44 

6.4 Biological Processes 49 


7.1 Introduction 55 

7.2 An Economic Evaluation of the Oceanographic 
Program 57 


8.1 Organizational Structure 66 

8.2 Support 67 

8.3 Manpower Considerations 70 

8.4 National Interest in the Oceans 73 


9.1 General Requirements in Oceanographic Man- 
power 76 

9.2 Education for Research Workers 76 

9.3 Education for Technology and Commerce 78 

9.4 Implications of Manpower Change 78 

9.5 Marine Study Centers 79 


10.1 Federal Interest — Past and Present 80 

10.2 Federal Role in a National Ocean Program 81 

10.3 Present Organizational Structure 82 

10.4 Organization for the Future 87 

10.5 Legal Problems 91 

10.6 Support and Operation of Oceanographic Ships___ 95 

10.7 National FaciUties 97 


11.0 PRIORITIES 102 

11.1 Ocean Science and Technology 102 

1 1 .2 Ocean Science and Technology in Comparison with 
Other Fields 104 


I. Panel Membership and Activities 106 

II. Moored-Buoy Array Program 112 

III. Industry and the Ocean Continental Shelf 119 

1. Introduction 119 

2. Recommendations 120 

3. Participants in Continental-Shelf Conference at David 
Taylor Model Basin 122 

4. Summary Findings of the Five Industries 125 

5. References 127 

IV. The National Oceanographic Program — A Perspective 128 

V. Earlier Views on Federal Reorganizations of the Environ- 
mental Sciences 134 

VI. Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 

1966 136 



Summary of Major Findings and 


The PS AC Panel on Oceanography was formed in May 1965 at a 
time when widespread and intense controversy existed concerning 
the adequacy of our national effort to explore, understand and devel- 
op the oceans. The controversy was illustrated by congressional hear- 
ings held in the summer of 1965 on some 19 bills submitted during the 
first session of the 89th Congress and by the formation of special indus- 
trial groups to examine oceanography. The Panel completed its 
report in June 1966 just as enactment of the Marine Resources and 
Engineering Development Act of 1966 assured the encouragements of 
a comprehensive and continuing long-range national program for the 
effective use of the sea. 

Oceanography is defined in various ways depending on the concern 
of the definer. The Panel has adopted the broad view, prevalent in 
the Congress and industry, that oceanography connotes more than 
scientific study of the sea. In this report oceanography refers to 
actimties within the ocean that have signifhcant scientific or techno- 
logical content. 

In its studies the Panel had four principal objectives: 

1. To draft a statement of goals for a national program to serve the 
marine interests of the United States and to define the Federal role 
in pursuit of these goals. 

2. To assess current and planned ocean-oriented programs for tech- 
nical soundness, adequacy of scope, balance of content, appropriate- 
ness of organization, funding, and management in light of relevant 
national goals. 

3. To identify major opportunities for new programs in technology 
and science that should be given high priority in the next 5 to 10 

4. To recommend measuras to effect an ocean science and technology 
program consonant with national needs and interests. 



National Goals. The oceans' importance to national security, con- 
sidered in the widest possible sense, requires that goals for the Nation's 
ocean program be clearly stated and that the program be oriented to- 
ward meeting these goals. The Panel therefore recommends that the 
President state the ultimate objective of the national ocean program 
as being effect'me use of the sea hy man for all purposes curr-ently 
considered for the terrestrial environment: coTrnnerce; industry^ rec- 
reation and settlement ; as well as for kncnoledge and understanding. 
This objective implies four specific goals : 

1. Acquiring the ability to predict and ultimately control 
phenomena atfecting the safety and economy of seagoing activities. 

2. Undertaking measures required for fullest exploitation of re- 
sources represented by, in and under the sea. 

3. Utilizing the sea to enhance national security. 

4. Pursuing scientific investigations for describing and understand- 
ing marine phenomena, processes and resources (see sec. 1.1). 

Role of the Federal Government. Great concern was evident 
within the private sector as to the Federal Government's proper role 
in developing the nation's ocean program. The Panel believes that 
division of effort among government, industry, and universities ap- 
propriate to land-based activities is advisable for the oceans and that 
the Federal Government should not preempt these activities to the 
extent it has, for example, in space. AVe recommend that the Govern- 
ment perform four functions in achieving the goals of the national 
ocean program : 

1. Enunciate national policies concerning the marine interests of the 
United States. 

2. Foster exploration, development and use of oceans and their re- 
sources through establishment of appropriate financial, legal, regu- 
latory, enforcement and advisory institutions and measures. 

3. Promote description and prediction of the marine environment 
and development of capabilities for its modification. 

4. Initiate, support, and encourage programs of education, train- 
ing, and research and provide technical services and facilities related 
to activities in pertinent sciences and technology (see sec. 10.2). 

These Federal functions are not new; however, only the last two 
functions are to any degree developed and coordinated across existing 
agency lines. Systematic development and application by a more cen- 
tralized authority are required for efficient implementation of the first 
two functions. 

Oceans and National Security. Increased Federal participation in 
ocean activities is required for national security. The developing 
strategic situation, which may require a much improved undersea 


deterrent force, coupled with the need for defenses against missile- 
launching submarines, implies that the Navy must develop the capabil- 
ity to operate anywhere within the oceans at any time. The Navy 
has underway a Deep Submergence Systems Project. This effort as 
presently constituted is insufficient if the Navy is to meet its goals in 
a reasonable time period. The Panel therefore recommeTids expansion 
of activities which will permit operation at any location and time 
within the oceans (see sees. 5.2, 5.3). It is recominended that a con- 
tinuing, special effort be made by the Navy to utilize personnel, facil- 
ities and know-how of the private sector in achieving its objectives 
in the Deep Submergence Systems and JNIan in the Sea Projects (see 
sees. 4.11, 5.3). Navy technological results in these programs should 
be made available to industiy upon acquisition. 

The Navy presently has primary responsibility for development of 
capability for using man at depths in the oceans. The general level 
of research in the Man in the Sea Project is inadequate. In- 
sufficient attention has been give to biomedical problems of survival 
in the wet, cold, dark, high-pressure environment, and our efforts in 
this field lag well behind those of other countries. If the goals of the 
Man in the Sea Project are to be achieved, adequate opportunities must 
be provided for basic studies by a variety of institutions. In par- 
ticular we recommend establishment of a major shore facility fully 
equipped for the range of basic studies required by Man in the Sea. 
This facility should be associated with a university or medical re- 
search center. Navy efforts may need to be complemented through 
instrumented, movable, submersible laboratories for basic studies on 
man living beneath the sea's surface for extended periods. These 
laboratories should be available to a wide community of scholars 
outside the Navy who are interested in biomedical problems of man in 
the deep sea (see sees. 4.11, 10.7) . 

The Panel recognizes that development of adequate programs in 
undersea technology and Man in the Sea may be hampered by tra- 
ditional views within the Navy to the effect that the Navy is primarily 
an operat'ing force at or near the surface. If the Navy does not ade- 
quately pursue programs recommended in this report (see sec. 4), pro- 
gram responsibilities for Man in the Sea and undersea technology 
should be shifted to a civilian agency (see sees. 4, 5, 10.4). 

The Thresher experience in 1963 and the recent lost nuclear weapon 
incident off the Spanish coast clearly illustrate the continuing im- 
portance of search-and-recovery capabilities. We recommend that 
ocean search-and-recovery missions related in any way to national 
security be the Navy's responsibility. However, the technology de- 
veloped through such programs should be made available to industry 
on a current basis (see sec. 5.2) . 


The Navy should have broad responsibilities in furthering ocean 
science and technology in addition to its problem-oriented research. 
Most of the technology developed for undersea operations within the 
Government will result from the Navy's efforts. An important need 
is develo^Dment of a test range equipped with standardized stations 
at which components, systems, concepts, and materials can be critically 
tested. Such a range will be an expensive undertaking, though of 
great value to private industry and university research. We there- 
fore recommend that a supporting role of the Navy should be provision 
of test facilities that are open to scientific and technological com- 
munities. Users would be expected to pay a prorated share of operat- 
ing costs and depreciation, as is the case in other national facilities 
(seesecs. 4.7, 5.5). 

The Navy has maintained good relations with the academic oceano- 
graphic community, and, in turn, the community has frequently re- 
sponded to the Navy's needs in rapid and effective manner. The suc- 
cessful bomb recovery operations off the Spanish coast are a recent, 
dramatic but typical example of this cooperation. Long-term support 
of academic oceanography through the ONR has been fruitful in the 
past, and we recom\mend that the Navy continue these programs (see 
sec. 5.4) . The total Navy commitment to ocean science and technology 
has almost doubled in fiscal year 1965-67, yet Navy support of basic 
research has remained constant. This situation cannot continue if the 
Navy is to make adequate use of new developments in ocean science 
and technology ; therefore, the Panel recommends that Navy support 
of basic research in the oceans increase at a rate consonant with the 
total Navy program in ocean science and technology (see sec. 5.4). 

Marine Food Resources. In the civilian sector economic analyses — 
admittedly crude because of lack of adequate data and previous analy- 
ses — suggest that activities related to improved weather prediction and 
the near-shore environment can be justified on economic grounds (see 
sec. 7.2) . No similar economic justification for development of marine 
food resources exists; however, the Panel recommends that develop- 
ment of marine food resources be given very high priority for other 
vitally important reasons (see sees. 2.2, 2.4, 11.1) . 

A great public health problem is protein deficiency (it is the leading 
cause of death in the period between weaning and 5 years of age in 
certain countries). Proper long-range development of marine food 
resources requires numerous studies in marine biology. The protein- 
deficiency problem is so acute that efforts should be made to bypass the 
requirement for detailed understanding of means to obtain more food 
from the sea. New advances in development of marine food can greatly 
alleviate this problem, and we recommend expansion and improvement 
in technology for developing these resources and Government ap- 
proval for human use of marine protein concentrate (see sec. 2.4). 

Emphcasis should be placed on development of this technology for ex- 
port to underdeveloped countries in which malnutrition exists. 

A program for the development of marine food resources offers a 
major opportunity for substantive international cooperation. Several 
countries, including Japan, U.S.S.R., and Norway, have advanced 
technologies for fishing. An international effort to further this tech- 
nology and expand it to other marine food resources for the benefit of 
underdeveloped nations could be of major importance in achieving 
peace on earth. Such a program might be developed through auspices 
of the United Nations. 

Preserving the I\ear-Shore Environment. Almost half our popu- 
lation lives near the margins of the oceans or the Great Lakes. The 
near-shore environment is thus of critical importance. This environ- 
ment is being modified rapidly, by human activities, in ways that are 
unknown in detail but broadly are undesirable (see sees. 3, 6.4). 
Pollution, which renders beaches unsafe for swimmers, destroys valu- 
able fisheries and generally degi-ades the coastline, is the chief modi- 
fication. This problem is urgent, and dangers have not been ade- 
quately recognized. Specific recommendations cannot be made for 
solution of this serious problem because the research to date has been 
largely ineffectual. Therefore, the Panel recommends intensification 
of research in the area of pollution and pollution control. 

Recommendations with regard to marine biology affect both the 
long-range goal of increasing marine food resources and preserving 
the near-shore environment. Specific recommendations are : 

1. Intensive multidisciplinai-y studies of biological communities in 
marine habitats subject to human influence and exploitation. Such 
studies should include estuaries and the continental shelf. A very 
important, special case is the proposed sea level canal to join the 
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (see sees. 3.3, 6.4) . 

2. Establishment of marine wilderness preserves to provide a base- 
line for future studies (see see. 3.4) . 

3. Construction of facilities needed for studying organisms in special 
marine environments such as the deep sea and tropics (see sec. 10.7). 

4. Increased encouragement and support of identifieation and use 
of marine organisms as tools for biomedical research and as potential 
sources of drugs (see sec. 6.4) . 

5. Establishment of a national center for collection, maintenance, 
and distribution of living marine organisms for use in marine and 
biological research (see sec. 10.7) . 

Unity of Environmental Sciences. Throughout its investigations 
the Panel has been impressed by the unity of environmental sciences. 
Methods of investigation, intellectual concepts and ways of analyzing 
data are remarkably alike in oceanography, meteorology and solid- 
earth geophysics. Educational, industrial, and governmental orga- 


nizations for the most part have not taken advantage of this unity 
in developing their programs. The Panel's recommendations have 
been influenced to a large extent by similarities among these fields 
(see sec. 6). 

Research in Oceanography. The Panel finds that much research 
effort in marine biology and physical oceanography during the last 10 
years has concerned surveys of the ocean, measuring "classical" quan- 
tities. Such surveys were important 50 and even 20 years ago in 
defining problems; however, the subject has advanced to the stage 
that well-defined problems are knoicn to exist. The Panel recom- 
mends that emphasis be shifted from surveys to solutions of these 
problems (see sec. 6). In section 6 a number of problems related to 
physical oceanography and marine biology are considered. A prob- 
lem of great importance in physical oceanography both because of 
intrinsic scientific interest and possible contributions to security and 
commerce within the oceans is that of oceanic weather, weather being 
defined as fluctuations of temperature, pressure and current over a 
wide range of time and length scales. Major progress in this area 
can result from implementation of any of several buoy programs pro- 
posed heretofore. The Panel therefore recommends initiation of a 
step-by-step buoy program from detailed studies of limited regions to 
larger scale studies. A step-by-step program is necessary because 
buoy technology is not well developed (see sees. 6.3, 4.9, and app. II). 

Development of undersea technology will depend on understanding 
the boundary between the oceans and the solid earth. Recent studies 
show that physical processes at this boundary are complex, and there 
is little understanding of them. The Panel recommends that high 
priority be given to benthic-boundary study (see sec. 6.3). 

Education in Oceanography, Oceanographic education has been 
narrowly conceived and does not adequately recognize the importance 
of fundamental sciences in the subject's long-range development. The 
intellectual isolation of many oceanographic institutions needs to be 
corrected. Attempts should be made to associate oceanographic insti- 
tutions with groups of universities to permit easy access by scientists 
and engineers throughout the country for work in ocean activities. 
The Panel questions the wisdom of granting Ph. D.'s in oceanography 
per se and feels education should be focused on a broad spectrum of 
environmental sciences, incorporating basic sciences. Many of the 
most active contributors to oceanography entered from, other fields. 
This practice should be encouraged in the future, perhaps through 
special efforts in developing postdoctoral programs in oceanography 
(see sees. 9.1,9.2,9.3). 

As activities in the oceans increase, it is clear that there will be 
interaction between those interested in the science and technology of 


the sea and those interested in legal, social, and economic aspects. We 
therefore recommend establishment and funding of Marine Study 
Centers to examine a wide range of problems associated with activi- 
ties in the sea but )\ot to be degree-granting organizations (see sec. 9.5) . 
Research is particularly needed on economic aspects of ocean science 
and technology. 

Ships for Oceanographic Research. A substantial portion of the 
personnel in numerous oceanographic institutions is concerned with 
administration and operation of ships. Ship time is more readily 
available to members of an institution than to scientists at universities 
and other organizations not directly connected with such an institution. 

Within the institutions ship operations are no longer as flexible or as 
responsive to scientific objectives as they were 5 or 10 years ago. Op- 
erating costs of many ships are met by a conglomeration of grants and 
contracts. Because of administrative difficulties, we recomimend com- 
prehensive block-funding for oceanographic vessels (see sec. 10.6). 
The funding should imply a commitment for the operating cost of 
the ship for its expected life. Operating moneys should be funded 
separately from the oceanographic project for which the ship is used. 

Block- funding will facilitate more effective planning and schedul- 
ing of oceanographic ships. It does not, however, solve the problem of 
access to ships by qualified scientists regardless of institutional affilia- 
tions. Therefore, we recotnm'end that oceanographic ships be grouped 
generally into regional fleets of reasonable size. Perhaps three or four 
such fleets would serve the Nation's needs. Fleets should be assigned 
to independent regional organizations representing user groups from 
oceanographic laboratories and universities. Every effort should be 
made to include in user groups those institutions which at present do 
not have formal activity in ocean science and technology (see sec. 

Organization of Oceanography Within the Federal Government. 
No natural advocate for oceanography was found within the Federal 
establishment; responsibility for oceanography is diffused through a 
number of agencies. The Navy, of course, must maintain a strong 
oceanographic effort in order to meet its mission requirements. How- 
ever, if the goal of effective use of the sea for all purposes now pur- 
sued on land is to be achieved, present methods of supporting civilian 
portions of the program are inadequate to the task, and basic revision 
of the system is necessary. In particular the Panel recmwrnends that 
activities now included in the Environmental Science Services Ad- 
ministration, Geological Survey (regarding land and ocean activities), 
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, oceanographic activities of the Bu- 
reau of Mines, and a portion of the oceanographic activities of the 
Coast Guard be combined in a single agency (see sec. 10.4). Such 
an agency would be competent to deal with the four governmental 


functions specified earlier. A reorganization of this type would recog- 
nize the fact that Federal activities related to description and predic- 
tion of the environment are very closely related, and one cannot sen- 
sibly separate the atmosphere from the oceans or the oceans from 
land. In addition, the ability to develop ocean resources and to use 
the oceans for commerce depends very heavily on our ability to describe 
and predict. There is thus an intimate connection between environ- 
mental sciences in providing services and development and use of 
ocean resources. 

The Panel recomonends that the Nation's oceanographic activities 
be supported in five ways : 

1. By the NSF in its traditional role of supporting fundamental 
studies through grants and fellowships, with special emphasis on 
aspects that contribute to manpower education for ocean science and 

2. By the new agency in carrying out its responsibility for manage- 
ment of environment and ocean resources and for providing descrip- 
tion and prediction services through a balanced program of direct 
participation and support of industry and universities. 

3. By the Navy in discharging its mission of national security 
through its laboratories and industry and through ONE support of 
civilian institutions, as well as by its supporting role in the develop- 
ment of undersea technology and provision of national test facilities. 

4. By agencies such as AEC and HEW in carrying out their mis- 

5. By the Smithsonian Institution in fulfilling its major obligation 
to systematic biology (see sec. 10.4) . 

Creation of a mission-oriented agency, with major responsibilities 
as previously stated, does not by itself provide a clear mechanism for 
coordination, planning and budgeting. Several agencies, the Navy 
and NSF in particular, will continue to have major responsibilities in 
ocean-oriented activities. The need for information interchange and 
dissemination now discharged by ICO will continue, and we reconnmend 
formation of an interagency group under the Federal Council for 
Science and Technology to provide services now rendered by ICO 
and the Interagency Committee on Atmospheric Sciences (see sec. 
10.4) . This group should also have responsibilities for information 
interchange related to solid-earth sciences. It would thus link en- 
vironmental science activities within the new agency to those in other 

Budget allocations among the new agency, NSF, and the Navy 
would be made on a competitive basis, recognizing the mission re- 
sponsibilities of the new agency and the Navy. The Federal Council, 
Bureau of the Budget, and Congress would all participate in the 
budgeting process. Although the proposed agency would not solve 


all problems of budgeting-, it will provide a centralized authority with 
major mission responsibility. 

Cost of Recommendations. We have not attempted to estimate 
costs of individual recommendations contained herein because more 
detailed studies will be required before such determinations can be 
made. Instead, we 7'ecommend a general increase of the nondefense 
component of the national oceanographic program from the present 
$120 million to $210 million by fiscal year 1971 (see sec. 7.2) . This is 
based on foreseeable national needs for Federal services and support 
of marine science and technology. We do not propose a uniform ex- 
pansion of the existing program ; indeed, we believe some parts should 
be curtailed. We particularly recommend an increase in basic re- 
search and education support from about $15 million to at least $25 
million by fiscal year 1971 ; these figures do not include cost of ships 
or other platforms. 

The defense component of the oceanographic program will prob- 
ably increase more than nondefense expenditures if these recommenda- 
tions are implemented. The Navy needs large, expensive facilities 
for its program. Furthermore, we have charged it with construction 
and operation of facilities for other agencies, industry, and private 
research, and with continuing support of education and research. 
Under the circumstances a doubling of the present program by fiscal 
year 1971 would not be unexpected. 

The total, therefore, would increase from $310 million in fiscal year 
1967 to roughly $600 million in fiscal year 1971. Much of the non- 
defense increase would be devoted to economically promising programs 
or would support socially crucial ones. 


1.0. Introduction 

A number of reports have been written about the oceans and their 
vast resources. This report differs in that it views oceanography, 
broadly defined, as those activities in the ocean having significant 
scientific and technological content. The report is concerned with 
the marine activities of the Nation and how these activities contribute 
to the national well-being. Opportunities for the future are identi- 
fied and discussed. However, the relative importance of these oppor- 
tunities can be judged only when the national goals for the total ocean 
program are clearly defined. 


Goals for a national ocean program must, of course, be based on 
marine interests of the United States. These interests are threefold : 
social, economic, and strategic. Science and technology supports 
these three concerns. ^ 

Marine science interests of the United States, which are shared by 
scientists around the world, involve observation, description and un- 
derstanding of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena of the 
marine environment. Once adequately served by conventional ocean- 
ography, today marine science converges with meteorology and solid- 
earth geophysics so that consolidation into environmental science is 
required for progress in both research and education. This conver- 
gence is most advanced in programs aimed at environmental long-range 
prediction, modification, and control. 

Similarly, technological — or engineering — needs of many environ- 
mental science programs are so extensive that the line between marine 
science and ocean engineering must be largely abolished, in practice if 
not in theory, if many important projects are to proceed effectively. 

Marine economic interests of the United States entail shipping, food, 
minerals, and recreation. As on land, complex, interacting factors 
affect the profitability of efforts to exploit the seas' resources : access 
to markets, legal ownership of re&ources, availability of relevant tech- 
nology and capital, strength of competition, safety of operations, and 
inadvertent or uncontrolled interference from other human activities 
such as waste disposal or warfare. Despite the many uncertainties, 

220-&59 O — 66 2 l 

developments detailed later in the report indicate that American in- 
dustry may well be poised on the edge of what could, during the next 
10 to 20 years, become a major, profitable advance into the marine 

Strategic marine interests of the Ignited States have both military 
and nonmilitary aspects. Whereas tlie military aspect is both long 
standing and relatively familiar, the nonmilitary aspect is less well 
known and stems primarily from two developments of quite recent 
times : 

1. The decreasing likelihood of a direct military confrontation be- 
tween the United States and a highly industrialized nation such as 
Russia over territorial disputes, due to the unacceptable risk of mutual 
nuclear annihilation. 

2. The increasing worldwide importance of more food, especially 
for underdeveloped nations, and the apparent possibility of a major 
breakdown of the world food economy within perhaps 20 years. 

The first development strongly suggests that where competition 
develops for the acquisition of ocean resources such as fish, minerals, 
or even the right of passage, such nonmilitary factors as prior presence 
or continued use will in some contexts be decisive in determining the 

The second development indicates a potential value that transcends 
mere monetary considerations of marine food resources for underde- 
\eloped nations. Food from the sea offers at least temporary and local 
relief from exhausting efforts to feed increasing populations. The 
United States interest in these efforts is not only humanitarian, but is 
also national because of the worldwide political and social stability 
expected as a consequence. The strategic importance of food resources 
suggests a new focus for part of the national program. 

These social, economic, and strategic marine interests interwoven 
and rapidly evolvmg in a context which includes similarly developing 
marine interests of other nations, seem to require establishment of a 
more comprehensive national program framework than is usually im- 
plied by the tenn, "oceanography," or is contemplated by any single, 
existing agency's missions. A truly adequate national ocean program 
should have as its ultimate objective effective use of the sea by man 
for all the purposes to Avhich we now put the terrestrial environment : 
commerce, industry, recreation, and settlement, as Avell as for knowl- 
edge and understanding. This objective implies four specific goals: 

1. Acquiring the ability to predict and ultimately to control phe- 
nomena affecting the safety and economy of seagoing activities. 

2. Undertaking measures required for fullest exploitation of re- 
sources represented by, in and under the sea. 

3. Employing the sea to enhance national security. 

4. Pursuing scientific iuA-estigations for describing and understand- 
ing marine phenomena, processes and resources. 

Effective human use of the sea does not imply any inevitable abridg- 
ment or infringement of other nations' rights or interests. In fact, the 
oceans are so huge and potential benefits so great that a cooperative, 
international effort to develop marine resources for the benefit of 
all humanity seems both logical and appealing. Institutional means 
for this development, however, are so rudimentary, and activities and 
interests of other nations are evolving so fast, that an urgent U.S. 
effort is required in the interim to preclude possible abridgment of 
our interests by others. 

The implication is that "freedom of the seas" cannot be conceived 
as being static, especially since increasing intensity and sophistication 
of ocean exploitation require legal arrangements beyond the simple, 
traditional understanding of this concept. We do not wish to imply 
that more suitable versions of "freedom of the seas" must reflect nar- 
row conceptions of our national interest. The problem is to adapt the 
principle of freedom to the general interest, rather than to any exclu- 
sive interest of our own. A realistic conception of freedom of the seas 
is likely to remain vital to protection of U.S. marine interests. 


The Panel adopted four main objectives : 

1. To assess current and planned ocean programs for technical 
soundness, adequacy of scope, balance of content, adequacy of orga- 
nization, and funding and management in light of relevant national 

2. To identify major opportunities for new programs in technology 
and science that should be given high priority in the next 5 to 10 years. 

3. To draft a statement of goals designed to serve the marine inter- 
ests of the United States and to define the Federal role in their pursuit. 

4. To recommend measures to effect an ocean science and technology 
program consonant with national needs and interests. 

Panel membership and a description of its activities are provided in 
appendix I. The Panel purposely reflects a diversity of backgrounds, 
experience and professional affiliations. The science of oceanography 
and related environmental sciences (meteorology and geophysics) are 
represented, as are biology, applied mathematics, physics, economics, 
and engineering. In terms of institutions, the university community, 
the nonprofit defense and environmental research community, and the 
profit-oriented industrial community are represented. It should be 
emphasized that Panel members participated as individuals and not as 
spokesmen for their fields or organizations. 

The Panel's Avork was aided by the availability of numerous ocean- 
ographic reports and studies, some of which are cited herein. Spon- 
sored primarily by the National Academy of Sciences and the Inter- 
agency Committee on Oceanography, these reports have greatly aided 
formulation of the Panel's recommendations. 

Considerations of marine biology appeared especially important in 
evaluating the national program. Because of this, a subpanel under 
the chairmanship of William D. McElroy was formed to examine 
problems and prospects in biological oceonography. This subpanel 
met as a group on 11 days (see app. I) . 

Meeting for formal sessions on 18 days, the PSAC Panel heard about 
50 invited experts and agency representatives. Early meetings were 
devoted to gathering information about the scope, content, and nature 
of the wide range of activities being conducted in and on or associated 
with oceans. Opinions about future actions were sought, and con- 
sideration was given to limitations and constraints imposed by man- 
power, funds, prospects of economic returns, and laws or the lack 
thereof. In general, these meetings were held at places where ocean- 
ography or related scientific work was being conducted. Smaller 
groups under Panel members' leadership also worked in such areas 
as the law of the sea and technological possibilities for seagoing or 
underwater engineering. 

In addition to formal Panel activities, individual members visited 
facilities, discussing oceanography with interested members of the 
scientific and industrial communities. Indeed, it is not an exaggera- 
tion to state that many Panel members have devoted a substantial part 
of the past year to these activities. A more complete listing of Panel 
activities is given in appendix I. 

There are limitations on this report. It is not a blueprint w^ith 
detailed projects or activities whch would constitute a national ocean 
program for the years to come. Rather, it is an attempt to identify 
the current problems of national interest and to present a framework 
within which program details can be most effectively planned by those 
responsible for carrying them out. We have identified important op- 
portunities which such a program should recognize and attempt to 
exploit and have given an assessment of the priority which we feel 
should be attached to the national ocean program as a whole and to 
its expected major components. 

2.0. Food From the Sea 


Adequate nutrition is prerequisite to all other human activities. 
For most of humanity, life is supported by a diet which is largely, if 
not exclusively, of vegetable origin. Only in the developed areas is 
a significant fraction of calories and of proteins and vitamins sup- 
plied by food stuffs of animal origin. Approximately 1.5 billion per- 
sons, largely in the tropical and subtropical zones, live on diets which 
are frequently dominated by one staple crop although occasionally 
mixtures of vegetables and cereals are available. But many vegetable 
diets fail to provide protein either of the quantity or the quality needed 
for adequate human nutrition. The quality of protein depends on its 
composition of amino acids. Vegetable proteins frequently are abso- 
lutely or relatively deficient in one or another of the ten amino acids 
essential for human nutrition. For example, corn is seriously defi- 
cient in tryptophan and is not adequate in lysine content. 

Chronic protein deficiency, the consequence of inadequate amino 
acids in the diet, is a serious public health problem of man. Combined 
with infectious diseases whose effects it magnifies, this form of mal- 
nutrition is the leading cause of death in the period between weaning 
and 5 years of age in all countries in the equatorial zone. Protein 
deficiency accounts for as high as 50 percent of deaths at these ages. 
Protein deficiency also limits the lifespan and productive capacity of 
adults. If these peoples are to be assisted in their entry into the 20th 
century, if they are to be offered opportunity on the scale available 
to developed nations, it is imperative that their diets be improved, 
particularly with respect to protein. 

Several techniques for nutritional improvement are apparent. One 
of these is to redistribute agricultural products to assure that, instead 
of a single staple, a mixture of vegetables and vegetable products with 
a balanced amino acid composition is consumed regularly. Experi- 
ments are in progress but to accomplish this redistribution on a large 
scale would be an enormous task. 

The second technique is to provide a nutritional supplement of 10 
to 20 grams of animal protein per day to a predominantly vegetable 

diet. The specific animal protein is of little consequence. Beef, pork, 
chicken, rabbit, fish, molliisks, and crustaceans — any will serve. In 
fact, if man is to be adequately nourished, each source must be ex- 
ploited to the fullest. The relative inefficiency, however, of convert- 
ing agriculturally produced grains and grasses into animal protein, 
i.e., beef, pork, or chicken, makes it increasingly difficult to use these 
animal proteins to supply the needs of a hungry world with a rapidly 
increasing population. 

The available projected growth of world population indicates that 
the nations of the world will be hard pressed to meet caloric needs 
from conventional agriculture, ignoring the problem of providing 
reasonable amounts of animal protein (table 2.1). For example, one 
estimate states that ^ "the new mouths in the underdeveloped world 
will need some 300 million tons of additional grain annually by 1980 — 
an amount approaching the present total production of North America 
and Western Europe combined." Obviously neither our present sur- 
plus farm capacity nor a markedly increased effort here and in other 
developed countries can meet the growing nutritional needs of the 
world's population. Before long . major portion of the food supply 
must be produced in the very countries where it is needed. Unfor- 
tunately, experiences in underdeveloped nations indicate that it is 
difficult to upgrade local agriculture to levels of production achieved 
in the United States and in Western Europe. Improvement of living 
standards in developing nations which have gained political inde- 
pendence but have yet to achieve industrial development cannot be 
expected unless their people are adequately nourished. 

Table 2.1. — Projected World Population and Annual Protein Demands 








Population (billions) 


Protein demand 
(billion pounds) : 




















It is for these reasons that the Panel considers it imperative that a 
third technique, full exploitation of the opportunities for obtaining 
food from the sea, be attempted as rapidly as possible. These oppor- 
tunities are commensurate with the magnitude of the nutritional prob- 

1 International Science and Technology, December 1965. 

lem in the world. In 1964, the world fish catch contained 17.1 billion 
pounds of protein (based on wet weight of fish containing 15 percent 
protein), an amount which would have supplied slightly more than 
10 grams of protein per day to 2 billion individuals, and would have 
been effective in eliminating or alleviating chronic protein deficiency 
for the people of the equatorial zones. That this opportunity for up- 
grading nutrition has not been adequately exploited, reflects cultural 
as well as economic barriers, failure of distribution, and inefficiencies 
of use. 


It is estimated that at least 400 billion tons of organic material, 
wet weight, are produced annually in the sea, only a tiny fraction of 
which is harvested by man. In the sea, as on land, food is produced by 
plants that utilize energy in sunlight to synthesize organic materials 
from inorganic substances. The "grass" of the sea, composed of mi- 
croscopic plants (phytoplankton) is eaten by the grazers (zoo- 
plankton) which in turn are consumed by larger animals such as 
fish. This is the food chain of the sea (see sec. 6.4) . 

Agriculture to be highly productive requires continual replenish- 
ment of plant nutrients through artificial fertilization. In the ocean, 
nutrients are replenished by natural processes such as regeneration due 
to microbial activities and inflow of fresh waters which contain nu- 
trients from the land including agricultural fertilizers and sewage. 
With the death of animal and plantlife in the sea, the organisms sink 
and are decomposed, releasing nutrients. These nutrients are concen- 
trated in bottom waters where, due to the absence of light, they cannot 
be used for photosynthesis. In areas of upwelling, the nutrient-rich 
bottom waters are brought to the surface where they sustain large 
populations of phytoplankton. Wherever this occurs, such as in the 
Humboldt current off the coast of Peru, phytoplankton flourish and 
a vigorous food chain is sustained, leading to the production of large 
quantities of fish. 


The present world fish catch is about 114 billion pounds (table 2.2). 
The magnitude of the catch is dependent upon many factors, among 
which are the rate of production of fish in a given area and intensity 
of harvest. These factors vary for different species and for different 
areas of the ocean. The catch increased from 60.5 billion to 114 bil- 
lion pounds in the last 10 years. It is uncertain how large a crop can 
be harvested. The most dramatic instances of increased catches in 
recent years have resulted from finding new fishery stocks. Indeed, 
the most dramatic has been off the coast of Peru, where a catch of 20 



I t^ (M Tt< 




1 00 00 lO 





1 ci »d CO Tf 




i ^ 





1 CO 1^ o 





1 00 CD CO lO 



1 o 

1 t^ IC TfH 



1— ( 

1 05 lO 05 





1 t>^ CD (M' iM 




1 o 

1 1> CD kO 




1 T-H Tt< CO CO 





1 t^ CO CO -*' 




1 05 


(M CT ^ 




00 r^ ^ •* -H 





c<i d CD CO t^ 


.-1 00 


00 t^ 00 




O O CO ■* 1-1 




^' CO d CO d 

1— 1 

^ 00 


CO 00 t^ 00 



03 t^ 05 r-l Tj* 





00 id »d CO ca 

I— ( 



t^ 00 00 lO 



00 iC O 00 CO 





<^ i6 zo c6 Oi 

I— 1 

T— 1 



CO 00 05 CO 




00 r^ lO 00 i-H 





id >d d Tf !>; 




lO O Id o 




lO lO 1-H O lO 





id id d •^' CO 




CO 00 CO t^ 




O 05 ^ ■* lO 



id TjH d •* d 

1— 1 


1 1 en 1 1 

1 1 OJ , , 

+^ . 


1 1 +j 1 1 

:dS >; i 




S ^ 'S o 1 
o P P ;zi ^ 

M O 

a, E7 
i O 


billion pounds of anchovy was taken in 1964 whereas 10 years pre- 
viously the catch had only been 2 percent of that amount. Even 
though relatively primitive techniques are used for harvesting an- 
chovy, the resource may have been overfished and the Peruvian gov- 
ernment has this year restricted the catch to 15 billion pounds as a 
step to assure a continuing and stable harvest. 

The U.S. fish catch for the last 30 years has been about 6 billion 
pounds which does not include sport fishery catches. The sport 
fishery catch in coastal and marine waters was estimated at 590 
million pounds in 1960.^ 

Additional resources are present in waters off the U.S. coasts. It 
is estimated that a standing crop of about 15 billion pounds of hake 
and anchovy is present in the California current off the coasts of 
California, Oregon, and Washington. Until recently, this resource 
has not been utilized because, for one reason, anchovy are food for 
sport fishes, and sportsmen are concerned that intensive fishing on 
anchovy might disrupt sport fishery populations. An agreement has 
now been worked out by the California Fish and Game Commission 
to allow some 150 million pounds to be harvested in 1966 for process- 
ing into fislimeal and oil. If properly managed, these hake and 
anchovy populations might yield an annual catch of 2 or 3 billion 

Fishery resources in all parts of the world, especially in those 
areas near populations with protein deficiencies, have not been studied 
as thoroughly as those in the California Current. Therefore, it is 
difficult to predict the maximum harvest and the amount of food 
potential now present in the world's oceans. Some estimates indicate 
that the world's fish catch might be increased three or four times. 
More optimistic estimates predict a tenfold increase. One pertinent 
fact is that the fish catch in the last 20 years has increased at a faster 
rate than the world's population. 


Whereas certain fishes are brought to market directly for human 
consumption, a large fraction of the total fish catch is not utilized 
directly by man. This is particularly true of fishes of relatively 
moderate and small size — e.g., anchovy, menhaden, and hake — which 
are caught in great numbers by simple trawling and seining proce- 
dures. These "industrial fish" are processed for oil and fish meal. 
Fishmeal is used as a liigh protein source for poultry and livestock 
feeds. From the standpoint of human nutrition, this use is wasteful 
because some of the protein in fish is lost in its conversion to poultry 
and livestock protein. 

' Sport fishing — today and tomorrow. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review 
Commission Report 7. 1962. 

Nevertheless, the problems of storage and transportation, rapid 
spoilage, costs of processing small fish, and the cultural habits of many 
people, make it apparent that only a small fraction can be utilized 
directly as food by man. The major portion of the catch, such as the 
small sized fish which abound in the Humboldt Current or off the Cali- 
fornia coast, must be processed into a form which is readily stored and 
transported and acceptable as food by peoples of many cultures. The 
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has developed a solvent extraction 
process for preparation of a marine protein concentrate from various 
species of hake. The resultant product, which is 85 percent protein, 
is highly nutritious and almost tasteless and odorless. It is estimated 
that this material can be produced commercially for about 25 cents 
per pound. A ton of hake when processed yields 320 pounds of con- 
centrate containing about 250 pounds of protein — an animal protein 
supplement of 10 grams per day for 30 people at a cost of $2 per person 

It is unclear how many other species of animals in the oceans might 
be utilized similarly. Intensive exploration and research on artificial 
cultivation of marine organisms might well lead to new sources of 
such protein concentrates. 

There remains, however, tlie very serious problem of getting the peo- 
ple in some underdeveloped nations to accept marine protein concen- 
trates. The few attempts which are known to the Panel have not been 
successful. Since the problem of protein malnutrition is most acute 
in young children, it would appear that a great and important oppor- 
tunity of using marine protein concentrate is being overlooked. Fortifi- 
cation of processed foods for children of the "breakfast cereal" type, 
with marine protein concentrate, should be acceptable to young chil- 
dren and also invaluable in protectmg their health. 


Although the opportunities to enrich and amplify man's food sup- 
ply by fishing in the open sea are highly significant, they are, never- 
theless, limited. An entirely different set of opportunities is offered, 
however, by the potential crop that might be obtained by systematic 
and scientific farming of restricted areas of the sea — "aquiculture." 
As noted above, the yield of fish in some areas of the sea depends 
largely on the nutrients supplied by upwelling. Attempts can now 
be undertaken, at least on a pilot scale, to utilize natural hydrodynamic 
or atmospheric energy sources to bring to the surface nutrient-rich 
deep water to fertilize selected marine habitats such as bays or coral la- 
goons. The problems involved are technological as well as biological 
and their solution requires a marriage of engineering and marine 
biology on a scale not attempted previously. In a general way, two 
large problems must be solved: (a) means of using hydrodynamic or 


atmospheric energy to drive the artificial up welling which is desired, 
and (b) control of the amount of nutrients delivered so desirable phyto- 
plankton are produced, and so that excess production of organic matter 
does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, specifically 
for oxygen, causing mass mortality of marine life (see sec. 6.4), 

Some of the most appealing opportunities for aquiculture exist in 
our estuaries and coastal waters, regions which are most accessible and 
amenable to control and management. Unfortunately, in places these 
waters are being overfertilized from nutrients in sewage discharge. 
Regulation and control of such nutrients, to the same extent as that re- 
quired in any deliberate fertilization practice, could potentially trans- 
form what is now a public health hazard and a national disgrace into 
the opportunity for production of valuable marine products (see sec. 

In view of the obvious need for more protein to feed the world 
population, the Panel recommends that attempts be made to augment 
the food supply through marine aquiculture. Tliis recoimnendation 
is made with the full realization that little of the necessary technologi- 
cal knowledge is currently available, but the dire need for increased 
protein production in the world, nevertheless, argues strongly that we 
should encourage the development of a strong research program that 
will be needed for effective aquiculture. At this time the U.S. effort 
in marine aquicultural research is essentially nonexistent except for 
limited studies on oysters, clams, and shrimp. 

Current Attempts at Aquiculture. Japan is the current world 
leader in marine aquiculture. Its efforts have been directed to pro- 
duction of organisms with a high market value such as fish, shrimp, 
and shellfish, including oysters for pearl culture, and have not at- 
tempted to produce low-cost food. Japan's success is indicated by 
the data in table 2.3. Limited experiments on farming the sea in 
Scottish lochs have indicated that fish production can be increased by 
fertilization, in some cases as much as 16 to 18 times. However, the 
scale of these experiments was relatively small. The yields of fish 
grown in unfertilized ponds in different areas of the earth are similar 
to cattle and swine production. If the waters are fertilized, the yields 
of fish are much greater (table 2.4) and are comparable with yields 
obtained from converting agricultural crops into domestic livestock. 

Oysters, Clams, and Other Phy to plankton Feeders. Because en- 
ergy is lost at each step in the food chain (i.e., not all of the food eaten 
is transformed into new, living material), it is evident that animals 
which feed directly on phytoplankton are most promising as efficient 
protein producers. Oysters, clams, and other shellfish are such phyto- 
plankton feeders. 

Oyster culture was started in Japan and in France 300 and 100 
years ago, respectively. It involves finding suitable spawning and 


Table 2.3. — Harvest and value of 

sea fisheries 

and aquiculture in Japan in 1963 * 

Sea fisheries 







Billion pounds' 














Million dollars 

MiUion pounds 

Million dollars 












1963 - - -- - --- 





1, 190 






1 Data from "Fisheries Statistics of Japan 1963," Statistics and Survey Division, Ministry of Agriculture 
and Forestry. Government of Japan. 1965. 

2 Average for years 1945-50 was 5.5 billion pounds. 3 Average for years 194.5-50 was 90 million poimds. 

seeding areas, collecting larvae on artificial surfaces and transplant- 
ing seed into bays, estuaries, and ponds that have rich algal growths 
which favor rapid growth to commercial size. Private concerns in 
many parts of the United States culture oysters, but to a great degree 
we still exploit and try to preserve the natural beds. The production 
of oysters on the U.S. west coast is based almost solely on seed im- 
ported from Japan. 

Forty years ago the Japanese began growing oysters on long ropes 
hanging from floating rafts or on ropes sustained by buoys. The 
difference in production is astounding: the old method yielded an- 
nually no more than 600 pounds per acre, while the raft method 
yields as much as 16,000 to 32,000 pounds per acre. With the new 
method, oysters are grown throughout the water column, not only on 
the bottom; therefore, oysters free from bottom predators grow rap- 
idly even when the bottom is unsuitable for their development. 

In Japan oysters are bred and selected for flavor and maximum 
yield. Progress was rapid after suitable methods were discovered 
for feeding oyster larvae artificially on cultured algae. A similar 
research program for growing clams is in progress at the Bureau of 
Commercial Fisheries Laboratory, Milford, Conn. 

In the United States, the Public Health Service has identified areas, 
totaling more than 10 million acres, that are suitable for shellfish 
production. Only about 7 million acres were in production in 1964 — 
the unused acres were inactive due to pollution and other causes. It 


Table 2.4. — Annual production, live weight of animals in pounds per acre • 

Sea water, unfertilized : ^ 
Fishponds, Philippines, 

Fishponds, France 

Fishponds, Java 



Fishponds, Indonesia. _ 

North Sea, 1922 

World marine fishery 3 

Adriatic * 

Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf*. 

Humboldt Current, Peru* 

Chesapeake Bay ^ oyster bottom 

Sea water, fertilized : ^ 

Fishponds, Formosa 

Brackish water, fertilized: 

Experimental fish farm, Palestine-.. 

Commercial ponds, Palestine 


Cultivated land 




Grey mullet. 

Wild fish. 












(Average or 









755-7, 970 
356-4, 210 


• Data unless otherwise indicated from C. H. Mortimer and C. F. Hickliag, "Fertilizers in Fishponds." 
Fishery Pub. No. 5, 1957. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 

2 Ponds constructed so that sea water can enter through gates. Gates can be closed to contain fish. 

3 C. L. Cutting. Economic aspects of utiUzation of fish. Biochemical Society Symposium No. 6. Bio- 
chemical Society. Cambridge, England. 

* Range of values for selected ocean areas listed by H. W. Graham and R. L. Edwards. 1961. Fish in 

5 J. L. McHugh. In press. In Symposium on Estuaries. American Association for Advancement of 
« M. B. Schaefer. 1965. Transactions American Fisheries Society. Vol. 94, pp. 123-128. 

is informative to make some calculations concerning potential oyster 
production in these areas. If 600 pounds were produced per acre, 
the yield in Japan and in Chesapeake Bay under natural conditions, 
then the total U.S. production would be 6 billion pounds annually 
or about equal to the present U.S. fish catch (table 2.2). If the pro- 
duction rate in these areas were increased 15 times, the yield would 
be 90 billion pounds a year or nearly equal the present world fish catch. 
A 15-fold increase does not seem unrealistic since the Japanese have 
increased yields as much as 50-fold. The yield of oysters is appar- 
ently limited by their food supply. If production of suitable kinds 
of phytoplankton could be increased by artificial fertilization (see 


sec. 6.4), even greater yields might be realized or greater areas miglit 
become available for exploitation. 

Shrimp and Crab. A successful method has been developed in 
Japan to culture large prawns. It requires indoor culturing of new- 
born larvae which are fed first on diatoms and then on tiny brine 
shrimp. In a month the larvae are almost an inch long and are ready 
to be cultivated in artificial ponds formerly used for salt production. 
Adults are produced in 1 year by being fed ground shellfish and scrap 
fish. The present complex technique is commercially profitable in 
Japan because the Japanes gourmet is willing to pay $2 to $4 per pound 
for live shrimp. For similar size shrimp, the U.S. fisherman receives 
from 50 to 80 cents per pound for the tails alone. This is the first 
commercial trial in Japan, and cheaper cultivation techniques will 
undoubtedly be found. 

The complete life cycles of several species of crabs are known in 
the United States, opening the way for artificial cultivation. Attempts 
are now underway to rear spiny lobsters in Japan. 

Squid. Squid are a delicacy for the Japanese and Mediterranean 
peoples. In Japan five species of squid are cultured in the laboratory. 
Growth in culture is faster than in nature; commercial squid weighing 
a pound or more are obtained in 3 to 5 months. Probably, more rapid 
growth can be obtained by further refinement of techniques and by 
continuous feeding. It is interesting that squid can be reared and 
maintained alive for months in captivity, whereas captured adults 
die in a few weeks. 

Phytoplankton Production. Since organic productivity rests on 
the energy -trapping ability of the plants in the sea, basic and applied 
research on the ecology of ocean pastures should be fostered. This 
research is needed if selected areas of the sea are to be farmed. 

Mass culturing of marine phytoplankton is feasible because the main 
nutritional requirements are known. It should be possible to produce 
large quantities of phytoplankton in lagoons and artificial coastal 
lakes. Algae could also be grown in floating plastic tanks or in gigantic 
submerged plastic sausages. Basic requirements for growing algae 
are ponds or large containers and relatively small amounts of nutrients 
to add to the water. 

Phytoplankton production under controlled conditions is essential 
for development of marine aquiculture. Many economically important 
organisms feed on phytoplankton either throughout life (e.g., oysters 
and clams) or during early stages of development (newborn shrimp 
larvae eat phytoplankton and later become carnivorous) . Algae are 
also needed for food for the shrimplike creatures which constitute the 
bulk of the zooplankton — the food of many economically important 
marine animals. 


Research is needed to identify algal species having high food values 
and rapid growth rates. Preliminary research indicates that manip- 
ulation of growth conditions and nutrients can induce accumulation 
of particular components altering, for instance, the protein-fat ratio 
of algae. This metabolic flexibility, in addition to offering the pos- 
sibility of tailoring composition to suit predators' nutrition, may 
provide new means of obtaining high yields of fats, sterols, antibiotics, 
and vitamins (see sec. 6.4) . 


No one of the approaches outlined above will suffice. The total de- 
mand for animal protein by the world's population cannot be met ade- 
quately for many years, probably not until the turn of the century 
when, it would be hoped, the world's population will have been stabi- 
lized and agricultural and aquicultural technology will have had an 
opportunity to catch up. We cannot expect to close this gap unless 
we begin now. 

Clearly, the United States lags behind other nations in the tech- 
nology of fishing and aquiculture. Future food problems of the world 
require that we develop these technologies and assist other nations to 
develop them. The Panel assigns very high priority to this task and 
further not^s that to foster the needed technology, at least in the early 
stages, will require support by the Federal Government, both in its 
own laboratories and in extramural institutions. 


3.0. Modification of the Ocean Enviroment 


Man can and does interfere with tlie oceans and atmosphere in a 
number of different ways, thus, in a sense environmental modification 
is already a reality. In oceans, man's ability to produce deliberate, 
beneficial changes is still very limited. For example, he can attempt 
to alter the configuration of the coastline, although the results are not 
always predictable. Besides deliberate modification, there is the in- 
advertent modification in which we know man is participating to an 
increasing extent, but the consequences are too little known. 


"The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets 
which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not im- 
paired in value." — President Theodore Roosevelt. 

"Our conservation must not be just classic protection and develop- 
ment, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation." — 
President Lyndon B. Johnson.^ in his message on Natural Beauty. 

Today, as nearly a century ago, the Federal Government recognizes 
the need to treat our natural resources as assets. As the complexity of 
society increases, it becomes more difficult to protect, preserve, and 
conserve these resources. Programs are needed for marine as well as 
terrestrial, atmospheric, and fresh water environments. 

Continuing population growth combined with increased dependence 
on the sea for food and recreation means that modification of marine 
environments will not only continue, but will drastically increase. 
New technological developments such as atomic power reactors, sea 
level canals, weather modification and desalinization plants lead to new 
forms of modification. We are far from understanding most short- 
range and all long-range biological consequences of environmental 

These considerations suggest that we now need to preserve the 
quality of as much of the unmodified or useful marine environment 
as we can and to restore the quality of as much of the damaged en- 
vironment as possible. Delay will only increase the cost in money, 
time, manpower, resources, and missed opportunities. 



Inadvertent modification occurs in many forms. The most widely 
spread and most pervasive ones are various kinds of pollution. Pol- 
lutants include garbage, sewage, agricultural and industrial wastes, 
pesticide and herbicide residues, and waste heat. Future pollutants 
may include radioactive waste from nuclear reactors and salt wastes 
from desalinization plants. 

The marine environment is particularly susceptible to pollution be- 
cause most avenues of disposal terminate in the oceans. In the past, 
pollution of the oceans has been of little concern because the oceans 
have always been considered so large. However, most pollution occurs 
at the margins where human activities are centered and the concen- 
trated wastes remain for varying times in this region before dispersal 
into the vast open ocean. Moreover, the potential for pollution is in- 
creasing as more of man's activity is concerned with the oceans. It 
was once thought that rivers could not be polluted seriously, but the 
truth is now obvious. It is also becoming evident that large bodies 
of water such as the Great Lakes can be drastically altered and reduced 
in value as natural assets. We have paid a great price to learn these 
lessons and should not make similar mistakes as we inhabit and exploit 
the oceans. 

Fishing and other means of harvesting plant and animal popula- 
tions have produced dramatic changes in distribution and abundance 
of marine organisms. Classical cases in this category are found 
among the marine mammals : especially baleen whales in the Antarctic ; 
blue California gray whales; sea otters; fur seals, and southern and 
northern elephant seals. Habitat destruction by improper fishing 
techniques have aifected our biological resources. An example of the 
latter is oysterbed destruction. 

Introduction of organisms into areas has sometimes been extremely 
successful and valuable. Atlantic oyster culture in Nantucket and 
Martha's Vinyard sounds off Cape Cod and importing Japanese seed 
oysters to the Pacific Northwest are examples. In other cases intro- 
ductions have been disastrous. Predatory Japanese snails introduced 
into the Black Sea in 1949 virtually eliminated mussel populations and 
apparently caused a sharp decline in flounder fisheries. Introductions 
have been planned or inadvertent. A great number of inadvertent 
introductions into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans may result from 
opening the proposed sea-level canal across Central America. De- 
liberate modification of the coastline, such as channel dredging for 
marinas, shoreline modification for beach stabilization and filling in 
marsh areas for developmental purposes, pose serious problems. 
These modifications are occurring in estuaries which are important 
natural resources for recreation and food production. These areas 


220-659 0—66 3 

are the nursery gounds for many marine organisms. How severely 
these and other environmental alterations affect the biota is unknown. 
Finally, if weather modification becomes a reality, we can anticipate 
large-scale alteration of the marine environment in ways never pos- 
sible previously. Changes in rainfall patterns on the land, shifts in 
wind distribution and changes in air temperature may produce per- 
sistent changes in near-shore salinity distributions, in patterns of 
wind-driven currents and in water temperature distribution. Subtle 
changes as far as man is concerned in the physical environment may 
greatly affect biological populations. Invasion of west Greenland 
waters by Atlantic codfish and probably the recent disappearance for 
commercial purposes of California sardines are examples of what may 
result from natural environmental fluctuations or a combination of 
natural and manmade effects. 


Five courses of action should be undertaken by the Federal 
Government : 

1. Establish a system of marine wilderness preserves as an extension 
to marine environments of the hasic pririciple established in the Wilder- 
ness Act of 196^ (Public Law 88-577) that "it is the policy of the Con- 
gress to secure for the American people of present and future genera- 
tions the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." In the pres- 
ent context, specific reasons for such preserves include : 

{a) Provision of ecological baselines against which to compare 
modified areas. 

{b) Preservation of major types of unmodified habitats for 
research and education in marine sciences. 

{c) Provision of continuing opportunities for marine wilder- 
ness recreation. 

2. Undertake large-scale efforts to maintain and restore the quality 
of marine environments. Goals of these efforts should include increas- 
ing food production and recreational opportunities and furthering 
research and education in marine sciences. A multiple-use concept 
should be evolved for marine environments analogous to that used for 
many Federal land areas (see Public Law 88-607, sec. 5B) . It should 
be emphasized that this concept includes the recognition that for some 
areas, such as wilderness, only one use is possible. 

3. Increase research on biological effects of present and anticipated 
')narine- environment TYwdifications. This research should take into 
account local, reversible, small-scale effects and large-scale, essentially 
irreversible, regional effects. Efforts should be made to predict bio- 
logical effects of proposed or planned modifications so the effects can 
be assessed and evaluated prior to modification. 


4. Increase research on application of biological knowledge to rectify 
and alleviate undesirahle consequences of environmental alteration. 
Solutions could lead to positive assets. For example, growing shell- 
lish and other organisms in marine waters fertilized by effluents from 
sewage treatment plants would improve water quality, and the orga- 
nisms could be used as animal-food supplements or as fertilizer for 
plant crops. 

5. Insure thut possihlc biological consequences are considered in 
planning environmental nvodification affecting mariyie environments ., 
especially hut not only for loeather modification. Obviously, the long- 
term as well as the short-term effects of environmental alterations 
should be considered in this context. 


Man's ability to modify and alter the marine environment necessi- 
tates (1) establishment of a system of marine wilderness preserves, 
(2) large-scale efforts to restore and maintain the quality of already 
damaged environments, (3) increased research into possible biological 
effects of environmental modification, and (4) advance consideration 
of biological effects of proposed programs that might cause environ- 
mental modifications. 


4.0. Undersea Technology 

Developments in undersea technology traditionally have resulted 

1. Navy operational requirements. 

2. Industrial attempts to create new business opportunities in 
and under the ocean. 

3. Government-supported developmental efforts aimed at pro- 
viding a higher level of services to ocean-based users.^ 

This division reflects the apportioning of responsibilities into: 

1. National security. 

2. Commercial exploitation. 

3. Government-provided service. 

This division of responsibility has proven successful in the past, and 
it will be a good pattern for the future. Accordingly, our appraisal 
of technology assumes a continuing role of present participants (see 
sec. 10.2.) 

The following survey and appraisal of future opportunities is lim- 
ited to undersea operations in the nonmilitary sector. The Navy's 
problems and roles are discussed in section 5, while problems in food 
production from the sea are considered in section 2. For purposes of 
this discussion, we consider "technology" to be the proven, existing 
capability whether or not the hardware is commercially available. 

Our review of the status of undersea technology, as well as this 
Panel's overall recommendations, was greatly aided by results of a 
conference held September 20-23, 1965, involving Government and 
industry under the auspices of the Ocean Science and Technology Ad- 
visory Committee of the National Security Industrial Association. 
The conference was held at the request of the PSAC Panel on Oceanog- 
raphy and the Chairman of ICO. The conference report, together 
with a list of attendees, is given in appendix III. 

^ The intense and continuing government-industry interest in undersea tech- 
nology is indicated by a few representative references : "Proceedings, Govern- 
ment-Industry Oceanographic Instrumentation Symposium," ICO, 1961 ; "Ocean 
Engineering," 6 vols. R. D. Terry, editor, published by North American Aviation 
in response to request from Chairman of ICO, 1964 ; "Buoy Technology," trans- 
cript of Marine Technology Society Symposium, 1964. 



A continuing need exists to provide vehicles with large working- 
volumes at atmospheric pressures to protect instruments, equipment 
and personnel deep below the ocean. 

In 1966 we are limited to using HY80 and maraging steels for the 
pressure containers. By 1970 high-strength titanium alloys will be 
commercially available, and in the 1975-80 period high-strength glass 
and cast ceramics will come into general use. Rapid progress is also 
being made in composite and fiber-reinforced materials. 

The materials problem is difficult, and progress will be slow because 
of testing requirements; but solutions required for ocean applications 
are definitely on the way and should be available in time to accomplish 
missions which the Panel foresees. 


Navigational Problems. A need exists in the mineral industry to 
locate a point on the surface with an accuracy of : 

1. 30 feet from a stationary ship within sight of land in order 
to exploit an entire lease or other mining claim without leaving a 
150-foot (or more) border around the claim. 

2. 150 feet from a stationary ship on the high seas in order to 
locate and return to a point accurately. 

3. Ultimately 30 feet when underway for survey and research 

The best available coimnercial navigational equipment when utilized 
within sight of shore gives an accuracy of about 150 feet. It is pos- 
sible today, by using extreme care from a stationary ship, to better 
this, but it is expensive because it requires precision geodesy to locate 
reference points and perfectly tuned beacons coupled with good con- 
ditions. Several systems including optical radar are under develop- 
ment which have not had sufficient testing to be operational and for 
which commercial equipment will not be available in less than 3 to 5 
years. Within 10 years surface navigational accuracy of better than 
100 feet underway will be available. 


Drilling and construction activities require the ability to locate a 
bottom point to a position of better than 10 feet when referred to a 
point on the surface in the same vicinity. 

Depending upon the depth of water and currents beneath the ship, 
conventional plumb-bob techniques provide adequate accuracy for 
determining bottom positions on a relative basis. On occasion, how- 
ever, it is desirable, having located the specific spot on the bottom, to 


return precisely to it. In the case of deep drilling, MOHOLE re- 
search and development indicate that we can reenter deep-line drill 
holes if we plan in advance to do so. The MOHOLE techniques are 
good for this purpose, but are too expensive for conventional needs 
such as oil wells. 

Humble Oil Co., in the Gulf of Mexico, has demonstrated an accu- 
racy of precision in location by drilling to within a few feet of a 10- 
inch diameter pipe from a horizontal distance of 1 mile. Tliis was 
necessary to cap a ruptured well by slant drilling and plugging with 
concrete. Although cost of surveying and guiding the drill was high, 
it was a remarkable feat of technology to do the job at all, even in 
shallow water. 


In clear water under ideal conditions presently available optical im- 
age systems can give resolutions on the order of 1 inch at a range of 
150 to 3,000 feet. 

An important technological need is high-resolution imagemaking in 
turbid water. Some acoustical image systems in research today will 
not be available even as initial models for 2 or 3 years. The Panel esti- 
mates that within 10 years it will be possible to achieve resolution in 
turbid water using acoustical systems on the order of 10 feet in the 
range of 3,000 feet. Wliile this is adequate to conduct surveillance 
under many conditions, it requires too close an approach for reconnais- 
sance and adequate identification of many important objects. Pres- 
ently there does not seem to be any good solution to the underwater 
visibility problem. What is needed is acquisition of 10-foot objects at 
1 to 5 miles with a resolution of roughly 1 foot at a mile in muddy 
water. The development of adequate acoustical imaging systems will 
require the application of the most advanced optical imaging 


As yet little has been done to make available the kinds of instruments 
and tools which would change the scope and nature of work performed 
by divers on the ocean floor. Examples of such devices are : 

1. Nondestructive testing equipment to determine diagnostically 
the acceptability of components of bottom-mounted structures. A 
simple problem is reliability of a weld or porosity of a tube. 

2. Tactile manipulators which give the diver (or ultimately 
the instrument- working platform) added strength and sensing 

3. Semi-remote-control powered tools and support structures. 



On land, Government traditionally provides many highly teclinical 
services for a wide variety of uses. We believe that these same serv- 
ices should be supplied to support ocean-going operations. The Panel 
has attempted to identify a most pressing technical need as seen by the 
users of these services. 

Surveys. Good topographic and geologic surveys are needed. 
These surveys should first extend to the Continental Shelf of the Unit- 
ed States. Second priority is given to other continental shelves, third 
priority to the deep ocean off the United States, and fourth rank to 
other deep-ocean areas. A major problem is to reduce the time and cost 
of surveying without reducing precision of the final result. 

Using the best systems available today, it takes a single mothership 
plus small boats and a full crew an entire summer to chart the Martha's 
Vineyard-Nantucket Sound. It is uneconomical to consider doing the 
continental shelf of the world in this way. There are conceivably three 
ways of improving the technology of these surveys : 

1. Development of a surface ship with much improved sensory 
equipment. This ship should be capable of taking differential 
data rapidly so that changes would be measured carefully, while 
data which vary slowly will be taken at a much slower rate. Both 
data taken and reduction should be automated so that final charts 
are produced in the original surveys. Present methods involving 
hand recording of many results indicate that this field is hampered 
by tradition. 

2. Development of a submersible to carry out surveys. The 
submersible would do the entire job of maneuvering, sensing, data- 
taking, and reduction, thereby improving the accuracy of bottom 
topography and bypassing the surface-speed limitation which re- 
sults from noise-suppression requirements. A major difficulty in 
such a scheme is accurate positioning of the submersible. 

3. Development of towed or surface-commanded, free sub- 
merged platform to travel within perhaps 50 feet of the ocean sur- 
face. The towed body could be manned. Today's technology is 
adequate to build some sort of toAved-body system, and the general 
opinion of industry is that by 1975 we can do bathymetry better, 
quicker, and more economically with submersibles than by follow- 
ing the present route. 

In addition to the technological problems, topographic surv^eying is 
hampered by strict adherence to international conventions developed 
at a time when the technology was more primitive than it is today. 
Adequate surveying for the future will require a more realistic cou- 
pling of international convention with technolgy. 


Forecasting. Ocean users inform us that we are not obtaining 
necessary weather data. The Michaelangelo incident provides one 
dramatic example of the need for short-term forecasts in the open 
oceans. The recent destruction of the British petroleum platform, 
with the resulting loss of 11 lives, has created new concern among un- 
dersea oil exploration companies. The basic problem in such sea op- 
erations is getting people off the rig when storms come. Large storms 
such as hurricanes take a long time to develop and are not as dangerous 
as more local storms having a shorter time scale. Present technology 
requires surface-mounted platforms, and users badly need data regard- 
ing predictions of wave height and local storms. Lacking these data, 
oil companies are presently designing platforms to operate from 50 
to 150 feet below the surface of the sea, away from the weather. 

The consensus of oil companies is that by 1975, if technology is 
available, most stationary installations will be on the bottom of the 
sea, not on the surface. Most drilling will probably be conducted 
from the surface, but oil well operations and some temporary storage 
facilities will be on the bottom. Presently, we do not have the tech- 
nology needed for building installations on the ocean floor, but oil 
companies are determined to obtain it. They have estimated that 
about 10 years will be required to develop the technology and operat- 
ing experience. 


Very few data and still fewer primitive, engineering standards now 
exist for underwater operations. If there is to be any substantial 
construction activity on the ocean floor as has been suggested, the fol- 
lowing types of data and information must be provided : 

1. An engineering characteristic for a variety of important 
bottom conditions to include standardized tests and their inter- 

2. Environmental data on the water column (this is essentially 
the "weather in the sea" problem) and the relationship of water- 
column dynamics to bottom conditions. 

3. Engineering standards for designing bottom-mounted struc- 
tures in light of "sea- weather" data. 

The Panel believes that in developing engineering standards for 
design and use in undersea installations, it is desirable to utilize com- 
petent, existing standard-making organizations. The Navy, the 
American Bureau of Shipping, and the American Standards Asso- 
ciation Center should be the core of undersea standard-making activi- 
ties. Specifically, the Panel does not recommend forming a new 
organization for the promulgation of engineering standards in the 
ocean environment. 


One particular standard problem deserves mention. The Navy is 
presently the only organization equipped to certify submersibles. To 
date the Navy has certified only one such vehicle. Since the national 
requirement for developing deep -submergence capability in the next 
decade is clearly a Navy role, the Panel recommends that the Navy be 
the only agent to certifiy submersibles until undersea standardmaking 
organizations can develop the required competence and willingness to 
assume this responsibility. 

The needs of industry for understanding bottom conditions and for 
describing weather within the sea in large measure parallel oppor- 
tunities for scientific research discussed in sections 6.2 and 6.3. 


The Nation needs to improve the technology for constructing coastal 
zone structures, which will make the national expenditure on break- 
waters, harbors, beach erosion, docks, etc., more effective. The Panel 
was distressed to find a high failure rate of construction projects in 
the surf zone and on beaches, the destruction of beaches by break- 
waters designed to extend the beaches, the silting of harbors and 
marinas as a result of construction designed to provide shelter, and 
the enhancement of wave action by the building of jetties supposed to 
lessen wave erosion are but a few examples of the inadequacy of our 
knowledge and practice in coastal construction. The Panel did not 
have sufficient time to draw major conclusions about tliese efforts but 
does offer the following observations : 

1. The small budget of CERC (Coastal Engineering Research 
Center) cannot possibly underwrite the research and development 
program which is required to devise engineering techniques neces- 
sary for solving the difficult construction problems presented by 
the surf zone and beaches. 

2. Engineering schools have been remiss in not participating in 
this problem through research projects proposed for governmental 

3. The opportunity exists in many fine graduate departments 
in civil engineering and mechanical engineering to develop courses 
or specialty options which would lead to significantly higher levels 
of understanding and performance in near-shore construction 
projects, most of which are performed using public funds. 

The university community should undertake responsibility for see- 
ing that the best modern, engineering practice is being applied to 
publicly funded and executed surf zones and beach-construction 


4.9. BUOYS 

Several scientific problems discussed in section 6.3 require deep- 
ocean buoys. In addition enhancement of weather-prediction capa- 
bility will be in part based on observations from buoys. Thus, it is 
fortunate that buoy technology is developing rapidly. Buoys have 
been tethered and maintained in the deep sea for as long as 18 months. 
Buoy data can be tape recorded and telemetered on command from 
buoys to ship, to shore, and to satellite installations. The Panel be- 
lieves it should be technically possible by 1975 to mount a World 
Weather Watch using buoys as sensing stations. This will not be pos- 
sible, however, unless we soon begin to gather statistical experience 
with buoys. Too much effort has been expended, in the Panel's opin- 
ion, on obtaming an advanced buoy technology in a single step rather 
than in a broader program. There are also too many proposals for 
federally sponsored, buoy-experimental programs. Wliat is required 
is a well-planned, evolutionary buoy -development program aimed at 
an operational World Weather Watch beginning in the 1975-80 time 


At present American undersea vehicles possess only an "elevator" 
capability. Purists may object to this statement, but the recent 
Spanish coast search operations force this conclusion. A small sys- 
tem of limited mobility would require a powerplant producing 10-100 
kw. It seems reasonable that such a power system based on a fuel 
cell could be developed and be operational by 1975 if it were given 
sufficient priority by the Navy. For larger vehicles cruising at modest 
speeds (greater than 10 knots) for long times (weeks), however, it 
will be necessary to have reactor power sources in the 1-10 mw range. 
It is generally agreed that the present water reactor cannot be reduced 
in weight below 85 pounds per kilowatt where less than 50 pounds 
per kilowatt is required for the mission. No reactor teclinology which 
can meet this need is currently available, and in the Panel's view no 
private group is likely to undertake such a development during the 
1965-80 time period. 

The Panel does not believe that serious consideration should be 
given to concepts such as deep-ocean airplanes in the next decade. 
It will stretch our technology to the limit to build a versatile mobile 
platform from which two or three men can perform useful work in 
deep oceans. 

° See app. II for a developmental program designed to use increasing buoy- 
system capacity to solve several scientific problems. 



Marine construction and maintenance operations in 1966 require 
free divers. The opinion of oil company staffs is that free divers will 
continue to be used where they can be put down and provided with 
tools to do useful work. Since oil and mining companies expect by 
1975 that some operations will be conducted at depths byeond 1,500 
feet, there will be a transition from divers to unmanned vehicles or 
manned instrumental platforms. 

Oil industry needs clearly show many potential uses for man in the 
sea. Other users have requirements that demand a capability for 
men to live and work beneath the surface for extended periods. This 
capability may lead to new opportunities in the production of food 
either by fishing or aquiculture. Further, the interest of national 
security may make it necessary or strategically desirable to occupy 
areas of the oceans for extended periods. 

Major groups of problems are associated with man living and work- 
ing beneath the surface of the sea : 

1. Problems directly related to survival, including biomedical 
problems and hazards from marine organisms. 

2. Problems associated with design and operation of facilities 
for working while underwater. Certain of these problems have 
been considered earlier in this report. 

Biomedical problems of survival are divisible into several categories. 
Most immediate are those produced directly by the wet, cold, dark, 
high-pressure climate. These include but are not restricted to an 
increased resistance to breathing during exertion and at rest; central 
nervous system narcosis by nitrogen and probably any other inert 
gas; long, slow decompression necessary for safe elimination of ex- 
cessive inert gas from the tissues ; toxicity of oxygen at high pressure ; 
loss of body heat during prolonged submergence ; and complex inter- 
actions of these factors. As the duration of man's underwater stay 
increases, additional problems appear. These include man's nutri- 
tional requirements under these rigorous conditions, composition and 
palatability of foods, psychological behavior of isolation and crowd- 
ing in small spaces, and impairment of speech by unusual atmospheres. 
Medical procedures, including action of drugs on man in the sea, also 
require study. The similarity of certain of these problems to manned 
spaceflight is obvious, and advantage should be taken of this fact. 

The presence of other sea organisms constitutes yet another group 
of complications. In many marine environments a variety of orga- 
nisms are toxic if touched or eaten. Also, predatory forms such as 
sharks consider divers fair game. 

Human survival underwater thus requires solution of a multiplicity 
of problems. Current knowledge in most of these areas is at best 


fragmentary; in some — especially long-term habitation problems — it 
is essentially nonexistent. Current research activity, directly appli- 
cable to oceangoing operations, is minimal in most of these areas. 

Men working underwater require a wide range of support facilities. 
These include various underwater vehicles, underwater chambers in 
which to live and shore facilities for studying the effects of high pres- 
sure. Shore facilities should perhaps include high-pressure chambers 
for studies on man and animals, with capabilities to simulate depths 
of at least 1,000 feet. 

Facilities are needed to meet the problem outlined above. In no 
university or private institution in the United States is there an ex- 
tensive investigative program on the effects of very high pressures 
on man. The Navy is carrying out studies of man's long-term ex- 
posure to depths, but investigations are not primarily concerned with 
basic physiological effects at high pressure. Research of this type 
requires teams of trained specialists in medicine and biology and might 
best be conducted by a university medical center (see sec. 10.7). 

The Panel does not foresee the need for a diver-operating capability 
in depths beyond 1,000 feet before t975. At greater depths the diver 
will be replaced with highly instrumented platforms capable of ma- 
neuvering sensing devices, communicating with the surface and per- 
forming useful work. The technology being developed for space 
application may contribute substantially to unmanned operations at 
depth. Very likely these platforms will be manned and will require 
containers at atmospheric pressure. 


The possibility of mining the sea floor has caught the popular 
imagination because of numerous articles and speeches about the po- 
tential riches of the sea. Mineral resources certainly exist under the 
oceans, but their economic potential varies enormously, depending on 
depth, location, and geological setting. Accordingly, we distinguish 
three general classes of minerals : Surface deposits on the shallow con- 
tinental shelves; bulk deposits within the rocks under the shelves; 
and deposits on and in thin sediment layers of the deep sea floor (see 
also app. III.4) . 

The surface ore deposits of the Continental Shelf are mainly of 
two types, placer ores concentrated in submerged river channels and 
beaches and blanketing layers of nodules such as phosphorite, precipi- 
tated from sea water. These types of ores have been mined in various 
places around the world. Examples are : diamonds off Africa; tin off 
southeastern Asia; iron ores off Japan; and gold in many places. 
An attempt to mine phosphorite off California was apparently frus- 
trated by a concentration of unexploded naval shells. Various coun- 


tries have encouraged development of these ores by surveying their 
continental shelves. The Union of South Africa, New Zealand, and 
Australia, among others, have conducted or supported mineral sur- 
veys of the shelf. The United States is in the initial stages of such 
surveying, and we recommend that this program be accelerated. This 
is in line with our general recommendation that the Federal Govern- 
ment provide the same service in support of industry on the conti- 
nental shelves as it does on land (see sec. 10.2). Development of new 
capabilities in undersea technology recommended in this report should 
greatly enhance the economic potential of mineral deposits discovered 
by Government surveys. 

Geologically, rocks under the Continental Shelf differ in no sig- 
nificant manner from those of the adjacent continent. Hence, they 
probably contain the same mineral deposits. This has been confirmed 
by widespread exploitation of oil and gas. In a few places, moreover, 
mines have been extended from land under the sea. However, the 
economic potential of solid-mineral deposits within the submerged 
rock of the shelf appears minimal. The Geological Survey is deter- 
mining the general structure of this submerged continental margin, 
and we recommend that this work be accelerated in order to bring it 
to the same level as geological mapping on land. 

The deep-sea floor (under 2 or 3 miles of water) is paved in many 
places with nodules containing manganese, iron, cobalt, copper, and 
nickel in concentrations which approach the mineable levels on land. 
The potential resource is enormous, but the economic or mineable 
potential is certainly much less. The distribution, nature, and origin 
of the nodules are the subject of research presently supported by the 
Federal Government. In addition several mining companies have 
conducted special surveys of apparently promising deposits of nodules 
discovered in the course of oceanographic research. We consider this 
to be an appropriate division of Government and private effort and 
see no requirement for accelerated research on potential mineral re- 
sources of the deep-sea floor. 


5.0. Ocean Science and Technology and 
National Security 


The most urgent aspect of Federal involvement in ocean science 
and technology for the next 5 to 10 years relates to national security 
in the narrow, strictly military sense. The U.S. Navy, which has 
responsibility for essentially all our defense efforts involving the ocean 
environment, will have increasing need for specialized oceanographic 
data for specific devices being developed or improved and will con- 
tinue to require better understanding of characteristics of the ocean 
environment in which it operates. 

In particular the Navy will need to improve the capabilities of its 
undersea strategic forces and ASW forces, as well as to increase its 
ability to perform undersea search and recovery. Improvement of 
the Navy's capabilities in these areas depends heavily on our national 
ability to discover and exploit new knowledge in ocean science and 
on our success in developing new and relevant ocean technology. Al- 
though everyone is aware in a general sense that ocean knowledge 
has military implications, the underlying reasons may not be widely 
understood. The military importance of oceanography entails an 
understanding of the nature of our national security programs, which 
themselves are not always completely comprehended. 

Whereas the Navy's involvement in oceanography because of se- 
curity and its often specialized interest will of necessity be distinct 
from that of other Government and private programs, the Navy 
must maintain working relations with all elements of the scientific 
and technological communities concerned. This relationship has been 
excellent in the past, correctly reflecting the Navy's deep interest in 
oceanographic research, and it should be strengthened in the future. 


Antisubmarine Warfare. The submarine threat to the United 
States has been and is expected to remain a very serious consideration 
in defense planning. The Soviet Union now has a massive submarine 


force consisting both of nuclear and nonnuclear vessels. This force 
is being modernized and increased in size on an intense scale. Like- 
wise, mainland China has already built several submarines, and even 
small powers such as North Korea and Egypt have conventionally 
powered submarine forces. 

The massive Soviet submarine force threatens our naval forces and 
merchant shipping and its nuclear tipped missiles are capable of strik- 
ing the continental United States. A more modest Chinese submarine 
force may develop in the next few years. To counter the threat from 
the U.S.S.R. the U.S. Navy is now spending and will undoubtedly 
continue to spend several billion dollars annually in operating and de- 
veloping its antisubmarine forces. The effectiveness of these forces is 
limited in part by the incomplete understanding we have of environ- 
mental conditions in which antisubmarine sensors and weapon systems 
are employed. Considering the cost of operating our antisubmarine 
forces, an increase of a few percent in the effectiveness of these forces 
is worth several tens of millions of dollars a year. 

Sensors used for detection, classification, localization, and tracking 
of submarines include active and passive sonar, Magnetic Anomaly 
Detection (MAD) and radar working in a very complex ocean environ- 
ment. Their effectiveness depends heavily on environmental condi- 
tions in which they operate. We hardly have sufficient information 
on these conditions to do estimations and predictions sufficient for 
Navy needs. 

Sonar provides a good example of the problems the environment 
imposes on our ASW forces. Sonar, both active and passive, is now 
and will probably remain the most important sensor for antisubmarine 
warfare. It can be designed to utilize several modes of underwater 
sound propagation. The effectiveness of these modes for any given 
piece of equipment and in any given situation depends critically on 
such detailed characteristics of the immediate ocean environment as 
the speed of sound (index of refraction), variation with depth, and 
absorption and characteristics of the ocean bottom and surface. These 
characteristics vary with locations and with time at any given posi- 
tion. Therefore, detection and classification ranges of a particular 
sonar system may vary tremendously from one time to another and 
from one location to another. These peculiarities must be understood 
and exploited to a great degree if we are to make our ASW forces 
as effective as possible. 

The importance to ASW of a continuing, effective program to study 
and characterize the ocean environment in which its equipment is 
designed to operate cannot be overstated. 

Strategic Forces. Development of long-range ballistic missiles in 
the last decade caused a revolution in the method of waging strategic 
warfare. Starting in late 1953 the United States engaged in an ur- 


gent program to build up its ballistic-missile forces. The U.S.S.R. 
embarked on the same kind of program even earlier. Missiles were 
originally contemplated as fixed devices on land. 

At roughly the same time, however, the Navy undertook a program 
to develop a nuclear submarine and mounted a higlily concerted and 
highly inventive weapon systems' development program to adapt 
ballistic missiles to it. The system, named Polaris, consists in essence 
of a small, solid rocket-ballistic missile launchable from a submerged 
nuclear submarine. Polaris, with a high degree of invulnerability, 
has become a fundamental building block for strategic forces. In- 
deed, a thought often expressed at the time was that ultimate nuclear 
stability would have both the U.S.S.R. and the United States equipped 
only with invulnerable Polaris forces and that neither side would have 
a ballistic-missile defense for population centers. In that way the out- 
come of a nuclear exchange would be clear and unmistakeable, and 
the possibility of a first nuclear strike even in critical times would be 

The effectiveness of the submarine-based missile force is highly 
contingent on concealment, dispersion, high mobility, and very long 
patrol time. It is precisely for this reason that key interests of ocean- 
ography and the Navy, reflected in the development of the submarine- 
based strategic-missile force, have so much in common. With this 
relationship in mind the Navy instituted a special program of long- 
range research support for academic oceanography and intensified 
field studies by its own laboratories and ships. Even so, oceanographic 
research needs continuous and vigorous support from the Navy. 

This research must cover on a massive scale the entire technological 
spectrum from basic and applied research to marine engineering. For 
example we must be able to verify that no presently unknown (to us) 
physical effects in the ocean environment make nuclear submarines 
susceptible to continuous tracking and location. Because of the pos- 
sible increased emphasis in our strategic-defense capabilities in terms 
of the Navy's submarine-based missiles, and because this emphasis 
would only be well placed in the absence of any degradation of the 
submarines or of the enhancement of detection capability, the Navy 
must support a program which continuously explores all aspects of 
the ocean environment which conceivably could be exploited or utilized 
to allow continuous targeting of such submarines. If Polaris sub- 
marines could be continuously targeted, they would be open to premp- 
tive attack by ballistic missiles with relatively large warheads. 

As enemy missile accuracy improves and as enemy missile payloads 
become more sophisticated, concealment and mobility become relatively 
more important. As we become increasingly concerned with pene- 
trating enemy ballistic-missile defense, larger and more sophisticated 
payloads for our own strategic forces become increasingly important. 


Development of the Poseidon Undersea Launching System will provide 
a significant improvement in our strategic capability in this regard. 
However, we can look forward to the need for even greater strategic 
capabilities in the future. Moreover, a submarine-based missile force 
has some less-than-ideal characteristics. It is relatively expensive to 
operate compared to land-missile forces; and it is presently limited 
in warhead size. Consequently, the ocean-based missile force could 
conceivably take some totally new direction of development in the fu- 
ture which would hopefully combine many of the better characteristics 
of the land-based force : Less expensive, larger payloads ; better com- 
mand and control, with some of the characteristics of the submarine 
force ; i.e, invulnerability. This does not imply that we will not also 
have an interest in developing missile-carrying submarines capable of 
operating at much greater depths than currently. Perhaps the ocean 
bottom would help conceal their presence and thereby make them even 
less susceptible to enemy counteraction. 

Such developments may, for example, take the form of missiles of 
Polaris' size or even considerably larger placed on relatively shallow 
underwater barge systems on the Continental Shelf in a way w^hich 
conceals their location and requires the system to move infrequently so 
that the potential of its being tracked by motion-generated noise is 
minimized. In addition one might consider a slightly mobile ocean- 
bottom system which creeps along. Systems of this kind, if they are 
ever to be realized, will require different kinds of mar'ine engineering 
research from that which produced the current submarine-based force. 
Such systems can involve much larger missiles, might require under- 
water maintenance by personnel also located underwater, might entail 
development of new kinds of implacement gear for positioning missiles, 
might necessitate new kinds of detection and survival equipment to 
prevent attacks on the implacements, and so on. 

In summary it is very possible that the kind of strategic offensive 
force we may wish to develop for the future will rely even more 
heavily on ocean-based systems than that which we now have. Such 
systems may very well require operations at a much wider range of 
ocean environment and for much longer times than at present. Thus, 
the need for oceanographic research and support of these weapon 
systems becomes even greater and will certainly have to encompass 
a wider problem area in development and maintenance of present sub- 
marine forces. These problems will range from ascertaining that the 
ocean-based systems cannot easily be compromised by an enemy's ex- 
ploitation of some hiterto hidden effects of the ocean's environment to 
development of massive ocean engineering capabilities. It is likely 
that the Navy's involvement in oceanographic research to develop, 
support, and maintain our w^eapon systems will increase rather than 

220-659 O— 66 4 33 

decrease in the future and will include a more widespread range of 
problems than it currently does. 

Search and Recovery Exploration. Loss of the Thresher in 1963 
and the recent search for the lost nuclear weapon in the Mediter- 
ranean off the Spanish coast cannot be regarded as insignificant, iso- 
lated incidents in long-term plans for national security. A continu- 
ing requirement will be seeking, identifying, and retrieving objects 
related to national defense from the ocean floor. These objects can 
be grouped roughly as follows : 

1. Disabled submersibles with survivors. 

2. Weapon system components, instruments, or data packages. 

3. Hardware, recovery- of which is based on economic consid- 
erations or diagnostic needs. 

4. Debris, recovery of which is required for diagnostic pur- 

Wlien life is at stake, it is essential to move quickly and to mo- 
bilize men and equipment at the site of the incident. In view of the 
sensitive nature of many of these tasks, the military research-recovery 
mission must be assigned to the Na^^. 

In order to cany out these missions the Xavy should create a spe- 
cially trained task force to cope with deep sea recovery. It must be 
continually on call and highly mobile so that the requisite force to 
initiate search operations can be assembled almost anywhere in the 
world within 24 hours. Technolog;\' required by this task force exists 
only in part and will have to be developed by the Navy in the next 
several years. In time the civilian sector will need some of this tech- 
nology and eventually perhaps will conduct search and retrieval 
activities. Notwithstanding, the Panel recommends that all ocean 
search-and-recovery missions related in any way to national security 
be the responsibility of the Na^'y. 


The Na"vy's oceanographic program excluding the one-time ship- 
construction appropriation of a nuclear-powered deep-ocean engineer- 
ing vehicle has expanded from $120 million in fiscal year 1965 to $141 
million in fiscal year 1966 and to $205 million for fiscal year 1967. 
Although the program has been subdivided in many different ways, it 
can for the purposes of this report be divided into : 

{a) Basic research and education ; 

(&) Research and development for undersea weapons and sen- 

(<?) Mapping and charting: 
{d) Undersea technology ; 


(e) Rescue, search, and recovery of undersea objects; 

(/) Test and evaluation facilities ; 

(g) Oceanographic data and information services. 
Basic research and education are so vital to both the Navy and the 
national interest in the marine environment that they will be discussed 
singly in the next subsection. Research and development for under- 
sea weapons and sensors are the Navy's purview, and any discussion 
must take into consideration the Navy's requirements, which is beyond 
the scope of this Panel's assignment. The Panel does recormnend : 

1. Unclassified R&D information be made available in timely 

2. Classified R «& D information in the area of sensor develop- 
ment be made more available to Federal and industrial com- 
munities having application for the data than has been the case. 

The judgment of the Panel is that current Navy classification poli- 
cies often weigh short range and narrow security considerations too 
heavily as compared to the longer range security which must be gained 
by more rapid and effective development of the scientific and techno- 
logical base from which its systems are derived. Our recommenda- 
tion therefore is that the Navy review its classification policies with 
a view to furthering more rapid progress by increasing the diffusion 
of deep sea technology. While information that will compromise 
military systems must be classified, advantages of wide diffusion and 
input diversity from scientific and industrial communities generally 
outweigh any risk involved. 

Mapping and charting, sometimes referred to as hydrographic sur- 
veys, are responsibilities of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Ocean 
mapping and charting by the Navy are executed as part of the total 
national oceanographic program. Military requirements dictate a 
greater degree of accuracy in charting the ocean bottom than is re- 
quired by other Federal agencies. Therefore, no quantitative recom- 
mendations can be made with respect to the Navy's survey program 
requirements. However, criticism applicable to the survey program 
of ESSA is equally valid with respect to the Navy's Hydrographic 
Survey Program (see sec. 4-6). The Panel concurs on the recent 
action to establish an R & D program in Navy mapping and charting 
and recom/mends : 

1. A minimum expenditure of $2 million per year in light of 
significant Navy expenditures in mapping and charting. 

2. Continuation of commercial ship leasing for added survey 

Undersea technology is that general area of ocean engineering not 
associated directly with specific defense systems. The ability to con- 
struct towers on the ocean floor, general undersea navigational con- 
cepts, and deep undersea materials technology form part of the Navy's 


undersea technology program. The Sea Bed (vol. 4) report recom- 
mended a substantial Navy program of several hundred million dol- 
lars' expenditure over the next several years in this area. The Panel 
recormnends a significant increase over the present $2 million a year 
in Navy expenditures. 

Shortly after the loss of the Thresher the Navy convened a board 
to evaluate and ascertain the Navy's ocean capabilities specifically with 
regard to submarine rescue. After a year-long study this group (Deep 
Submergence Systems Review Group) recommended establishment of 
a 5-year program having four basic areas, costing about $332 million. 
These four categories were specified for the Navy's concentrated effort : 

1. Submarine location, escape and rescue; 

2. Deep-ocean, small-object location and recovery; 

3. Increased salvage capability ; 

4. Extended capabilities of man as a free swimmer to perform 
useful work in the ocean environment to his physiological limits. 

As a result of these recommendations the Navy formed a special 
group called the Deep Submergence Systems Project which was to 
implement these capabilities and enable the Navy to have worldwide 
operational capabilities by 1969. This group, initially placed within 
the Navy's special project office, was recently made a separate CNM- 
designated project in order to focus the Navy's effort on exploration 
of oceanic depth. An additional task for this new group was man- 
agement of the nuclear powered ocean ographic vehicle (NR-1). The 
accomplishment of the four specific tasks initially given this group 
has been delayed in part because of funding problems. This year's 
budgeting for the prototype rescue vessel is approximately $3i/2 mil- 
lion short of the amount required; this difference is attributable to 
the low estimated cost at the onset of the program. This vehicle, now 
stripped of all significant search-and-recovery capability, will give us 
limited capability by the end of 1968 to rescue men from disabled sub- 
marines at their collapse depth. A full complement of six vehicles in 
1970 will provide worldwide rescue capability. There exists today no 
demonstrated, operational capability to rescue personnel from sub- 
marines beyond a depth of 600 feet; this leaves a depth gap with no 
capability to rescue and no capability to rescue from under ice. 

Search-and-recovery capability regarding small objects has suf- 
fered the most severe cutback. Initial recommendations to the Navy 
provided a capability to locate and recover small objects over 98 per- 
cent of the ocean floor (20,000 feet) by 1970. A worldwide operational 
capability in this field will require highly sophisticated, deep-diving 
search-and-recovery vehicles, supporting research and development 
and instrumentation. The experience off Spain in the recovery of the 
nuclear weapon illustrate the problems in the fields of acoustic detec- 
tion and imaging, underwater navigation and marking devices and 


endurance and maneuvering capabilities in the vehicles (see sees. 4.1, 
4.2, 4.3, 4.4) . It was fully 3 weeks after the loss of the nuclear weapon 
before any deep-ocean equipment was on the scene and an adequate 
surface-navigation network established. This portion of the Navy's 
program is now limited to one R&D prototype search-test vehicle 
with limited depth capability. In the area of large-object salvage the 
initial goal, salvaging an attacked submarine from its collapse depth, 
has been restricted by lack of funds to a 1970 operational capability 
of 600 feet, the depth of the continental shelves. Backup studies will 
enable implementation of desired capabilities, should adequate fund- 
ing be made available. 

In the area of extending man's capabilities as a free swimmer at de- 
sired depths, the Navy is performing only the minimum necessary, 
specific physiological research and development through controlled 
experiments in shore-based pressure facilities (see sec. 4.11). This 
work is supported by a series of experiments (Sea Lab 1 and 2 being 
completed and Sea Lab 3 scheduled for February 1967) . These experi- 
ments are expected to continue until there is a demonstrated capability 
as deep as 1,000 feet. 

In summary the four specific areas of effort recommended by the 
Deep Submergence Systems Review Group to the Secretary of the 
Navy regarding implementation and operational capabilities continue 
to be hampered by funding limitations. A worldwide rescue capability 
will be available in 1970. There is no planned capability for locating 
and recovering small objects from ocean depths beyond 6,000 feet (the 
mean depth of the ocean is 12,000 feet). The effort, to extend free- 
swimmer capability into depths is proceeding on schedule but lacks 
adequate physiological and biomedical research (see sec. 4.11). The 
Navy's salvage capabilities for intact submarines will be limited to 
the Continental Shelf. 


Although the Navy's role in ocean science is separable and clearly 
mission-oriented, the Panel feels very strongly that it should continue 
to be closely linked with academic education and research. In the past 
this connection has been mutually profitable. Academic oceanography 
would hardly exist if the Navy, chiefly through the Office of Naval 
Research, had not provided leadership and imaginative support during 
the past 20 years. This is a debt universally and freely acknowledged 
by research oceanographers. On the Navy's side support of broad re- 
search has provided substantial information about oceans necessary to 
carry out its present mission. In addition many research tools devel- 
oped for basic oceanography have served as prototypes for operation- 
ally useful equipment. Examples include explosive echo-ranging, the 
bathythermograph, deep-sea-moored buoys, deep submersibles, under- 


water photography, bottom profiling by precision depth-sounders and 
discovery of deep-scattering layers. Variable- depth sonar and short- 
pulse target identification were byproducts of oceanographic research. 

Moreover, oceanographers are highly responsive to Navy problems 
having little connection with research. Many instances can be cited 
of the Navy and the scientific community working hand in hand. 
Most recent of these is, of course, the concerted, successful effort to 
locate and recover the unarmed nuclear weapon off the Spanish coast. 
Response of the oceanographic community was instantaneous, and this 
group played a leading role in the weapon's recovery. In this instance, 
as in the tragic loss of Thresher, oceanographic institutions and civilian 
scientists put aside personal plans and volunteered to assist the Navy 
in its recovery mission. This civilian-Navy teamwork has proved 
highly successful and harmonious. Conversely, Navy personnel by 
virtue of their support of oceanographic laboratories are sufficiently 
aware of laboratory capabilities to facilitate immediate, effective action 
when an emergency arises. 

Navy support of marine geophysical work in this country during the 
past decade has led to development of techniques for obtaining long- 
range sound transmission in oceans and acquisition of knowledge re- 
garding parameters that affect it. Wlien the Navy encounters diffi- 
culties with its sonar operations, competent people are available to 
rectify them. Similar instances in other fields of oceangraphy illus- 
trate the interaction between civilian scientists and the Navy. Fur- 
ther, as the Navy's detection and weapon systems become more so- 
phisticated this interaction can be expected to increase. 

Finally, and vitally important, the Navy has been a major consumer 
of the output of academic oceanography in both manpower and science. 
Without increased numbers of scientists and engineers knowledgeable 
about oceans the Navy cannot carry out many of the programs re- 
viewed above. Likewise, without the generalizations produced by aca- 
demic research the Navy cannot efficiently utilize information collected 
to support these programs. 

For these reasons the Panel strongly recommends that the Navy 
continue its support of academic research and education related to 
oceans. As was pointed out previously, the Navy's budget for ocean- 
ography has almost doubled in the fiscal years 1965-67 period. The 
Navy's contribution to academic oceanography in the area of basic 
research during the period has remained constant. Under these cir- 
cumstances the Navy may not be able to effectively utilize ocean- 
ography in the future. It is important that the Navy maintain a 
proportionality between its support of academic research and educa- 
tion and its total oceanographic program. This would imply a marked 
increase in support of academic oceanography if the proportionality 
prior to 1965 is to be maintained as the whole Navy program expands. 


We suggest, in addition that the ONR might profitably reexamine the 
particular importance of ocean science and teclinology to the Navy's 
basic mission. 


The Panel's projections concerning directions and rate of techno- 
logical development discussed in section 4, upon which so much of the 
Nation's ocean program depends, assume that the Navy will success- 
fully pursue its current projects on Deep Submergence Systems and 
Man in the Sea. In the event the Navy fails to accomplish its ob- 
jectives in these areas the Panel's estimates of progress, time, and 
cost will have to be revised. In such case it would be in the Nation's 
interest to assign programs with similar goals to civilian agencies. 

The recent successful location and recovery of the unarmed nuclear 
weapon off Spain demonstrated the mutual benefits of close Navy- 
industry cooperation. It is recommended that the Navy make a con- 
tinuing, special effort to utilize the people, facilities, and know-how of 
the private sector in achieving its objectives in the Deep Submergence 
and Man in the Sea Projects. Only in this way can the Nation hope 
to capitalize quickly and profitably on its ocean technology capability. 
In the event complete information exchange would involve classified 
data, the Panel recommends that arrangements be made to provide 
properly qualified industrial groups with access to this classified in- 
formation. By 1975 the Panel foresees the possibility of conducting 
complex, highly technical operations on the ocean bottom which are 
well beyond the limits of present technology. The Panel recormnends 
that a proper Federal role related to ocean-technology development 
would be provision of a test range equipped with standardized stations 
in which component systems, concepts, and materials can be critically 
tested. Such a test range might consist of stations on the water's edge 
in the surf zone, at depths of 200, 600, 2,400, and 6,000 feet and per- 
haps in the abyssal deep. This facility would engender government- 
industry cooperation and technology developments with the desirable 
result of shortening the time required for specific developments and 
acceptance testing. The Navy in meeting its needs will undoubtedly 
require such a range. The Panel recommends that the Navy under- 
take a study which could lead to development of this range. Once 
implemented it should be made available to industrial and university 
groups, users, being expected to pay a prorated share of the total 
operating cost and depreciation, as is the case in other national 


In section 5.2 an already extensive Navy dependence on oceano- 
graph R&D was predicted to increase rapidly in the future. Not 


only are oceans becoming more important as arenas for strategic and 
tactical military operations, but operations themselves are pressing 
into less familiar or understood portions of the marine environment, 
'riie twofold growth of the Navy's oceanographic program over the 
fiscal year 1965-67 period, presented in section 5.3 testifies to the 
degree of recognition given by the Navy and Congress to increasing 
military need for knowledge of the marine environment and for carry- 
ing out service operations within it. This trend apparently will not 
be deemphasized in the future ; if anything, the overall Navy oceanog- 
raphy program may accelerate. 

The priorities which determine the bulk of the Navy's oceanographic 
efforts are primarily military, and certain of these considerations are 
paramount, involving specialized requirements for both research and 
surveys, as well as engineering developments. We therefore recoin- 
mend that the program remain solely under Navy direction rather 
than consolidated with perhaps somewhat similar programs of other 
agencies such as ESSA or a new civilian agency of ocean development 
such as the one proposed in this report (see sec. 10.4) . 

Support figures discussed in section 5.3 indicate that basic research 
has remained relatively constant while the overall Navy oceanography 
program has approximately doubled. It is not entirely clear to us 
that the great increase in ocean-engineering effort associated with such 
new programs as the Deep Submergence Systems Project should pro- 
ceed indefinitely without a corresponding increase in the Navy's basic- 
research support. A proportionality between research, particularly 
basic research, and the total R&D effort in the given fields should 
probably be maintained if brute-force engineering solutions are not to 
be inadvertently substituted for what ought to be more discriminating 
deployment of operational requirements made possible by greater en- 
vironmental knowledge. Such knowledge generally requires consid- 
erable lead time for development and a long-term investment attitude 
toward research programs that produce it. It is in this connection 
that we wish to emphasize the importance of strengthening the tradi- 
tional Navy tie with the oceanographic research and educational com- 
munity, which appears to be jeopardized at present by stronger bonds 
with industry. Prompt and effective assistance from the ocean-science 
community to such urgent needs as the Thresher search and the recent 
successful weapon-recovery operation off Spain are, we feel, dramatic 
and by no means isolated examples of the beneficial, responsive nature 
of this tie. Both direct evidence from budgets and indirect evidence 
from excellent research proposals for basic studies which have been 
refused suggest the need for increased Navy support of the basic 
oceanographic sciences and technologies. 


6.0. Opportunities in Oceanographic 


Until recently oceanographic observations could be characterized as 
being exfloratory in nature. Expeditions were undertaken, usually 
with a single ship, to survey unknown regions or to observe special 
phenomena discovered on an earlier expedition. Exploratory surveys 
have frequently provided new information which has been useful in 
ashing questions of critical scientific importance but not so often in 
answering them. Another consequence of the emphasis given to ex- 
ploratory observation is that oceanographers have been physically and 
intellectually isolated from their colleagues in basic disciplines and in 
other geophysical sciences. 

In recent years exploratory observations, although they still dom- 
inate oceanography, have begun to yield to more systematic observa- 
tions designed for specific purposes. There are a number of reasons 
for this change. 

First, there is a growing awareness that the most challenging scien- 
tific problems encompass two or more of the environmental sciences. 
For example, oceanic circulation cannot be understood apart from at- 
mospheric circulation, nor can atmospheric circulation be predicted 
for periods of more than a few days without considering the ocean. 
Development of a theory of climate will require treating the oceans 
and atmosphere as a thoroughly interacting system. The complexi- 
ties of the interactions are illustrated by the processes of sedimentation 
on the bottom of the sea. These processes are governed by physical 
and biological conditions within the volume of the oceans, which de- 
pend on the interaction of the oceans and the atmosphere. 

Second, new platforms and sensors are becoming available which 
permit new observations. Acoustic and electromagnetic probes make 
possible remote sensing, "swallow" floats give unequivocal records of 
subsurface currents, thermistor chains can furnish continuous records 
of temperature distribution and "hot wires" provide information about 
the turbulent spectrum. Many other examples could be cited. 

Third, developments in data processing and in methods of data 
analysis represent major advances. Telemetering techniques provide 


vast quantities of data far beyond that available a decade ago, and the 
newer computers permit systematic analysis of these data and facilitate 
study of matematical models by integration of governing differential 
equations. A consequence of these new capabilities in data processing 
and analysis is that quantitative determinations are beginning to re- 
place qualitative and intuitive accounts which characterized geophysi- 
cal sciences a few years ago. For example, direct measurement of 
vertical flux and wind stress can now be made by spectral analysis of 
fluctuations. New insights into the mechanism of nonlinear coupling, 
made possible by computer technology, have contributed significantly 
to theories of wave generation and motions of a variety of scales. 

These developments in obsen^ational techniques, data processing, 
and interpretation have proved to be equally valuable in studies of the 
oceans, atmosphere, and solid earth. A strong coupling of research 
among various fields of geophysics exists. There is a basic com- 
monality in observational platforms, techniques of analysis and under- 
lying theory. A fruitful idea in one field is likely to be equally 
profitable in other geophysical fields. Thus, broadly trained, creative 
scientists may provide crucial leadership in several fields simultane- 

A close connection also exists between geophysical and biological 
problems, despite the fact that these connections have often been over- 
looked. Certain regions owe their great biological productivity to 
subtle combinations of chemical and physical processes which vitally 
need^to be understood. Oceanographers are well aware of the im- 
portance of these relationships, and in the future we see a closer rela- 
tionship between biological and physical studies of the sea. This 
will be especially important as modification of the environment be- 
comes more widespread (see sec. 3) . 

Our new abilities to observe and interpret the environment have 
brought within the range of reasonable possibility a number of major 
scientific and technological enterprises. These require increased un- 
derstanding of the functioning of systems far more complex than 
those wliich can be studied in the laboratory. Consequently, there 
are of the highest intrinsic scientific interest, as well as of great 
practical importance. 


We are in the very early stages of developing the capability for 
ocean prediction. Until World War II ocean predictions were limited 
to truly periodic phenomena Avhose mechanism was clearly under- 
stood — tides and seasons. Tidal predictions are still imperfect, and 
improvements based on more complete treatment of nonlinear effects 
and transients associated with surface winds and pressure are within 


In the past two decades methods have been devised for : 

(a) Prediction of surface waves based on observations and pre- 
dictions of surface- wind distribution. 

(b) Warnings of tsunamis produced by earthquakes which are 
readily detected at great distances. 

These methods have proved vital for safety and economy in coastal 
areas, in commercial shipping and for many military operations. 
Further improvement in wave prediction is tied closely to atmospheric 
prediction, for which atmospheric observations over the oceans are 
required. In a similar way prediction of the depth of the surface 
mixed layer, still in its early stages, is closely tied to the ineteorologi- 
cal problem. Understanding the processes occurring in the surface 
mixed layer is important for acoustic-transmission applications within 
the sea and for marine biological problems. 

We have reason to think that these phenomena, for which rather 
simple prediction methods are available, fail to encompass other char- 
acteristic, important features of the ocean. From the fragmentary 
evidence we have at present, it appears that a wide range of time- 
dependent phenomena do indeed occur in the ocean, as our experience 
with stratified fluids in the laboratory or in the atmosphere would lead 
us to expect. Ocean weather may be as varied and complex as the 
weather in the atmosphere. For example, we see indications of inter- 
nal gravity waves, inert ial motions associated with the earth's rotation, 
turbulence, meandei*s in the Gulf Stream and other currents and 
fluctuations in surface temperature over large areas; but we have not 
yet adequately described any of these phenomena. Whether current 
systems occur which are comparable in size to atmospheric planetary 
waves remains to be discovered. The extent to which prediction of 
these phenomena is inherently feasible and for what scales of time and 
space remains unknown; these problems appear destined to become 
some of the most exciting objectives of ocean research in the next 
decade. The answers are not obvious, for although the governing 
differential equations are well known, we do not know the strength of 
coupling between observable and unobservable scales. 

We do know, how^ever, that lack of ocean surface-layer observations 
restricts effective atmospheric prediction to a few days. 

Until the prediction problem is better understood, the potentialities 
of deliberate ocean modification cannot be determined. Without such 
understanding, large-scale experiments addressed to diverting ocean 
currents, to melting the Arctic ice or to overturning large regions of 
ocean water would be extravagant and highly irresponsible. How- 
ever, inadvertent modification of coastal areas, already of local con- 
cern, is likely to become more serious. In order to plan wisely for 
use and development of coastal areas we must learn to predict such 


effects as increased pollution, changes in coastlines, and deepening of 

Finally, a remark should be made concerning the sj^ace and scale of 
ocean observations envisioned by this Panel. For the present and for 
the foreseeable future ocean observations should be undertaken as 
research and development programs, with specifications closely linked 
to objectives and with results linked to subsequent planning. The first 
stages should be distinctly limited in scope and in areal extent ; but one 
should anticipate observational systems covering very large areas. 
It will be necessary to establish and maintain numbers of observing 
platforms in, on and above the sea. Reliable communication systems 
of considerable complexity will be needed. Furthermore, the inher- 
ently global nature of many scientific problems will require support 
of research on a larger scale and more stable basis than has been the 
case heretofore. 


A catalog on research problems in physical oceanography captures 
neither the flavor nor the intellectual quality of scientific challenges 
posed by the oceans. For example in the ocean bottom a well-docu- 
mented history of our planet is recorded, perhaps containing far more 
information about the early stages of evolution of our planet and the 
solar system than on the moon's scarred surface. The oceans are a 
giant laboratory for fluid dynamics, which illustrates the full com- 
plexity of hydrodynamics. The oceans, in turn, interact with both 
the solid earth and atmosphere in direct and subtle ways, and one can 
never hope to gain a comprehensive understanding from study limited 
to the oceans themselves. 

We will not compose a detailed framework of oceanographic research 
nor catalog the variety of work in progress at existing institutions.^ 
Instead, we will concentrate upon defining specific, new types of large- 
scale projects not yet underway which seem to offer great potential for 
increased knowledge. The emphasis on large-scale projects in this 
section does not imply that progress in oceanography can be achieved 
only in this way. The large-scale projects originate through the 
efforts of individual researchers seeking answers to problems posed 
by theoretical, laboratory of small-scale observational studies. 

Benthic Boundary. At the bottom of the deep ocean there is a 
transition from fluid, to fluid with suspended particles, to solid with 
interstitial fluid, to solid. The detailed nature of this boundary is 
unknown, as well as whether its characteristics result primarily from 
physical or biological processes. An miderstanding of this boundary 

^ Chapter II, "National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Oceanography 
Report" (in preparation), provides one account of such background material. 


is essential in order to solve such problems as long-range sound trans- 
mission of powerful sonars (SQS-26), occupation at the bottom in 
permanent or semipermanent structures and search for objects at or 
near the bottom. The study of the benthic boundary is now possible 
because of the development of recording devices and probes which 
measure temperature, velocity, and pressure fluctuations at great 

The benthic boundary is a base for studying the earth below. 
Beneath the oceans the earth's crust is thin, and environmental condi- 
tions for measurement are quiet. A recent surprising discovery is 
that standard geophysical methods of exploration (seismic, gravi- 
metric, magnetic, and geothermal) yield better results than on land. 
The greater technical diflficulties of working on the sea bottom are 
more than compensated by advantages of a uniform environment. 
There remains, of course, great ambiguity about the deeper material. 
This can only be resolved by coring the sediments (JOIDES) and 
the layer beneath (MOHOLE). 

An opportunity exists for adapting other geophysical techniques 
developed on land for marine use. For example, measurements on the 
sea bottom of the fluctuating electric and magnetic fields at various 
frequencies could provide information about the variation of con- 
ductivity with depth; from this, one can, in principle infer internal 
temperature and ultimately horizontal stresses between oceans and 
continents. Our understanding of mountain making and of the very 
existence of oceans and continents depends on assessment of stresses 
at the margin of basins. 

It is now possible to make deep-ocean tide measurements from in- 
struments lowered to the seabed. Theories of the origin of the moon 
depend critically on the efficacy of tides in disposing of the mechanical 
energy of the earth-moon system. Do tides in the solid earth slow 
down the earth's rotation and move the moon outward or are the ocean 
tides responsible? Additional tidal measurements on a global scale 
are required in order to settle the problem. 

Further understanding of the benthic boundary depends on con- 
tinued development of instruments operable at great depths. Many 
observational programs require data -collection over long periods of 
time, and substantial technological problems exist in collecting these 
data. Furthermore, the ocean bottom is not uniform, and isolated 
observations are unlikely to yield a proper view. We can thus expect 
continuing expansion of measurements on a global scale. The oppor- 
tunity exists for perhaps solving an important cosmological problem, 
and we recoTrvmend that tidal measurements be made for many parts 
of the oceans to determine once and for all the nature and magnitude 
of oceanic tidal friction. 


The Abyssal Ocean. The deep distribution of oceanic variables 
(temperature, salinity, current, etc.), and planktonic and sedimentary 
particles appears to be determined by upwelling and turbulent fluxes. 
The most urgent need is for observational studies of the turbulent 
mixing processes. A thorough, well-planned effort to study the turbu- 
lent microstructure of the main thermocline would provide insight on 
the general circulation of the oceans, global weather and climatic 
fluctuations as well. It is intolerable that direct measurements of 
turbulent fluxes at depth are not being attempted. In our judgment 
this is within present-day technological capability but might require 
substantial engineering. A few pioneering studies made with sensors 
mounted on submarines and lowered by wire from surface vessels have 
shown fascinating microstructure. These studies provide a good basis 
for future development. Submarines are essential to the study of 
water under ice sheets. This cold water, of high salinity and density, 
eventually becomes the water at the greatest depths. The development 
of the bottom water remains largely unknown. 

Distinction between various modes and types of internal waves and 
what is ineptly referred to as turbulence has to be clarified. Perhaps, 
most random variation of temperature currents can be associated 
with internal, gravity-inertial and planetary waves. Distribution of 
energy among different modes, frequencies, and directions needs dis- 
entanglement. The existence of an equatorial, internal wave trap be- 
tween 30° S. and 30° N. lends interest to a geographical study of these 
distributions. Nonlinear interactions among these modes (including 
"general circulation" as zero frequency mode) and the irregular sea 
bottom need to be studied theoretically and experimentally. It is 
here that a solution to the problem of dynamic oceanography may be 
sought. We must cease to be surprised at irregularity of oscillations 
whenever appropriate observations are made. Irregularity is ex- 
pected as a consequence of the fact that 10^° ergs sec"^ of energy are 
dissipated in the ocean, and this calls for r.m.s. (root mean square) 
shear of 10"^ sec"^. 

Buoy Programs. During the past few years several draft plans 
have been submitted to international bodies for oceanwide observa- 
tional programs employing dozens of ships extending over several 
years — purportedly to study variability of oceanic circulation. To 
us they have seemed ill-designed from the point of view of sampling, 
because we believe it would be better to study smaller scales and higher 
frequencies first, even though these do not provide busy work for fleets 
of oceanographic vessels. In fact instrumented buoys seem better 
adapted to variability studies, although ships will, of course, be nec- 
essary to service them. 

To date, use of moored buoys has been largely limited to efforts of 
individuals who, lacking the resources, logistic support, and necessary 


organization, have been unable to maintain dense enough arrays for 
a long enough time to gather statistically significant data. The signals 
are complex, and a sophisticated measuring program is required to 
read them. The problem would be difficult enough if all oceanic fluc- 
tuations were a broad spectrum of linearly superimposed internal 
waves, but, as mentioned above, there is undoubtedly a significantly 
nonlinear domain. Oceanographers need to evolve some fairly elabo- 
rate measuring arrays, with limited regions heavily instrumented. 
They are in the position of radio astronomers who need a radio tele- 
scope of a novel design, a facility quite beyond the capability of a 
single individual to design, build, and operate. The oceanographic 
community has been too concerned with conventional research and 
fund-raising and has devoted insufficient attention to exciting new 
scientific projects such as a viable buoy program. 

A graduated program for measuring and identifying regular oscilla- 
tions in a typical deep-sea area is described in appendix II. This is 
one of several proposals which have emerged in the last few months 
from groups interested in buoy programs. 

Air-Sea Boundary. In order to predict large-scale atmospheric 
behavior for periods longer than a day or two, vertical fluxes of heat, 
momentum, and water vapor must be specified at the surface, both on 
land and in sea. Research and development along several independent 
lines are needed. 

The spectral structure of atmospheric turbulence is being deter- 
mined, and direct measurements of vertical fluxes are being made with 
rapidly responding sensors mounted on fixed platforms, aircraft, or 
submarines. Temperature and wind velocity sensors exist in experi- 
mental form. Interesting work is under way at a few institutions, but 
adequate humidity sensors have yet to be developed. This lack repre- 
sents an important constraint on air-sea interaction research. Mean 
profiles measured from fixed platforms and buoys are also being used 
at a few institutions to estimate vertical fluxes. 

However, in order to relate vertical flux measured at a point by either 
of the above methods to the "synoptic" scale commensurate with the 
weather prediction problem, measurements using integral methods 
over extended areas are needed. These require a carefully planned 
and coordinated program of research utilizing fixed platforms, buoys, 
aircraft, and possibly submarines. To date such programs have not 
been initiated. 

Methods of isotopic and surface chemistry have recently been ap- 
plied to the air-sea boundary, and these offer some interesting oppor- 
tunities which should be exploited. 

A substantial effort has been directed to the study of surface waves, 
particularly with regard to nonlinear actions and generation by wind. 
Studies have been dominantly theoretical; the need is for adequate 


field and laboratory measurements. Recent measurements of wave 
growth seriously differ from the accepted theory of wave generation. 
A substantial improvement could be achieved by means of a larger 
array of bottom-mounted pressure sensors (-wave telescopes) which 
monitor the surface-trapped energy with reasonable resolution. 

Coastal Boundary. The focus of the intersection of the surface 
and bottom boundary is the coastal zone. The hydrodynamics of 
breaking waves, tides, and tsunamis on the sloping shelf is not clearly 
understood. The mechanism of interaction between moving fluid and 
sediment underneath is not at all understood. It is well known that 
coastal structures do not perform in a way that is expected in other 
engineering fields. There are many examples of marinas where the 
annual dredging cost equals the construction cost, or harbors where 
sheltering breakwaters have led to increased seiching or wave action 
within the harbor. This points to the subject's difficulty, the need for 
fundamental research, and better application of known rules to actual 

The Individual Scientist'^s Role. Hydrodynamic studies of the 
oceans and atmosphere have fused with similar geophysical and astro- 
physical areas in recent years, forming a new arena of intellectual 
activity called "geophysical fluid dynamics." Although originally 
oriented toward theoretical aspects, there has been an increasing ten- 
dency to develop laboratoiy experiments and field observations. In 
theoretical work and laboratory investigations efforts are largely in- 
dividual, the goal being to formulate and solve problems in fluid me- 
chanics which have bearing on basic understanding of the ocea.ns. 
The geophysical fluid dynamics group focuses on exchanging ideas 
and maintaining enthusiasm at a high level of creative, mdividual 
activity. From these individual scientists come most of the ideas 
which are translated into questions about the oceans, which, in turn, 
motivate larger, organized data-collecting projects mentioned above. 
For example, the suggestion of an internal wave trap about the equator 
resulted from pioneer investigations of the motion of fluids on a 
rotating sphere. Conversely, results of the observational projects 
react on theoretical work so that it proceeds soundly. Our reason for 
mentioning the role of these individuals is to emphasize how essential 
they are and to insure that this effort is not overlooked in the hurly- 
burly of larger plans. 

Summary. It appears to us that it is now appropriate to end an 
era in which the main emphasis within physical oceanography has been 
on exploration. The MOHOLE and JOIDES programs to core far 
below the sea floor at carefully selected sites are more reasonable for 
the present level of oceanography. Likewise, the new, developing 
technology of bottom-mounted and buoy-supported instruments 
coupled with theoretical advances derived from efforts in geophysical 


fluid dynamics should lead to substantial, new, observational pro- 
grams. These programs, as outlined above, can provide information 
about the environment essential for living sensibly within the oceans 
and using them. The focus should be on the nature of the benthic 
boundary, the weather and climate of deep oceans, and tlie inter- 
action of oceans with the atmosphere and the coast. 


The subpanel on marine biology has surveyed the major areas of 
current biological research through discussions with Federal agency 
representatives, visits to selected laboratories and discussions with 
biologists. Although some of the major problems of marine biology 
have been considered in previous reports,^ the Panel believes that 
there are three areas of research to wiiicli insufficient attention has 
been given. These concern new approaches to obtaining more food 
from the sea (see sec. 2), use of marine organisms in biomedical re- 
search, and problems associated with large-scale environmental modi- 
fications (see sec. 3). The latter problem is illustrated currently by 
the possibility that a sea-level canal will be constructed across the 
Isthmus of Panama. 

The Panel believes that marine biology must be regarded in broad 
terms. Specifically, marine biology embraces four major areas of 
research : 

1. Animal and plant populations and their interaction with 
each other and the ocean. 

2. The unique characteristics of diverse marine organisms tliat 
enable them to survive in the ocean. 

3. Utilization of marine organisms as unique experimental ma- 
terial for investigation of biomedical problems. 

4. The processes and factors involved in food production from 
the sea. 

Some of the most scientifically interesting and socially significant 
problems confronting mankind exist in this arena. 

Populations in the Sea. The conversion of photosynthetic plants 
to animal protein on land is relatively well understood. In the sea, 
however, photosynthetic plants are restricted largely to microscopic 
planktonic algae (phytoplankton) ; conversion to animals large enough 
to serve as food for man usually involves many intermediate steps. 

2 Chapter II, "National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Oceanography 
Report" (in preparation) ; "National Oceanographic Program Fiscal Year 1967," 
ICO Pamphlet No. 24, March 196G ; "A Report to the Division of Biological and 
Medical Sciences of the National Science Foundation" by the ad hoc Committee 
on Biological Oceanography ; "A Scientific Framework for the Study of the 
World's Oceans," UNESCO. 

220-659 O — &6 5 ^" 

Our knowledge of the complex and diverse food chains and food webs 
of the sea is very sparse. The natural foods of even the best-known 
marine animal species are unknown except in general terms. Cen- 
tral and prerequisite to scientific control and ultimate management 
of marine food resources is further knowledge of essential nutritional 
requirements, of feeding habits and food preferences, and of effi- 
ciency in converting planktonic algae to animal protein. 

Plants and Photosynthesis. Photosynthetic plants in the sea and 

on land use solar energy to synthesize organic matter from inorganic 
materials. In agriculture, solar energy is channeled into production 
of plants that are useful to mankind, either directly as plant prod- 
ucts or indirectly as animal food. Growth of plants in the sea, on 
the other hand, is a process over which we have no control and little 
knowledge. Some species of planktonic algae are recognized as food 
organisms for marine animals; others are "weed" species of little 
or no nutritional value; still others, such as "red tide" organisms, 
are noxious or lethal to marine life. To increase significantly the 
amount of food obtained from the sea, we must learn to control the 
kinds of phytoplankton produced as the primary food source. Ex- 
panded and intensified programs in marine microbiology in its broad- 
est sense, including both laboratory and field studies, are needed to 
provide fundamental background and practical experience. 

Environmental Studies. Although human intervention is increas- 
ingly affecting natural populations of organisms, very little is known 
about environmental conditions that govern these populations in 
nature. Without adequate knowledge it is difficult to predict the 
effects of human intervention or to define proper procedures for man- 
agement and exploitation. The complexity of the marine environ- 
ment has limited the rate of progress in understanding (see sec. 3) . 

Comprehensive studies are needed for insight into the complex rela- 
tionships of organisms to their environment. These must be suf- 
ficiently long-term to permit measurements of fluctuations in the 
meaningful parameters and the resultant changes that occur naturally. 
Included should be intensive studies of carefully selected habitat 
types with surveys of related habitats to indicate variability. Most 
importantly, there should be constant interplay between observation 
and analysis of the natural situation by experimental alteration of 
biological, physical, and chemical properties of the environment and 
by laboratory experimentation under controlled conditions on a suf- 
ficiently large scale to provide an adequate model of the natural 
habitat. The requisite research groups should include scientists who 
are knowledgeable about the physical and chemical properties of the 
environment and those specifically competent in the physiology and 
behavior of organisms. 


It is evident from studies of organisms in fresh-water environments 
tliat the difficulties in understanding the complex relationships and 
interactions among organisms are compounded by lumping species to- 
gether as plant producers, herbivores, and carnivores. There is a need 
for precise identification of each species, rare as well as abundant. 
Abundant species may account for most food production, but rare ones 
often provide essential services, such as parasite removal, to other 
species. Eliminating these services may be catastrophic. In addition, 
cryptic species may be present which, while not differing appreciably 
in morphology, have quite different behavioral, physiological and 
population characteristics in the environment. 

Consideration of the function of individual species in the environ- 
ment brings into prominence the present shortage of systematists who 
define species, suggest evolutionary relationships, and identify dis- 
tinguishing characteristics of organisms. There is great need of com- 
prehensive study of the systematic, taxonomic biology of marine or- 
ganisms involving morphological, biochemical, and behavioral dif- 
ferences among species. Such studies provide a basis for selecting 
races or strains, within a single species, with characteristics which 
render them particularly appropriate for exploitation and cultivation 
by man. Characteristics of interest are rapid growth, adaptability to 
culture conditions and resistance to disease. 

If a sea-level canal is opened across Central America, many biologi- 
cal problems of great potential consequence will emerge. A number 
of species have close relatives on opposite sides of the present land 
mass w^hich has existed for 80 million years. These closely related 
species show different amounts of divergence. What will happen if 
the barrier is breached so that organisms can move between oceans 
through such a canal? Will changing selection pressures and com- 
petition eliminate species? Will closely related species interbreed and 
form a hybrid population or remain separate with, perhaps, accom- 
pany changes in their genetic, physiological, behavioral, and popula- 
tion characteristics? Will present populations resist invasions un- 
changed, or will serious disruptions occur, accompanied by violent 
oscillations in the composition and abundance of species? 

Knowledge of characteristics of both successful and unsuccessful 
invading species should help us predict the effects of purposeful 
introduction or removal of species elsewhere. Some changes are 
likely to be dramatic and easily documented; others will be more 
subtle although of equal importance in furthering our understanding. 
It will be impossible to recognize and understand these subtle changes 
unless the present state of populations of various species is known 
thoroughly. In view of the immediate need for background infor- 
mation, the Panel recommends undertaking an intensive study of 
marine organisms on both sides of the proposed canal site. Concur- 


rently, for purposes of comparison and generalization, planktonic 
and benthic organisms in the adjacent deep seas and in waters on the 
continental shelves should also be studied intensively. 

Unique Characteristics of Marine Organisms. Existence and be- 
havior of marine organisms in specific habitats depend on unique 
physiological characteristics which deserve investigation in their own 
right. For example, organisms deep in the oceans live under extra- 
ordinarily constant and extreme conditions. In the deepest areas, 
pressures are more than 500 atmospheres, temperatures are less than 
4° C and darkness is total except for occasional flashes of light pro- 
duced by luminescent organisms. The environment is unlike any- 
thing encountered elsewhere in the solar system. Investigation of 
organisms adapted to live under such extreme conditions, though 
difficult and requiring special laboratory facilities, may provide new 
insights into man's basic metabolic processes and physiological 

Biomedical Applications. Our present understanding of many bio- 
medical problems is based largely upon research initially conducted 
on lower organisms. The insights so afforded are valid because many 
biological processes of most kinds of organisms are fundamentally 
alike. Understanding of mammalian genetics stems in part from re- 
search on insects and micro-organisms; our understanding of human 
biochemistry derives from studies of lower animals and plants; and 
many of our present insights into the phenomena of fertilization and 
embryonic development are derived primarily from investigations of 
marine organisms. 

One of the most challenging areas of contemporary biological re- 
search concerns growth and development. We still know little about 
how a human egg, one cell, is transformed into an adult composed of 
billions of cells in a thousand varieties, all precisely organized to pro- 
duce a normally functioning individual. When normal development 
goes awry, various abnormalities or birth defects result. Much of our 
knowledge of fertilization and development has been obtained from 
studying marine organisms, some of which develop from egg to adult 
in 1 day and during this time are oj^en to continuous observation and 
experimental manipulation. Study of the development of diverse 
marine organisms remains the best opportunity for enhancing our 
understanding of developmental biology. 

Other general biochemical and physiological processes have also 
been investigated effectively with marine organisms. The use of 
squid axons to study conduction in nerves is a dramatic example. Our 
knowledge of the structure and function of sensory receptors and the 
significance of neurosecretion have also been enriched greatly through 
use of marine organisms. 


With the conquest of many infectious diseases, the degenerative dis- 
eases of old age have become increasingly important and research on 
the aging process is rapidly becoming more sophisticated. Because 
some marine organisms reach old age in a few hours, whereas others 
have long lifespans or reproduce asexually and hence are virtually 
immortal, marine organisms are valuable for studies on the processes 
of aging in nature. 

The value of biochemical studies on the great diversity of marine 
plants and animals is indicated by the isolation of chemicals that have 
antiviral, antimicrobial, cancer-inhibiting, nerve-blocking, or heart- 
stimulating properties in laboratory experiments. Some of these chem- 
icals have potential phannacological value, as shown by biotoxins from 
poisonous shellfish and putferfish that are 200,000 times more power- 
ful in blocking nervous activity than drugs such as curare presently 
used for this purpose. Such powerful chemicals are obviously import- 
ant tools for neurologists who are elucidating biochemical events re- 
sponsible for nerve and brain activity, and offer promise of applica- 
tion as useful drugs. 

The number of chemicals that may be found by intensive analysis of 
marine organisms is well illustrated by recent studies on sponges, one 
of the most primitive animals. Sponges produce at least 15 different 
types of sterols not found in higher animals, including man. By 
studying unusual sterols in sponges, we may acquire a better under- 
standing of the role of related sterols in man. In addition, investiga- 
tions of sponges unexpectedly revealed a unique material, an arabinosyl 
nucleoside, which may have practical importance in that it is 
apparently highly effective in treatment of certain virus infections and 
leukemia in laboratory animals. Other products from sponges also 
show a broad spectrum of antimicrobial effects. 

Many sea cucumbers, starfish, and their relatives produce highly 
toxic mixtures of steroid glycosides, a group of chemicals that includes 
the powerful cardiac drug, digitalis, which is obtained from a ter- 
restrial plant. Steroid glycosides from these marine organisms have 
suppressed growth of several different kinds of tumor in experimental 
animals and may provide leads toward the chemotherapy of malignant 

The list of pharmacologically active substances extracted from 
marine organisms is expanding as more investigators enter this 
virtually untapped field of research in natural products. With de- 
velopment of biochemical analyses and refined techniques for culti- 
vating many marine organisms that produce chemicals which may 
prove to be of medical importance, the time is now ripe for intensified 
research in marine biochemistry and pharmacology. Drugs are now 
derived primarily from terrestrial plants and bacteria or are synthe- 


sized in the laboratory. The great variety of plant and animal life in 
the sea offers abundant opportunities for study in many areas of bio- 
medical research. 

The results cited above have resulted mainly from individual re- 
search. There is an obvious need for larger scale projects, but it is 
clear that advances in marine biology will always depend heavily on 
individual research. It is, therefore, essential that support for these 
scientists be continued and increased. 

In summary, the situation with respect to marine biology parallels 
that of physical oceanography. There are many clearly identifiable 
problems. Although there remains a need for special ocean surveys, 
we no longer need to give special emphasis to them. The broad out- 
lines of the subject are clear. What is needed is a much greater 
emphasis on the problem areas reviewed above. 


7.0. Economic Aspects of Oceanography 


An ideal economic evaluation of oceanographic research and de- 
velopment would compare the future performance of an economy 
with and without different levels of expenditure for oceanographic 
programs. It would emphasize that the value of the oceanography 
is likely to be crucially dependent upon concurrent technological, 
demographic, and economic developments. Moreover, it would deter- 
mine the value of the programs only after due consideration of their 
interactions with other existing and potential economic activities. 
For example, an investment in oceanography might find deposits of 
low-grade nickel ore on the sea floor. However, the same investment 
might also find similar ores on land. Likewise, developments in 
metallurgy might substantially reduce requirements for nickel in al- 
loys of steel and thereby make all but the highest grade ores on land 
uneconomical to mine. These are rather simple alternatives. Analy- 
sis may become much more complex if such problems as the strength 
of the merchant marine or the drain on gold reserves enter into con- 
sideration. Finally, the analysis becomes much more uncertain as 
the time between expenditure and potential benefit increases. 

Consequently, a really effective model for evaluating oceanographic 
programs is almost certainly beyond the state of the art. We are 
reduced to accepting the usual alternative used by economists w^hen 
evaluating large Government programs; namely, partial analysis on 
a project-by-project basis. The validity of this approach usually 
depends crucially on the assumption that certain interactions between 
the program and other economic activities are relatively unimportant. 
The technique is widely used in the Defense Department but the plan- 
ning horizon is usually only 5 years and the application usually has 
been to develop the optimum means for achieving a fairly well-defined 
objective. Thus, this application is considerably simpler than an 
analysis of the potential economic benefits of oceanographic research 
and development programs which has neither agreed objectives nor 
a definite time limit. 


Nevertheless, an attempt to apply project-by-project analysis to 
oceanography exists.^ It is imaginative and pioneering, but can be 
criticized on several grounds : 

1. An inadequate distinction between gross and net benefits; 

2. A casual approach to estimation of future demands and 
benefits ; 

3. The assumption that the future benefits from different invest- 
ments will not vary too irregularly over time ; 

4. An incomplete effort to estimate the probable effect of other 
changes in technology and economic preferences on benefits de- 
rivable from the oceanographic program ; and 

5. A failure in some instances to distinguish whether the relevant 
area or economy over which benefits are to be calculated is na- 
tional or international. 

The application of benefit-cost analysis to oceanographic research 
(as differentiated from oceanographic programs) is also of uncertain 
value. There is considerable evidence that most Government-spon- 
sored research is supported because it contributes to certain national 
objectives. Thus, oceanographic research, as such, probably should 
be construed as an overhead, staff or support activity for achieving na- 
tional objectives related to the ocean. Consequently, it is not partic- 
ularly fruitful to evaluate the specific benefit of individual research 
efforts in oceanography, because they are rarely directly identified 
with any particular mission. 

For oceanography, and apparently many other research activities 
as well, two levels of research support seem to exist : The first tier in- 
cludes research activities undertaken quite directly by an agency as- 
signed with a specific operating responsibility ; the second relates to 
a more general level of research support with benefits accruing to a 
broad group of missions. National Science Foundation support seems 
more akin to the second type. By contrast, many research activities 
conducted within and directly under the control of an operating agency 
with specific missions are fairly attributed directly to those missions. 

^ "Economic Benefits from Oceanographic Research," National Academy of 
Sciences, National Research Council (Publ. 1228), 1964. This is referred to in 
this section as the NASCO Report.^ 

^ For a critical evaluation of the NASCO Report, "Economic Benefits," see be- 
low and James A. Crutchfield, Robert W. Kates, and W. R. Derrick Sewell, 
"Benefit-Oost Analysis and the National Oceanographic Program," to be 
published in the Journal of Natural Resources, October 1966. 



The objectives or missions of the national oceanographic program 
may be phiced under six headings.^ 

1. Improved environmental prediction and modification; 

2. Aiding development of new sources of raw materials for in- 
dustrial use; 

3. Furthering the more complete exploitation of biological re- 
sources represented by marine life, ranging from improved fish- 
eries' yields to biomedical applications; 

4. Improvement of near-oceanographic environment by finding 
more expeditious and less costly means to preserve, modify, or 
reduce pollution of estuaries, beaches, and other coastal waters; 

5. Improvement in ocean navigation, ship design, and ports; 

6. National defense. 

At the present, allocation of national oceanographic program funds 
to these missions (other than defense, which is treated separately else- 
where in this report) appears to be roughly as shown in table 7.1. 
These figures do not include approximately $14 to $15 million of gen- 
era] or second tier nondefense research support not directly related to a 
mission. For the most part, this second tier research is conducted at 
academic institutions or similar facilities and is funded by NSF. 

By way of comparison, NASCO estimates of the discounted annual 
value of average benefits to be realized from civilian missions of the 
national oceanographic program are presented in table 7.2. It should 
be stressed that these numbers are reported only to lend perspective. 
There are many reasons for suspecting these estimates.* Further- 
more, the costs reported in table 7.1 are 7iot directly comparable to 
benefits reported in table 7.2, since realization of estimated benefits 
would depend upon additional investments or outlays being under- 
taken elsewhere by the government or in the private sector of the econ- 
omy to complement these programs. For example, environmental 
objectives would almost surely need to be complemented by Weather 
Bureau activities (which now require an expenditure of well over $100 

^ These mission definitions were adapted from the NAS/NRC report, "Economic 
Benefits From Oceanographic Research." Much of the structure of the following 
discussion results from accepting these definitions to facilitate comparisons. 

* For documentation of this point see Crutchfield, et al. 


million annually) while exploitation of raw materials in the sea would 
require considerably more than expenditures on oceanography alone. 
In short, benefits reported in table 7.2 are gross benefits that might be 
expected from the national oceanographic program taken in conjunc- 
tion with a range of private and public expenditures elsewhere in the 
economy. These gross benefits could be used to derive a meaningful 
net present value or benefit/cost ratio only with an estimate of all 
investment and operating costs, both public and private, of achieving 
these benefits. 

Table 7.1. — Estimated oceanographic nondefense expenditures on major U.S. 
Government missions related to the ocean or environmental improvement,* 
fiscal year 1967 

[In millions of dollars] 

Improved environmental prediction and modification 14. 5 

Development of new sources of raw materials for use in industry 12. 

Improved exploitation of marine biological resources (mainly fisheries) 45. 

Improvement of the near oceanographic environment 10. 5 

Improvement in ocean navigation, etc 38. 

Total 120.0 

♦These numbers differ from those listed by ICO for the national ocean program. The 
Panel believes that this table more adequately describes the total level of activity. 

Table 7.2. — NASCO estimates of the discounted annual value of average benefits 
of the civilian missions of the National Oceanographic Program 

Mission : per year 

Improved environmental prediction and modification (mainly better 

weather forecasting) 600 

Development of new sources of raw materials for use in industry 105 

Improved exploitation of marine biological resources (U.S.-owned fish- 
eries only) 414 

Improvement of near oceanographic environment (including cost re- 
ductions in sewage disposal) 629 

Improvement in ocean navigation, etc. (U.S. shipping only) 305 

Moreover, the benefit figures reported in table 7.2 are somewhat 
tenuous. For example, the major expected benefits from improved 
weather forecasting listed in the NASCO report are as follows (on 
an annual basis, undiscounted) : 


Reduced flood damage $280 

Increased efficiency in scheduling labor and equipment in the construction 

industry 1,000 

Savings from better scheduling coal, oil and natural gas production, oil 
refining, and transportation 500 


Improved planning and scheduling of commercial vegetable, potato, and 
fruit production : ^ Millions 
On the fami only $185 

Including processing and marketing cost 185 

Better planning of cattle and hog production , 450 

Total 2,600 

1 The $370,000,000 figure reported here for savings on commercial vegetables, potato, 
and fruit production is to be contrasted with the $500,000,000 reported in NASCO's report. 
The $370,000,000 figure was derived by reworking basic numbers NASCO reported and 
applying their percentages to derive savings. It is not clear exactly how they derived the 
$500,000,000 estimate, but it was more than compensated by rounding their total to 

An interaction problem immediately arises with regard to tlie 
flood control estimates; clearly, if NASCO estimates are correct and 
the oceanography program NASCO projects are adopted, Corps of 
Engineers' estimates on savings to be obtained from flood control 
installations should be adjusted downward in some cases. Further- 
more, for an estimate of the net social benefit to the economy, it would 
have to be assumed that increments to the flood control program 
planned by the Corps of Engineers over the next few years that could 
be expected to yield or duplicate identical benefits would be eliminated 
from Corps of Engineers' budgets; whether or not this elimination 
would occur would depend, of course, upon a number of uncertainties, 
some of a political nature. It is also possible that the Corps of 
Engineers' program would be a cheaper solution to flood control than 
an oceanographic program. Indeed in all probability tJie optimal 
or lower cost solution involves some of both programs. 

Similar detailed criticisms could be made with regard to other 
estimated savings. Given these conflcting considerations, it is very 
difficult to say what actual savings would result from improvements 
on long-range weather forecasting. With conservatism, the $2 billion 
annual estimate reported by NASCO, might be reduced to one-half 
billion annually undiscounted or approximately $150 million on a 
discounted average annual basis. The important point is that even 
this very conservative figure is quite large compared to the present 
annual outlay of $14.5 million on oceanographic efforts in weather 
forecasting. Of course, this is only part of the Government's effort to 
improve weather forecasts or environmental control. Still, potential 
gains seem large enough to justify at least the present expenditure and 
probably to justify an increase. 

A somewhat more cautious conclusion seems warranted for Govern- 
ment-oceanographic expenditures except for surveys and other con- 
ventional services, aimed at developing new sources of raw materials. 


The mining and petroleum industries have shown a considerable will- 
ingness to invest in the development of ocean or any other resources 
wherever commercial prospects appear reasonably good. These in- 
dustries, with their considerable commitment and experience, are very 
well situated to evaluate the relative economic attractiveness of dif- 
ferent sources of raw materials, including those under water. Thus, 
development of ocean raw materials is now subject to a market test 
that seems to be yielding reasonably sensible answers. Before any 
substantial Government involvement is advocated, proof should be 
rendered that private companies now involved have been grossly in- 
effective or socially irresponsible in exploiting oceanic raw materials 
(see sees. 4.11 and 10.2). 

The level of expenditure required to provide survey and similar aids 
for ocean development on a scale commensurate with that traditionally 
available on land depends on new technological developments, some of 
which might become available as a byproduct of national defense pro- 
grams. It has been estimated that an expenditure of approximately 
$50 to $100 million over the next 10 years on development of new survey 
equipment and instrumentation would eliminate major obstacles to 
obtaining efficient topographic and geological surveys of the U.S. con- 
tinental shelves (see sec. 4.6). Even with better equipment, however, 
some upward drift in survey expenditures from the present level of 
$12 million mig'ht be needed and justified for these purposes. 

With regard to better exploitation of marine biological resources, 
the NASCO report places a very heavy emphasis on improving the 
position of the U.S. fishing industry. Superficially, it would seem 
very difficult to confine improvement in fishery yields to the U.S. in- 
dustry as such. Improvements from oceanographic research that help 
the U.S. fishing industry would likely improve the position of fishing 
industries abroad as well. Indeed, present performance suggests that 
foreign fleets would be quicker than U.S. industry to adopt new tech- 
niques.^ The fact that several less- developed countries tend to have 
relatively substantial fishing industries further strengthens the argu- 
ment. The dubious character of national distinctions in these matters 
is only heightened by the fact that U.S. industry is increasingly in- 
vesting in fishing activities conducted under other national flags. 
Therefore, to the extent that improvement in oceanographic knowl- 
edge would lead to increased production in fishery industries of the 
world, a strong case might be made for at least perpetuating the pres- 
ent level of $50 million annually spent on oceanographic research 
related to fisheries. 

Potential economic benefits from marine biology are not restricted, 
moreover, to improved fish yields. The ocean appears to be a good 

^ Crutchfield, James, "The Marine Fisheries : A Problem in International Coop- 
eration," American Economic Review, LIV, No. 3, 207-218 (May 1964). 


source of other foods and pharmaceuticals. Marine biology might 
also be expected to contribute to improved techniques for depollution 
and sewage disposal (see sees. 3 and 6.4). Far more important, food 
from the sea can be used to improve world health, especially in under- 
developed countries. The foreign policy of the United States since 
the end of World War II has been committed to the view that U.S. 
prosperity and peace depend crucially upon improving living stand- 
ards in the world at large, with particular emphasis on improving nu- 
trition and health. 

Specific estimates made by NASCO for improvements in near-shore 
sewage disposal and recreation are based upon extrapolation of present 
prices paid or imputed to recreational expenditures in seashore areas 
and upon cost reductions in sewage disposal. The estimates, at least 
on a gross basis, appear conservative. In particular, benefits from 
improvement in near-oceanographic environment are likely to extend 
well beyond recreational opportunities or cost reduction in sewage dis- 
posal. However, this depends on just how much people are willing to 
pay for improvements in their general living environment ; for exam- 
ple, elimination of offensive odoi-s or unsightly vistas. The ready and 
widespread Congressional acceptance of Great Society programs with 
similar orientations suggests that public valuation of these improve- 
ments is quite high. Probably the best argument for expanding the 
oceanographic effort in this area, in fact, is the potential complemen- 
tarity with other Government programs for eliminating pollution, 
beach conservation and establishing seashore parks. An expanded 
oceanographic effort in relevant study areas (e.g., biology of estuarial 
regions and physics of wave action) would seem to be essential and 
proper support activity for these programs. Given this complemen- 
tarity, the rather modest level of present expenditure at $10.5 million 
and the seemingly high benefits, some expansion of present programs 
relating to the near-ocean environment seems well justified (see sees. 
3 and 4.8). 

By contrast, considerable doubt surrounds any positive estimate of 
benefits to the United States from improvement of navigation and 
similar activities except for avoidance of rocks and shoals. There 
are good technical reasons for believing that the $364 million of bene- 
fits attributed to improved ocean navigation in the NASCO report, 
are grossly overstated.*^ In short, the present level of nondefense ex- 

*The NASCO report fails to consider interactions between different estimates. 
For example, direct savings in ship-construction costs, navigation costs, turn- 
around times, maintenance expenses and loading and unloading are all reported. 
It is reasonably clear, though, that the total required size of the ship fleet would 
be greatly affected by reported improvements in operating and maintenance pro- 
cedures. Operating and maintenance costs would be reduced as the size of the 
fleet is reduced. Direct percentage reductions applied to present fleet and cost 
figures can therefore be misleading. 


penditures on oceanography related to maritime improvements is prob- 
ably of dubious value. At a minimum, any marked expansion would 
not seem wise, and very careful consideration should be given to some 
contraction. This program probably should be confined to activities 
aimed at port improvement, elimination of fouling and boring and any 
portion that might be related (in a byproduct sense) to defense. Re- 
search on containerization, hydrofoils and bubble ships suggested or 
sponsored by the Maritime Administration would seem to have more 

A potential bottleneck in the oceanographic program might be avail- 
ability of research talent, although the expected increase in manpower 
in oceanography suggests this will not be a limitation (see sec. 9). 
Relationships between research and basic research expenditures in that 
program are therefore of interest; these are summarized in table 7.3 
as they appear at present and in the recent past. Research might be 
defined, of course, in several ways: Broadly to include nonacademic 
as well as academic activities; with or without ship-operating costs 
included and inclusive or exclusive of different classes of engineering 
development. By the usual definitions, column (d) in table 7.3 seems 
to be the best estimate of basic research in the national oceanographic 
program, defined as expenditure for research in academic laboratories 
or in other laboratories organized in a similar manner. The figures are 
admittedly quite crude or approximate. (If one seeks estimates with 
ship-operating costs included, column (e) should be scaled up by about 
50 percent.) It is interesting that the proportion of the total oceano- 
graphic program devoted to "basic research" in recent years is not too 
dissimilar (though slightly higher on average) to the roughly equiva- 
lent figures for other Government science programs, both before and 
after adjustment for ships or similar heavy hardware in other fields. 

At present approximately $14 to $15 million (exclusive of ship- 
operating costs) is spent on basic research as part of the nondefense 
national oceanographic program. This implies that basic research is 
about 12 percent of the total expenditure of $120 million on non- 
defense missions. If this outlay of $14 to $15 million is expanded 
at a rate of 15 percent per year over the next 4 or 5 years, expendi- 
tures on basic research to support the nondefense national oceano- 
graphic programs would rise to a level of about $25 million (exclusive 
of ship-operating costs) by 1971. If the basic research component con- 
tinues to be 12 percent of the total mission expenditure, this would 
imply an increase from $120 to $210 million per year in the total 
in a period of 5 years. Such an increase should provide sufficient 
scope for most justifiable programs now foreseeable in the nondefense 
sector. (The "sufficiency" will depend to some extent on the level 
of defense expenditures undertaken.) Presumably, most of the $25 
million spent for basic research in 1971 on nondefense purposes would 


be channeled through NSF, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries or similar 
sources possibly connected with a new agency for marine and environ- 
mental programs. If biological aspects of the national oceanographic 
program are emphasized in the future, as advocated in this report, the 
proportion of academic research supported by the Bureau of Com- 
mercial Fisheries should be increased; this is in keeping with the 
NASCO recommendation tliat approximately $5 million for such 
purposes should be channeled through the Bureau in the future. 

Table 7.3. — Research in relation to total NOP expenditures (including defense) 






Fiscal year 

NOP total 
itures ' 


itures as 
by ICO 2 

itures on 
basic re- 
search * 

Estimates of re- 
search as percent 
of total program 



Million dollars 

Million dollars 

Million dollars 
















26. 1 






24. 6 









' These figures are larger than those reported by ICO due to inclusion of some Naval oceanography not 
covered by ICO. 

' After deducting an assumed one-third for ship-operating costs. 

2 Office of Science and Technology estimate of research conducted in academic institutions or equivalent 
private and Government laboratories, again exclusive of ship-operating costs. 

The 15-percent annual growth figure in "basic" or academic re- 
search underlying these extrapolations is not magical, but it corre- 
sponds to recent growth rates or needs projected on reasonably con- 
servative bases for such programs." However, the very rapid increase 
in the expected number of oceanographers (see sees. 8.3, 9.4) suggests 
that the rate of increase of basic research may need to be substantially 
greater than 15 percent; therefore, basic research may represent a 
higher proportion of the $210 million budget. 

A 5-year national oceanographic mission budget consistent with a 
$210 million total outlay is shown in table 7.-1. Especially rapid 
growth is projected for environmental prediction and control and for 
near-oceanographic environment programs. On the basis of crude 
benefit assessments previously reported, these two would seem to be 
the most promising of today's nondefense oceanographic programs. 

' "Chemistry : Opportunitie.s and Needs," NAS-NRC, Comuiittee for the Survey 
of Chemistry, 1965, p. 21 ; "Physics : Survey and Outlook," NAS-NRC, Physics 
Survey Committee, 1966, p. 118. 


Substantial growth is also projected for marine biology and raw ma- 
terial surveys. An approximate 25-percent cutback in programs aimed 
at improvement of navigation, port improvement, ship routing, etc., 
is suggested, from a level of $38 million for fiscal year 1967 to a level of 
$30 million in 1971. 

Table 7.4. — Some suggested projections of nondefense national oceanograph ic 


Fiscal year 






Environmental prediction and control-. 
Surveys relative to raw-materials de- 
velopment-. - - 















Marine biological resources. 


Near-ocean environment 

Navigation aids, port improvements, 
etc - . _ _ 


Total-- - 






The rationality of a sharp increase in the marine biological program 
budget depends to a considerable extent upon a political as much as an 
economic decision; namely, whether development of greater food 
yields from the ocean — a development which is likely to benefit pri- 
marily South American, Asian, and African countries — is a legitimate 
part of U.S. foreign policy. As noted, some good arguments can be 
made for such a view. Quasi-political judgments, of course, can be 
quite relevant in determining the level of other oceanographic pro- 
grams as well. 

Needless to say, programs perhaps not even envisioned today might 
be well justified in the future. New technological developments, more- 
over, could alter some basic assumptions built into these projections. 
Finally, it should be stressed that these extrapolations relate only to 
nondefense aspects of the oceanographic program; as indicated else- 
where in this report, the Navy program might properly experience a 
considerable expansion in the near future. In addition, the budget out- 
lined in table 7.4 may not allow for sufficient development of expensive 
instrumentation or ocean engineering programs. This is not to say 
that there is no scope for such programs within these figures. Never- 
theless, the possibility must be recognized that some relatively ex- 


pensive, special projects may be needed in the nondefense budget; this 
will be particularly true if projects for deep sea submersibles and 
instrumentation improvements are not funded as part of the Navy's 

Strong arguments might be made for intermittently implementing 
even some of the more marginal instrumentation or engineering under- 
takings if: (1) It were deemed in the national interest to maintain 
more or less intact existing "systems engineering groups," in the aero- 
space, electronic, and similar defense industries; and (2) at some time 
these industries were to experience temporary, cyclic reductions in 
defense demand. Only temporary, as differentiated from long-term 
reductions in defense demands would justify such consideration. The 
economic argument would be that the cost of these system-engineering 
groups would be relatively low when employed on oceanographic 
undertakings during periods of temporary displacement from their 
normal activities. Needless to say, there are many complex issues in- 
volved in such a decision, not the least of which would be differentiat- 
ing between temporary and long-term reductions in defense require- 
ments and evaluating the cost of transferring system-engineering 
talents from one activity to another and back again. 

An ad hoc character also surrounds decisions to invest in more ships 
for oceanography. As suggested elsew^here in this report, the major 
problem with regard to ship operations today appears to be funding 
of operating costs and allocating and combining use of ships for the 
needs of many small science projects. The budget projections pre- 
sented in table 7.4 are consistent with the suggestions elsewhere in this 
report that the present need is not so much for more ship-operating 
fmids as for better coordination and efficiency in use of ships (see sec. 
10.6) . The possibility should still be recognized that some upward ad- 
justment in the table 7.4 figures could be required to properly fund 
ship operations. Certainly, very strong arguments exist for avoiding 
the situation of the recent past in which ships were seemingly kept op- 
erating only at the expense of cutbacks in basic research budgets. 

A relatively modest budget in absolute terms seems to provide con- 
siderable scope for the orderly expansion of government-civilian ac- 
tivities in, on, and around the ocean. Such expansion, moreover, seems 
consistent with the development of basic oceanographic research, and 
academic support that is both feasible and not disproportionate to 
expected needs and development of other scientific fields. Finally, it 
is a budget that should meet major new needs for civilian ocean missions 
with a proper emphasis on expanded activities in particular sectors 
which appears to have the greatest potential for economic benefits. 

B20-659 O — 69- 


8.0. Current Status 

This section sumarizes the current status of marine science and 
technology in terms of recent history and predicted growth. We have 
attempted to minimize duplication witli the reports of the National 
Academy of Sciences and the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- 
raphy/ and thus have not included a description of the number of 
laboratories and research ships. However, the current organization, 
financial support, and manpower are crucial to many of our recom- 


Activities in marine sciences and technology tend to be interdiscipli- 
nary and as a rule lack strong professional or academic traditions. 
Only recently have professional groups developed in ocean technol- 
ogy. Organizations concerned with broad aspects of geophysics and 
biology, as well as smaller groups devoted primarily to the oceans, are 
involved with scientific aspects of oceanography. As a result integra- 
tion of w^ork in marine science and technology is accomplished by 
complex interacting organizations and committees which differ in 
certain respects from those of other fields. Scientific and profes- 
sional societies have committees, publications, and annual meetings. 
Ad hoc or continuing groups within industrial associations organize 
frequent symposia to consider special problems. News of general and 
particular industrial interest appears in trade publications. Direc- 
tors of academic oceanographic laboratories meet, usually informally, 
to consider common interests. Regional associations coordinate ac- 
tivities of Government, industry, and academic groups. Organiza- 
tions overlap to considerable extent ; consequently, there is an intimate 
and fairly rapid exchange of information and opinion. 

The Federal organization for marine sciences and technology de- 

^ "Oceanography 1960 to 1970," NAS-NRC Committee on Oceanography. Is- 
sued in 12 parts, 1959-60. 

"Oceanography, the Ten Years Ahead," ICO Pamphlet 10, 1963. 

"Oceanography, Achievements and Opportunities," NAS-NRC Committee on 
Oceanography (in preparation) ; we are indebted to the committee for allowing 
us access to current drafts of the manuscript. 


serves special consideration because it is central to the national effort 
(see sec. 10 for a detailed discussion of the Federal organization). 
The Federal Council for Science and Technology, with membership 
comprised of a high scientific or professional official of each major 
operating agency and chaired by the President's Special Assistant 
for Science and Technology, is responsible for coordinating the agen- 
cies' activities in oceanography. The Council created an Interagency 
Committee on Oceanography, which has members representing more 
than 20 agencies with missions involving marine science and technol- 
ogy. The committee records and if possible coordinates the often 
overlapping programs of the agencies. The Interagency Committee 
since 1961 has prepared an annual report, the National Oceano graphic 
Program^ summarizing budgets, goals, problems, and achievements. 
The Interagency Committee has subpanels which make detailed 
studies on such subjects as "manpower" or "research ships." ^ With 
the aid of a small permanent staff the committee issues special reports 
in response to the many public inquiries about oceans. Through its 
many activities and those of its individual members, this committee 
provides the focus for national as well as Federal activities in marine 
science and technology. 

International activities are also coordinated through a complex or- 
ganizational structure. Coordination is accomplished through groups 
representing governments, such as the Intergovernmental Oceano- 
graphic Commission in UNESCO, and other groups which represent 
scientific societies within the International Council of Scientific 
Unions. The impact of these groups is manifest in such large proj- 
ects as the International Geophysical Year and the International 
Indian Ocean Expedition. 


Federal support of oceanography has grown rapidly over the past 
10 years. We have selected various measures to indicate this growth, 
ranging from the support of two older oceanographic laboratories 
(Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Woods Hole Oceano- 
graphic Institution) to the Federal budget for oceanography (fig. 

The most commonly used measure is the budget of the National 
Oceanographic Program, prepared annually by the Interagency 
Committee on Oceanography. It has grown from about $8 million 
in fiscal year 1953 to $220 million in fiscal year 1967. The pattern 
of growth appears to follow a logistic curve, with an exponential 
growth of 44 percent per year from some time before 1958 to 1963. 

" "Scientific and Technical Personnel in Oceanography," ICO Pamphlet 21, No- 
vember 196.5. 
"Undersea Vehicles for Oceanography," ICO Pamphlet 18, 1965. 


The logistic curve was approaching a limit of $140 million by 1966, 
and growth ceased by loss of definition, a characteristic way for a 
logistic curve to stop. It is not surprising that oceanography which 
was easy to identify at the $8 million level should be less definite 
after a seventeenfold growth in funding. For fiscal year 1967 the 
program was redefined by ICO to include major components of 
oceanographic engineering in the MOHOLE and Deep Submergence 
Systems programs, among others (fig. 8.2). Consequent development 
may initiate a new period and type of growth. 

The total Federal oceanographic budget includes defense compo- 
nents which are not included in the National Oceanographic Pro- 
gram. The total program, as reflected in the Federal oceanographic 
budget, continued its exponential growth until 1965, 2 years later 
than the National Oceanographic Program. It then fluctuated and 
now stands at about $310 million. 

Components of marine science and technology supported by the 
Federal oceanographic budget are research and teaching in academic 
institutions. As the concept of oceanography has broadened, the pro- 
portion of the budget supporting academic research has decreased. 
A measure of academic oceanographic support is the sum of pertinent 
grants or contracts from the National Science Foundation and Office of 
Naval Research. This support grew exponentially from 1957 to 1963, 
then began to decline (fig. 8.1). Much of the growth in the period 
1957-63 supported the establisliment and strengthening of new oceano- 
graphic centers. As a result older laboratories received a smaller frac- 
tion of new money. The total Federal contribution to Scripps Insti- 
tution of Oceanography and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
grew exponentially from before 1956 and 1963, but at a slower rate 
than other components of the Federal oceanographic budget (fig. 8.2). 
During the next 2 years Federal support to these institutions was 
essentially constant, while the whole oceanographic budget continued 
to grow rapidly. 

The pattern of Federal support which emerges seems reasonably 
clear. The whole budget and different components all grew expo- 
nentially from roughly 1958 to 1963. The doubling time was only 2 to 
21^ years, however, and could not continue for many years without 
reaching an unsupportable level. Growth in different components 
of Federal support from 1958 to 1965 was as follows : 

1. All support of SIO (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) plus WHOI 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) 3 

2. Selected support of all academic institutions 6 

3. National oceanographic programs 9 

4. Total Federal oceanographic program 11 

Beginning with nothing but basic research and education on a few 
campuses, marine sciences and technology have developed an under- 


100,000 r 


Total Federal support 


Academic Oceanography 

From ONR + NSF 

Figure 8.1. 


GrowtJi of Federal support for different components of marine 
science and technology which are discussed in text 

lying pyramid of research, development, and service for the Federal 
Government and technology and service for industry. Applied re- 
search and development have grown more rapidly than basic research, 
and it appears that technology in industrial components supported by 
the Federal Government is growing most rapidly of all. 

Federal support of marine sciences and technology is supplemented 
by activities of State governments and industry. Funds attributable 
to State governments and industry were quite small only a few^ years 
ago, and we know of no summary of them. Consequently, we can 
only surmise from fragmentary information that support from these 










1953 1955 


1959 1961 




Figure 8.2. Growth of Federal support for marine science and technology 
facilities and operations as disc^issed in text 

sources has grown and is growing very rapidly. In the past 5 years 
industry has produced a very substantial capacity in marine sciences 
and technology which is now backed by a fleet of ships (including 
deep submersibles), several field laboratories, large staffs and com- 
mitments for future growth. It is likely that this growth has been 
even faster than growth in Federal support in this field, but con- 
clusive data are not available. 


Present Manpower. We estimate that about 500 to 600 profes- 
sional oceanographers are active in the United States at present, even 
though comprehensive polls on the number, distribution, and training 
of oceanographers yield conflicting results. Further studies probably 
will not resolve differences because of the difficulty in defining an 


oceanographer. Accepting various definitions ^ in 1963-64 the total 
oceanograpliic science staff was 2,600 to 3,200, and the number of 
Ph. D.'s was 500 to 600. Other definitions yield different though simi- 
lar numbers. Some 550 individuals, for example, are sufficiently well 
known to be lisited in the latest International Directory of Oceanog- 
raphers.* Another measure is the number of degreeholders in 
oceanography. A poll of the degree-granting institutions showed that 
504 M.S. and 266 Ph. D. degrees have been granted to oceanographers 
over the past 20 years. An oceanographer in this definition is taken 
to be a degree- recipient with experience at sea and a broad knowledge 
of the ocean, regardless of the field of study. Finally, the number of 
oceanographers who produce scientific papers important enough to be 
cited by other scientists can be counted. Some 370 such individuals 
have been identified by our study, and a more comprehensive one might 
raise the number to 500. As in other sciences, however, 10 percent 
(37) of these cited oceanographers receive 50 percent of the citations. 
It should be noted that various attempts at measurement do not neces- 
sarily relate to the same people. Many oceanographers with Ph. D.'s 
did not receive them in oceanography. 

Sources of Manpower. An oceanographer is a scientist or engineer 
whose work is concerned with the sea. Concern may have developed 
at any stage in his training or professional career. Manpower comes 
into the field in many ways, and opinions differ on what is ideal. 
Some of today's leading oceanographers took courses in oceanography, 
but many did not. The important point is that all scientists and engi- 
neers, regardless of training, are potential oceanographers. It may 
he difficult for a chemist to become a biologist, but it is relatively easy 
for him to become a marine chemist. 

Students. We concern ourselves here only with graduate students 
working toward degrees in marine sciences. The number of students 
identified by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and the 
National Science Foundation increased from 90 in 1960 to 290 in 1965 
(fig. 8.3). These numbers, referring to students in "oceanograpliic 
departments" defined in a certain way, do not purport to be the total 
number in the marine sciences. Consequently, we polled 12 oceano- 
grapliic departments and found that students working toward degrees 
at these places increased from 547 in 1963 to 763 in 1965 (fig. 8.3). 
This, once again, is not a complete list of students even in marine 
sciences, because oceanography is taught elsewhere. It does show that 

" "S-cientific and Twhnk-al Personnel in Oceanography," ICO Pianiphlet 21, lOGo. 
"A Study as to the Numbers and Charaoterisk's of Ofeanog^raphic Personnel in the 
United States," Intemat. Ocean. Fdn., Miami, Rept. to NSF, 1964. 

* Vetter, R. C, An International Directory of Oceanographers, 4th ed., NAS- 
NRC staff rept., 19&4. 


there are more students than have been recognized and provides infor- 
mation on the rate of increase in their number. 

Our data and ICO-NSF data show that the number of oceanography 
students has increased exponentially for the past 3 years. Moreover, 
students from these separate studies were proportional during 1964 
and 1965. Using this relationship to extrapolate data back to 1960, 
the number of students at that time would be 220. On this basis, the 
number of students in 1954 would be 100 ; the number in 1947 would 
be 30. These figures seem reasonable in terms of the experience of 
Panel members. If these extrapolations can be accepted, the number 
of students increased exponentially for almost two decades at about 
the same rate that it has during the past few years. 

The rate of increase for the past few years is 18 percent per year, 
and the doubling time is 4^4 years. If this trend, which probably has 
continued for a considerable length of time, prevails for only one more 
doubling period to fiscal year 1970, the number of students will exceed 

Degrees. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography and the 
National Science Foundation have determined the number of degrees 
granted in oceanography, defined with the same restrictions used in 
determining the number of students. They find the number of M.S. 
degrees is increasing sharply, but the number of Ph. D.'s is relatively 
constant (fig. 8.3). We have polled 12 degree-granting institutions. 
In 1962 and 1963, 17 and 16 Ph. D.'s, respectively, were granted, which 
is somewhat larger than the ICO-NSF determinations but indicates 
the same constant rate. In 1964 and 1965 a striking growth occurred 
to 28 and then 57 degrees, respectively. This growth is reflected in 
several individual institutions. The series for 1962 through 1965 at 
the University of Miami is 1, 3, 6, 10; at Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography it is 3, 2, 11, 17. 

Growth in Ph. D.'s is exponential with a doubling time of about 1 
year. That it may continue for another year is indicated by numer- 
ous spontaneous comments received in the course of the polling. For 
example at certain institutions more students received degrees at the 
middle of the present year than the whole of last year. At others 
which do not grant midterm degrees, many students have had theses 
accepted, although in the past theses have rarely been completed so 
early. Growth cannot continue for very long, because degrees are 
currently being granted to almost as many students as entered the in- 
stitutions only 6 years ago. Presumably, the time required to earn a 
degree in oceanography has declined sharply in the last few years, as 
the number of students increases. Perhaps after 1 more year the rate 
of increase will drop to 18 percent, parallel to the increase in number 
of students. Even with such a dramatic drop, some 200 new Ph. D.'s 
will be granted in oceanography in 1970. Thus, the annual production 


of Ph. D.'s by 1970 will be of the same order as the total produced in 
the last two decades. We conclude that the rapid increase of Federal 
support to oceanography in the period 1958-63 has had a profound 
influence on the number of professionally trained oceanographers. 
This rapid increase, if accompanied by a continuation of the present 
budget, can only lead to major problems some 2 to 4 years hence. 

1000 r 










Graduate students at 12 
oceanography centers 


Graduate students in 
"Oceanography" as 
identified by ICO-NSF 

PhD's granted at 

10 oceanographic centers 

PhD's granted in 
"Oceanography" as 
identified by ICO-NSF 






Figure 8.3. 

Growth of students and degrees in oceanography as discussed 
in text 


While we address ourselves in this report primarily to the Federal 
role in the oceans, we are fully aware that State and municipal govern- 
ments and particularly private industry are important components 
of the national interest in the oceans. We believe that this awareness 
is evident throughout the report, in that we recommend strengthening 
Federal programs in the oceans which support socially and economi- 
cally important activities by the States and private industry. We rec- 


ommend, for example, increased support for near-shore oceanography, 
the subje<?t of greatest hnmediate interest for recreation and polhition 
control. We recommend increased weather and sea-state predictions, 
which are urgently needed by the marine components of industry. 
However, it is useful to compare the Federal ocean program with 
other components of the entire national program to indicate the back- 
ground which influenced the Panel in its deliberations. The total 
Federal program in marine science and technology for fiscal year 
1967 is funded at $310 million. This is less than the $380 million value 
of the U.S. fisheries' catch in 1964."' Federal expenditures for marine 
science and technology during the past decade approach $1.5 billion.^ 
During the same period U.S. petroleum companies spent a far larger 
sum on the Continental Shelves of this country. From 1953 to 1964, 
the Outer Continental Shelves yielded over $2 billion in bonuses, 
rentals, and royalties,' and the Inner Continental Shelves from 1956 
to 1965 yielded another $963 million.^ During this period the petro- 
leum industry also spent $400 million on geophysical exploration of 
the shelves ^ and supported the development of a prosperous industry 
constructing off-shore drilling platforms. 

These are only examples. A comprehensive catalog of components 
of the national interest in the oceans would be very lengthy indeed, 
and we list only a few statistics related to marine science and tech- 
nology in table 8.1. We focus on the Federal program with due con- 
sideration of its impact on the whole national interest. 

Table 8.1. — Some statistics related to murine science and technology 

1. National oceanography program (1964) $123,000,000 

2. Navy classified oceanography (1964) 5.5,000,000 

3. Army, Corps of Enginers (1964) 183,000,000 

(a) Construction of harbors and channels (marine) 95,000,000 

(&) Operation and maintenance, harbors and channels 

(marine) 84, 000, 000 

(c) Beach erosion control, surveys, research 4,000,000 

4. Maritime Administration (1964) 273,000,000 

{a) Salary supplement 187,000,000 

(ft) Training 8,000,000 

(c) Ship construction subsidies 78.000,000 

* Department of Interior appropriation hearings, 1966. 

'' Carl Savit, hearings before Commititee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
H.R., Aug. 21, 22, 1963. Annual and accrued mineral production, U.S. Geological 
Survey, various years. Includes $771 million in dispute with Louisiana. 

* Based on the Panel's correspondence with agencies of the States of Alaska, 
California, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas. 

* See Savit under (7) above. 


Table 8.1. — Some statistics related to marine secience and technology — Continued 

5. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, ship construction subsidies 

(1964) $5, 000, 000 

6. World fisheries catch (1964) (billion pounds) 114 

7. U.S. fisheries catch (1964) (billion pounds) 5.82 

8. U.S. fisheries catch (1964) value 1964 380,000,000 

9. Value world fisheries 1964 5, 0(K), 000, 000 

10. Offshore geophysical exploration for oil (1961) 28,000,000 

11. Total cost of U.S. offshore geophysical exploration for oil 

to 1965 400, 000, 000 

12. Bonuses, rentals, and shut-in gas payments, U.S. Outer Con- 

tinental Shelf (1953-64) 1,664,000,000 

13. Royalties U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (1953-64) 388,000,000 

14. Oil wells off Louisiana (1963) 4,400 

15. Expenditures of sport fishermen (1960) 2,690,000,000 

16. Value of outboard motors sold (1960) 167, 000,000 

17. Value of outboard motorboats sold (1960) 257,000,000 

18. Bonuses, rentals, and shut-in payments, Inner Continental 

Shelf (1956-65) 411,000,000 

19. Royalties Continental Shelf (1956-65) 552,000,000 

20. Total revenues from U.S. Continental Shelf during about 

10 years 3, 000, 000, 000 

References and Notes 

1. ICO Pamphlet 17, January 1965. 

2. ICO Pamphlet 17 give« DOD oceanography as $55 million — almost all Navy. DOD 
appropriation hearings, 1966, pt. 5 states only 47 percent of total Navy oceanography 
appears in ICO estimates for 1966. Classified, thus, is assumed equal to unclassified 
in 1964. 

3. Presidential budget, 1966, 3 a, b, all identifiable expenditure on rivers eliminated. 
3c. Federal expenses may not exceed one-third of cost. 

4. Presidential, budget, 1966. 

5. Department of Interior appropriation hearings, 1966. 

6. Department of Interior appropriation hearings, 1966. 

7. Department of Interior appropriation hearings, 1966 ; equal to $100 million of GNP 
according to Economic Benefits from Oceanographic Research. 

8. Pure guess at $0.05 per pound. 

9d. Geophysics, v. 27, pp. 859-886. For 275 crew-months and estimated $0.1 million 
per month. 

10. Carl Savit, hearings before Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, H.R., 
Aug. 21, 22, 1963. 

11. Annual and accrued mineral production, U.S. Geological Survey, various years. 
Includes $771 million in dispute with Louisiana. 

12. See 10. 

13. See 10. 

15. Statistical abstract, 1964, ocean component not identified. 

16. See 15. 

17. See 15. 

18-20. Based on Panel's correspondence with agencies of the States of Alaska, Cali- 
fornia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas. 


9.0 Education and Manpower 


It is veiy difficult to anticipate absolute future needs for ocean- 
ographic manpower. In the future oceanogra pliers may be employed 
by liberal arts colleges and universities, oceanographic departments 
and institutions, Gvernment agencies and industry. They may serve 
on foreign assignment as experts or may train administrative sup- 
port personnel including those for ships. Numbers that will be needed 
are most uncertain. For example we do not know whether or not 
liberal arts colleges and universities will be giving courses in ocean- 
ography in the next 20 years. The Panel believes, however, that 
projected figures for manpower discussed in section 8.3 are sufficient 
to meet foreseeable needs. Of greatest concern to the Panel is not 
the number being trained, but the quality of their education. 


As noted before it is possible to begin work related to oceans at any 
level of academic training or even after formal training has ceased. 
At the time an individual receives a Ph. D., he is qualified to do re- 
search (and teaching) in at least a limited field. This limited field 
may be exhausted rapidly, however, or may expand in unexpected 
directions. If the scientist is narrowly trained and unable to start 
over again, his career as a researcher may be concluded a few years 
after it begins. In contrast if his training is broad, he has little 
difficidty in following wherever his work leads or in transferring his 
interest to some new and exciting sector of research. Although the 
number of Ph. D.'s in oceanography is increasing very rapidly, the 
proportion that are adequately trained in basic physics, mathematics, 
chemistry or biology is small. Thus, the large number should not give 
us comfort, because only a much smaller group is equipped to be 
effective in applying new techniques from contemporary science to 
problems in the ocean. Some individuals with oceanographic training 
have made contributions to a wide range of scientific fields, but these 
are exceptions. 


Most educational institutions have discontinued undergraduate 
training in oceanography, reasoning that at least an undergraduate 
degree in fundamental sciences is necessary for effective work in the 
highly competitive oceanography of the future. A Ph. D. in oceanog- 
raphy may be too specilized if it exerts a negative influence on the 
intellectual level of oceanography. This is reflected in research pro- 
grams, in vaguely defined objectives that purportedly justify world- 
encircling expeditions and even in lack of focus on proposed national 
programs in oceanography. The limitations of depth in graduate 
training in oceanography have caused concern in some academic 
oceanographic centers. Consequently, a broad background in basic 
sciences is required for admission to some graduate schools. It is also 
increasingly common for advanced training in basic science and 
mathematics to form an integral component of graduate education in 
oceanography. This is a very promising development which may 
eventually produce a larger percentage of Ph. D.'s in oceanography 
capable of full, productive careers in research and training. Another 
hopeful development is the establishment of educational programs 
in the broad area of environmental sciences. The close linkage of 
oceanography with other environmental sciences and with basic 
sciences has been illustrated throughout this report and supports the 
thesis that classical Ph. D. training in oceanography will not serve tlie 
purposes of ocean science and technology in the years ahead. 

If oceanographers receive most of their education in basic science, 
mathematics, and environmental sciences, it may be possible to educate 
them in places other than oceanographic laboratories. If a biology 
department in any university has a few or even one professor interested 
in the oceans, he can direct thesis research and produce students capable 
of undertaking careers as oceanographers. The actual research may 
require some use of special facilities in an oceanographic or marine 
biology laboratory. However, it may be even more dependent on a 
reactor or an advanced computer which may be available at the univer- 
sity but not at the marine laboratory. The need for special facilities 
provides one reason for organizing associations of universities and 
oceanographic laboratories. Arrangements can be made for joint 
degrees, exchange of lecturers or some other appropriate relationship. 
In this way the number of students trained in basic science with marine- 
oriented theses could be substaintially increased at a relatively low 
cost. Rather than establishing new oceanographic laboratories, nu- 
merous existing ones could be expanded to accommodate visiting grad- 
uate students and professors. The Panel believes that restricting 
education to a few oceanographic institutions will exert a debilitating 
effect on long-term development of oceanography. We would prefer 
to see a wide variety of institutions tliroughout the country have a few 
faculty members interested in oceanography and capable of directing 


student theses even tliough some portion of tlie work will be taken 
at a special facility which has limited, if any, relationship with the 

Some system is needed to attract scientists whose interest in the 
oceans is aroused only after they have received Ph. D.'s. It seems cer- 
tain that the most effective but difficult way to recruit oceanographers 
w^ould be to effect a postdoctoral transistion ; for example, from a Ph. D. 
physics education to research in oceanography. A favorable environ- 
ment for such transition would exist if university and oceanographic 
laboratory associations which we have suggested are formed. If facul- 
ty members in university departments of basic sciences do research on 
marine aspects of their disciplines, students may be expected to con- 
sider similar research careers. It should be emphasized that these re- 
marks apply to research and teaching in engineering as well as science. 
In fact the recent history of engineering education may be cited as 
a precedent for the whole discussion. Engineering students take in- 
creasing amounts of mathematics and basic science, and training for 
various specialities is almost indistinguishable. Oceanographic en- 
gineering research thus generally will be performed by very broadly 
trained engineers. 

In the future many university departments may include faculty 
members whose research is ocean-oriented, provided that the research 
standards in the field compare favorably with those in other areas. 
Spreading oceanography into more uniA^ersities is thus critically de- 
pendent on raising research standards related to the oceans to the 
quality maintained in other sciences. 


Some areas of the industrial community have suggested that aero- 
space engineers should do oceanographic engineering if defense or 
space requirements should slacken. This substantiates the point that 
a career in marine technology or commerce may be based on education 
which is not marine-oriented. On the other hand, the oceanographic 
environment is complex and little known, and it would be surprising 
if oceanographers now being trained at oceanographic laboratories 
did not remain in demand for marine technology and commerce. Ma- 
rine mining, aquiculture, geophysical survey, pollution control, and the 
like will require individals with broad understanding of the complete 
marine environment. 


The rapid increase in students and degrees which we have identified 
(see sec. 8) has had a marked effect on Federal support for oceano- 
graphic education. The total number of NSF and ONR contracts and 
grants to oceanography gives a measure of Federal support. By this 


measure the support <>ranted for Ph. D.'s has declined by 67 per cent 
during the past 2 years. If both support and degree output grow at 
expected rates, present support per individual will decrease nearly 90 
per cent by 1970. This does not mean that it will be small compared 
to other sciences. At present, Federal support is $170,000 per year per 
Ph. D. granted, a figure which is substantially higher than Federal 
support of about $39,000 per Ph. D. in chemistry but of the same order 
of magnitude as that for high energy physics. If all qualified students 
who wish graduate education in oceanography are to receive training 
in the present style, support will be grossly inadequate by 1970. How- 
ever, an unrestricted expansion of the present style of education is not 
a desirable goal. The alternative of education through associations 
between universities and oceanographic laboratories should be less 
expensive as well as more fruitful than expansion of laboratories alone. 
On the other hand, it is evident that some expansion of laboratories, 
especially student facilities (including housing), will be essential re- 
gardless of the mode of oceanographic education. 


In a few universities graduate departments otlier than environ- 
mental sciences have become increasingly involved in ocean-oriented 
research and education. Adoption of the recommendations of this 
report would accelerate this trend by calling attention to the highly 
interdisciplinary nature of many of the most important and interest- 
ing problems involved in ocean science and technology. The report 
naturally emphasizes scientific and technological challenges. How- 
ever, we are critically aware of numerous legal, social, and economic 
problems posed by the proposed redirection and expansion of our 
eif orts in the ocean. 

Work in interdisciplinary areas would be facilitated by tlie estab- 
lishment of Marine Study Centers, whose role would be not only to 
foster studies on applications of science and technology to the sea, but 
also to relate them to underlying natural sciences and to social sci- 
ences — economics, sociology, psychology, politics, and law — as they 
are affected by and in turn affect occupation and exploitation of the 

We visualize Marine Study Centers as centers of advanced study, 
not as degree-granting departments. We recommend a Federal grant 
program for developing this capability in institutions already deeply 
involved in marine-science study. 


10.0. Federal Organization and Program 


Federal involvement in marine science, oldest of the Federal Gov- 
ernment's scientific pursuits, began with the Coast Survey's found- 
ing in 1807 to meet the needs of the Nation's navigators. Over the 
years other agencies manifested need for knowledge of the sea, but 
federally sponsored marine-science programs did not gain momentum 
until 1956. At that time a group of Government oceanographers, 
stimulated by advances realized under Navy sponsorship dating from 
World War II and impressed by opportunities the imminent Inter- 
national Geophysical Year presented, initiated activities which pro- 
duced today's greatly expanded program.^ 

A major report on the national importance of knowledge of the 
seas with a recommended program for its pursuit was produced in 
1959, under a Government contract, by the National Academy of 
Sciences Committee on Oceanography. This report, a prototype of 
many which have subsequently appeared, motivated increased Federal 
interest and support for oceanography and also raised serious ques- 
tions in industry and Government about the adequacy of the pro- 
grams planned for exploring and understanding the seas. 

The intensity of present interest within the industrial community 
and in Congress is well illustrated by the lengthy congressional hear- 
ings held in the summer of 1965 regarding some 19 bills submitted 
during the first session of the 89th Congress. These and subsequent 
bills reflect a widespread impression that the Nation's marine interests 
are not being adequately pursued by the executive branch. This is 
commonly attributed to organizational fragmentation of Federal 
responsibility for oceanography and to lack of a sufficiently high- 
level advocate for ocean science and technology. 

The executive branch's position has been that oceanography has 
advanced rapidly in the last 5 years under the leadership of the Fed- 
eral Council for Science and Technology with the coordination pro- 

^ An excellent historical summary is given in the preface of "National Ocean- 
ographic Program," ICO Pamphlet 24, 1966, which is included as app. IV of 
this report. 


vided by its Interagency Committee on Oceanography. The Marine 
Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 incorporates 
the first two approaches. The Act establishes a National Council on 
Marine Resources and Engineering Development, chaired by the Vice 
President and with Cabinet level members. The Council has very 
broad responsibilities to advise and assist tlie President in furthering 
the effective use of the sea. The Act also establishes a Presidential 
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources consist- 
ing of 15 members drawn from "Federal and State governments, 
industry, universities, laboratories, and other institutions engaged in 
marine scientific or technological pursuits." The Commission is 
charged with making a comprehensive investigation of all aspects of 
marine science and submitting a report not later than eighteen 
months after it is established. The Act provides that the Council 
will exist for 120 days after the submission of the Commission's re- 
port. (See app. VI for the entire Act.) 

Three general approaches to the problem liave appeared in the 
Congress : 

1. Establish a presidential commission of distinguished scien- 
tists and laymen outside the Government to study the problem and 
advise the President concerning what should be done. 

2. Establish a council composed of ap])ropriate cabinet mem- 
bers, headed by the Vice President, to develop and coordinate a 
comprehensive "national" program. 

3. Establish a new agency composed of those agencies now en- 
gaged in oceanographic research and development, excluding per- 
haps those within the Navy. This new organization has been 
referred to as a "wet NASA." 


The Panel does not feel that it is the Federal Government's respon- 
sibility to plan or carry out the entire national ocean program. State 
governments, municipalities, private industry, and individuals moti- 
vated by local interests, profit, zest for adventure or curiosity should 
and must be counted on to devise and execute much of the desired 
program. There are, however, four Federal functions necessary to 
assure that the results are in balance and compatible with the national 
interest : 

1. Enunciate national policies Avith regard to furtliering U.S. 
marine interests. 

2. Foster exploration, development and use of oceans and their 
resources through the establishment of appropriate financial, le- 

220-659 O — 66 7 81 

gal, regulatory, enforcement, and advisory institutions and meas- 

3. Describe, predict, and develop capabilities for modifying the 

4. Initiate, support, and encourage programs of education, 
training, and research and provide technical services and facilities 
for relevant activities in science and technology. 

Today, about 20 Federal agencies are concerned with ocean affairs. 
Each plays some role in one or more of the above functions, and all 
four are carried out to some degree at the Federal level. 

It is obvious from a review of present agencies' activities, however, 
that only the last two functions are to any degree well developed and 
coordinated across agency lines. The first two functions, articulating 
national ocean policy and fostering exploration and use of the seas, 
are greatly in need of systematic development and implementation by 
a more centralized authority ; and all four would benefit from it. 


Support of oceanography as broadly defined in the United States is 
shared by a large number of agencies. Table 10.1 lists the contribu- 
tions of various agencies to the National Oceanographic Program as 
defined by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. As has been 
discussed in section 7, the National Oceanographic Program does not 
include all oceanographic activities of the Federal Government ; table 
10.1 does, however, reflect the relative contribution of various agencies 

Table 10.1 — National Ooeanographio Program budget, fiscal year 1965^7 

[In millions] 



fiscal year 



fiscal year 




fiscal year 





National Science Foundation 

Atomic Energy Commission 

Health, Education, and Welfare 


Smithsonian Institution 


























1 9.7 







1 Includes $3.8 million for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which was transferred to 
the Department of the Interior on May 10, 1966. 


to the total program. The large jump between fiscal year 1966 and 
fiscal year 1967 reflects the rapid growth of a new Navy project — ^the 
Deep Submergence Systems Project. 

Table 10.2 presents the ICO breakdown of the National Oceano- 
graphic budget according to various functions. These numbers should 
be taken as a qualitative distribution. For example, our evaluation 
suggests that in fiscal year 1967 basic research in oceanography, exclu- 
sive of ship-operating costs, will total $27.5 million or about 9 percent 
of the total Federal program in oceanography (see sec. 7.2). 

Following is a brief summary of agencies involved in the oceano- 
graphic program, w^ith a short description of mission, level of interest, 
and relevance to the national program. This listing is meant only to 
provide an overview of the agencies' activities. Far more detailed in- 
formation is available in the annual ICO reports on the national pro- 

Table 10.2. — ICO breakdown of the National Oceanographic budget fiscal year 


[In millions] 


fiscal year 



fiscal year, 




fiscal year, 


Research i 


Oceam engineering 

Ship construction 


70. 5 
26. 3 
10. 3 


29. 5 



9. 4 

3. 5 


38. 4 

8. 4 


Data center 

1. 4 


196. 8 


219. 9 

1 Includes International Indian Ocean Expedition and Ocean Sediment Coring Program. 

Department of Defense 

yVavy activities in oceanography are divided between those directed 
toward solving specific Navy problems and those involving a broad 
support of oceanography through Office of Naval Research contracts 
with universities, nonprofit institutions, and industrial laboratories. 
The Navy not only is a major supporter of basic research, but is also 
the principal contributor to survey programs through the U.S. Naval 
Oceanographic Office and to the development of ocean engineering, 
primarily through the Deep Submergence Systems Project. This 

1 The, "National Oceanographic Program, fi.scal year 1967," ICO Pam- 
phlet 24, 1966. 


project is funded at $32.8 million for fiscal year 1967, The Navy thus 
plays a dominant role in the country's oceanographic programs, with 
very heavy emphasis on the development of undersea technology. 
The Panel has recommended continuation of Navy responsibility in 
this area (see sees. 4 and 5 ) . 

ARPA maintains a small program (about $100,000) of seismicity 
study in the ocean and hydroacoustic seismic wave propagation, in 
support of their program for detecting underground nuclear 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supports oceanographic research 
with the intent of improving navigation, flood control, and shore 
restoration and protection. The work is conducted at CERC ( Coastal 
Engineering Research Center) and at a few universities and private 
institutions. Total budget of the Corps of Engineers attributed to 
oceanography by ICO is $2.3 million. 

Department of the Interior 

In 1962 Congress authorized the U.S. Geological Survey to extend 
investigations into the ocean. The principal emphasis in the pro- 
gram has been continental-shelf explorations and a very limited 
mapping program has begun. In the past year, the Geological Survey 
has participated extensively in the JOIDES program and has in fact 
been the major Federal operational participant in this program, 
althought the main financial support comes through NSF. For fiscal 
year 1967 the agency listed $0.9 million. 

The Bureau of Mines is authorized to determine the industrial value 
of marine minerals and to develop techniques for sampling and re- 
covery. In recent years the Bureau's activities and interests in ocean 
resource development have increased, with a proposed fiscal year 1967 
budget of about $200,000, mostly for development of recovery systems, 
although the Bureau has investigations of "representative" problem 
areas vmderway. 

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has, under Federal directive, 
broad responsibilities to conduct investigations on the abundance and 
biological requirements of fish and it also has statutory responsibility 
for management of marine food resources. The bulk of oceanographic 
activities of BCF, about $14.3 million, is classified as research by 
ICO. BCF also conducts limited survey operations and has underway 
a program to develop fisheries technology. 

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife limits its activities 
to research on game fish within 20 miles of shore. According to ICO, 
anglers in this area catch about 11 billion pounds of fish annually, but 
other estimates are much lower (see sec. 2.3), At present ICO states 
that BSFW spends $600,000 in research, largely concerned with life 


histories and studies of game fish relative to their distribution in 
space and time. 

In May 1966, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 

was transferred to the Department of Interior. This agency was 
established originally within the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare under the Water Quality Act of 1965. The oceanographic 
activities of FWPCA are concerned with water supply and pollution 
control. Of a total budget of $3.8 million in fiscal year 1967, $2 
million is designated for research. 

Department of Commerce 

The Environmental Science Services Administration, which m- 
cludes the former Coast and Geodetic Survey and Weather Bureau, in 
fiscal year 1967 requested $11 million to conduct survey operations, 
mostly near our shores. Some money is being spent to improve the 
technology of these surveys. A research program of $2.3 million in- 
cludes support of the sea-air interaction laboratory. 

The Maritime Administration sponsors a $50,000 program to study 
ocean- wave spectra and their effects on ship motions. The purpose of 
the Maritime Administration's program is to understand better the 
nature of the ocean surface and its effect on operation and design of 
merchant ships. 

Department of the Treasury 

Coast Guard oceanographic observations are conducted at four 
stations manned by the Coast Guard — two in the North Atlantic and 
two in the North Pacific. In addition, Coast Guard ice patrol ships 
carry out oceanographic investigations. The Coast Guard oceano- 
graphic budget is about $2.3 million for fiscal year 1967, $65,000 of 
that amount to be used for research. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

The oceanographic work of the Public Health Service supports the 
basic PHS mission, safeguarding the public's health. Of the total of 
$5.6 million in fiscal year 1967 $1.1 million is connected with research on 
shellfish and $2.3 million is for the ISational Institutes of Health which 
supports research programs in marine biology that have biomedical 

In fiscal year 1967 the Office of Education will provide about $300,- 
000 worth of fellowships in oceanography. 

Department of State 

The Department of State supports work conducted by eight inter- 
national fisheries commissions. Two of these, the Tuna and Halibut 


Commissions, support oceanographic fisheries programs. In fiscal 
year 1967 the Stat« Department budgeted about $0.5 million. 

Atomic Energy Commission 

Oceanographic work of the AEC is primarily concerned with prob- 
lems of dispersal of radioactive elements in oceans. This includes 
investigations of biological uptake of radioactive elements, sedimenta- 
tion and chemical interaction, and ocean circulation and mixing. In 
fiscal year 1967 the AEC budgeted $4.6 million for research from a 
total of $13.5 million. 

National Science Foundation 

By means of grants and contracts of $43 million in fiscal year 1967, 
NSF supports basic investigations in biological and physical ocean- 
ography at universities and research institutions. Fiscal year 1967 
programs involve $6.7 million for biological oceanography, $8.0 mil- 
lion for physical oceanography and $2.3 million for Arctic and Ant- 
arctic programs. The ocean-sediments coring program is listed for 
$1.3 million and MOHOLE for $19.7 million. 

Smithsonian Institution 

The Smithsonian Institution carries out investigations on marine 
populations and distribution of organisms with emphasis on system- 
atics, and on sediments in the ocean. The total program for fiscal 
year 1967 is $1.6 million. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASA has no program in oceanography listed in the reports of ICO. 
NASA has sponsored conferences on uses of satellites in ocean- 
ography and may be expected in the future to have substantial ocean- 
ographic interests. The agency obligated $900,000 in fiscal year 1966 
for a feasibility study of oceanography from space with the Navy 
acting as agent. 

Role of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography 

The Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Coun- 
cil for Science and Technology has been charged with the task of 
developing each year a "national oceanographic program." It was to 
do this by reviewing current activities and planned programs of in- 
dividual agencies, engaging in coordinative budget planning and con- 
sidering special problems that arise in implementing the national pro- 
gram, recommending solutions thereto. In fact one of the initial aims 
and goals of ICO was to introduce into a federally sponsored program 
more facilities, ships and manpower to provide a broad base on which 


to build scientific and technical aspects of national programs. As 
has been discussed earlier in the report (see sec. 8), ICO was re- 
markably successful in meeting these objectives. 

Examining the relationships between agencies and ICO, the Panel 
came to the conclusion that ICO can serve effectively in the role of 
transmitting information among various agencies and providing help 
on questions of policy coordination and detailed technical planning, 
involving the several agencies. For example ICO has been fairly 
successful in coordinating and disseminating information on ship 
schedules, but it has been unable to carry out detailed technical plan- 
ning for major programs such as the proposed stepwise buoy pro- 
gram (see app. II) . 

Furthermore, ICO has been unable to develop new missions tran- 
scending the limited missions of individual, participating agencies. As 
a result there is no National Oceanographic Program in the sense 
of the whole being greater than the sum of individual parts defined 
by existing agency missions. A minor exception is the Sea-Air Inter- 
action Laboratory, which is yet to develop. In the Panel's view the 
biggest deficiency has been the failure to define a national goal for 
development of biological resources beyond the rather narrow concept 
of commercial and sport fisheries (see sec. 2). The Panel does not 
believe the ICO could undertake the Federal function of setting na- 
tional policy. 

Role of External Advisory Groups 

The present program in oceanography has been heavily influenced 
by reports of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Acad- 
emy of Sciences- National Research Council. The Academy's Commit- 
tee on Oceanography resulted from the feeling of an informal commit- 
tee of marine scientists within the Government that oceanography 
needed support. The Academy's committee has since served as a lead- 
ing advocate for oceanography. However, it should be recognized that 
an outside group cannot really change national policy when it involves 
more than the current missions of agencies. 


If one examines present agency activities against the four govern- 
mental functions defined in section 10.2 quite clearly the Government 
is doing very well in meeting its responsibilities in supporting pro- 
grams of research and education. NSF and ONR have developed 
strong suppor-t for academic activities in oceanography, although these 
need to be broadened beyond oceanographic institutions (see sees. 4.11, 
5.4, 9). On the whole the Panel believes that both NSF and ONR 
have discharged their duties well. Beyond the provision of ships, lab- 


oratories, and the National Oceanographic Data Center, the Federal 
Government has done little to provide technical services and facilities. 
We see an increased need for such facilities, and we expect the Navy 
to play a much more important role in the future than it has in the 

Some progress in describing the environment has been made, but 
our abilities to predict are still minimal (see sec. 6). Responsibilities 
for description and prediction are scattered throughout the agencies. 
The Navy supports a large survey program, as does ESSA, while 
smaller survey programs are found within Bureau of Commercial 
Fisheries, Geological Survey, and Coast Guard. The Navy, Coast 
Guard, and ESSA are all involved in the prediction problem, but 
the techniques remain primitive and do not reflect substantial advances 
in theoretical oceanography. 

Fostering development of biological resources of the ocean is the 
responsibility of BCF, while the Bureau of Mines, and Geological 
Survey have statutory responsibilities regarding mineral resources. 

No single agency has prime responsibility for developing and advo- 
cating national policy, although each agency on occasion develops pro- 
grams of oceanography which further the particular agency's mission. 

We could recommend continuation of the present organizational 
framework with words of caution regarding the importance of coordi- 
nated efforts. We do not believe this to be the wise course. For 
example one of our major recommendations is to develop the tech- 
nology for improved use of marine food resources. Such activity 
naturally falls into the domain of BCF. A cursory examination of 
the required program, however, reveals that it would depend very 
heavily on physical oceanography. For example, thorough studies 
of upwelling and turbulent fluxes are required for proper implementa- 
tion of certain phases of the program. Prediction of the environment 
is important. Would this mean that BCF should develop its own 
capabilities in physical oceanography, turn to ESSA or engage the 

ESSA is primarily charged with development of prediction tech- 
niques for furtherance of commerce. Its rightful emphasis is on pre- 
diction of storms and research undertaken within the agency has 
little to do with problems of improving marine food technology. 
BCF could seek help from universities or industrial concerns, but 
again this would duplicate efforts of other environmental agencies. 
This brief example illustrates some of the problems the Panel foresees 
in implementation of its major recommendations within the present 
administrative structure. 

The Panel recommends a major reorganization of non-Navy govern- 
mental activities in oceanography. The recommended reorganization 
would place in a single agency all those Federal activities related to 


description^ prediction^ and attempts to develop capabilities of modify- 
ing the environment (ocean, atmosphere, and solid earth) and those 
activities concerned with managing and developing resources of the 
ocean. The proposed reorganization emphasizes the unity of environ- 
mental science and observational technology.- This unity is one of the 
themes of this report and has been discussed at length in sections 2, 3, 4, 
6, and 9. For example, progress in description and prediction of the 
ocean enviromnent can be made only with recognition that the ocean 
and atmosphere form a coupled system^ each affecting the other in 
important ways. 

The second basic motivation for reorganization is the fact that the 
ability to work within the oceans, to develop the oceans' resources and 
to use the oceans depends very heavily on our proficiency in describ- 
ing and predicting the environment. Exploration of mineral resources 
on the Continental Shelf requires the ability to work not only along the 
sea bottom, but in the water column above as well. Prediction of sea- 
bottom conditions and conditions in the water column will be as im- 
portant in the next 20 years as the prediction of weather and wave 
heights at the surface. 

In summary the reasons for the proposed reorganization are : 

1. Unity of environmental sciences and observational tech- 

2. Dependence of oceanic development for industry and com- 
merce on our ability to predict the environment. 

3. Clearly establishing responsibilities for executing national 
objectives and nondefense missions for the oceans. 

In broad outline the reorganization would combine activities of the 
Environmental Science Services Administration, the Geological Sur- 
vey (both its land and ocean activities), oceanographic activities of 
the Bureaus of Commercial Fisheries and Mines, and a portion of the 
Coast Guard's oceanographic activities. Such grouping would pro- 
vide an agency competent to deal with the four functions of govern- 
ment listed in section 1. The Panel does not make any recommenda- 
tions as to whether the new agency should be independent or part of an 
existing agency. 

With the creation of a new agency oceanographic activities of the 
Nation would be supported in five ways : 

1. By the NSF in its traditional role in support of fundamental 
studies through grants and fellowships with special emphasis on 
aspects that contribute to manpower education for ocean science 
and technology. 

^ See ai>i>. V for a note on the testimony of J. W. Powell who recognized the 
same unity and recommended roughly the same reorganization to Congress in 


2. By the new agency in carrying out its responsibility for man- 
agement of the environment and ocean resources and for pro- 
viding description and prediction services through a balanced 
program of direct participation and supj>ort of industry and 

3. By the Navy in carrying out its mission of national security 
through its laboratories and industry and through ONR support 
of civilian institutions, as well as by its supporting role in the de- 
velopment of undersea technology and provision of national test 

4. By agencies such as AEC and HEW in carrying out their 

5. By the Smithsonian Institution in fulfilling its unique ob- 
ligation to systematic biology. 

In summary the proposed new agency would be an operating agency 
whose mission is to provide for effective use of the sea by man for all 
purposes to which we now put the terrestrial environment. The 
agency's responsibilities would be broader than just the quest of new 
knowledge and understanding. In addition, in the provision of pre- 
diction and description services the agency would be responsible for 
the atmospheric and solid-earth environment. 

The creation of a mission-oriented agency with major responsibili- 
ties for ocean development of science and technology does not by 
itself provide a clear mechanism for coordination, planning, and 
budgeting. Several agencies, the Navy and NSF in particular, will 
continue to have major responsibilities in ocean-oriented activities. 
The need for information interchange and dissemination now dis- 
charged by ICO will continue and we recoTrymend formation of an 
interagency group under the Federal Council for Science and Tech- 
nology to provide services now rendered by ICO and the Interagency 
Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. This group should also have 
responsibilities for information interchange involving the solid-earth 
sciences. This group would thus link the activities within the new 
agency with those in other agencies for all the environmental sciences. 

Budget allocations between the new agency, NSF, and the Navy 
would be on a competitive basis, recognizing the mission responsibili- 
ties of the new agency and the Navy. The Federal Council, the 
Bureau of the Budget, and Congress would all participate in the 
budgeting process. Though the proposed agency does not solve all 
problems of budgeting, it does provide a centralized authority with 
major mission responsibility for the oceans. 

The proposed reorganization will create a multitude of political and 
social problems. However, at present a unique opportunity exists to 
develop an organization capable of assuming major responsibility 


for the national goal of the effective use of the sea by man. Achieving 
this capability will be worth the problems, 


In several sections of this report Panel recommendations envisage 
action in the oceans which might involve political and legal problems 
arising either from the present structure of the international law of the 
sea or from demands for changes in that law. The frequency and 
gravity of possible legal problems are now difficult to project, since 
much depends upon the type, scope, and timing of ocean operations 
which may be undertaken in the future by this and other countries and 
upon attitudes and practices of other nations. However, there is 
realism in present concern about these possibilities, because the existing 
international legal structure was largely developed under conditions 
that differ greatly from those likely to prevail in the foreseeable future. 
The task of adapting this legal structure to rapidly changing condi- 
tions can quite conceivably generate stress in relations between nations 
in the form of lively, perhaps dangerous controversy. The strategic 
significance of the ocean environment and the urgent need for acquir- 
ing greater knowledge of it, emphasized throughout this report, com- 
bine to warrant apprehension lest developments in international law 
adversely affect the national interest. It is partially for these reasons 
that the Panel recommends Federal support of Marine Study Centers. 

Relevancy of law to the national ocean program may be illustrated 
by discussing one of the Panel's major recommendations^ as well as 
certain of the more specific subsidiary recommendations, from the 
standpoint of legal considerations involved. 

(1) The need for greater knowledge about and understanding of 
the oceans. 

Although the Panel recommends pursuing scientific investigation 
for describing and understanding marine phenomena, processes and 
resources (see sec. 1.1) as a separate goal of the national ocean pro- 
gram, it is apparent that increased knowledge and greater understand- 
ing are fundamental to achievement of all our objectives in use of the 
oceans. Therefore, significant interference with scientific research 
from the existing or future legal regime of the sea could pose serious 
obstacles to the entire national ocean program. That there is occasion 
for concern about this matter is plain. As this report amply demon- 
strates, for purposes of scientific inquiry, observation, and detailed in- 
vestigation throughout the area and volume of the vast oceans are re- 
quired, including the benthic boundary. But for purposes of political 
authority the oceans are now fragmented into parts, sometimes only 
vaguely defined, some of which are not accessible for scientific re- 
search. Thus, the territorial sea and internal waters of various na- 
tions with limits varying from nation to nation and measured by 


variously determined base lines, are wholly removed from investiga- 
tion of any kind without prior consent of the nation within whose 
territory the waters are located. In somewhat similar fashion cer- 
tain inquiries of a purely scientific nature (such as geologic surveys, 
benthic boundary studies and certain biological investigations recom- 
mended by the Panel) cannot be undertaken on the Continental Shelf 
without obtaining consent from adjacent nations. It should be empha- 
sized in this connection that the seaward limit of the Continental Shelf 
is but vaguely defined, according to the presently applicable law, and 
possibly may be expandable to embrace extremely large regions of the 
ocean floor. Moreover, if in the future nations are permitted to ac- 
quire exclusive use of fishery resources in greatly enlarged ocean areas, 
such as claiming all fishery resources in waters above the Continental 
Shelf or by some other comparably extensive method, the task of ob- 
taining biological and ecological knowledge of important seafood 
resources could be frustrated entirely or at least severely handicapped. 
Neither these resources, nor their proper study can be compartmental- 
ized within artificially determined ocean boundaries if the informa- 
tion necessary for devising wise programs of control and manage- 
ment for international benefit is to be acquired. 

Since effective implementation of the national ocean program 
requires increased understanding of the sea, there is definite need both 
for continued study of effects on scientific research of extending various 
types of national boundaries into the oceans and for assuring that this 
vital aspect of the national interest receives appropriate protection. 
(2) Control and management of marine food resources (see sec. 2). 
The Panel noted that for foreign policy reasons development and 
improvement of technological capabilities of the United States for 
marine food exploitation deserve high priority in the national ocean 
program and that other countries have already taken the lead in this 
aspect of ocean exploitation. The increasing need in many parts of 
the world for sources of protein coupled with the presence of signifi- 
cant amounts of protein food in the oceans appears likely to increase 
international competition and to emphasize the importance of control 
and management of these resources. The present system of legal regu- 
lation of these international resources, mider which fishery resources of 
the high seas are open to exploitation to everyone without restriction, 
is widely regarded as inadequate in light of anticipated demands. 
Among the major problems to be expected in attempting to create effi- 
cient and equitable schemes for control and management are continued 
efforts at expansion of territorial sovereignty into the oceans, either 
by enlarging the territorial sea or perhaps by attempting to acquire 
domination over rich fishery areas that are not contiguous to any nation 
and to secure vast extensions of coastal national control specifically for 
the purpose of gaining exclusive access to fisheries in zones contiguous 


to the demanding nation. If, as seems desirable, international agree- 
ment is to be the principal mode for regulating these resources and for 
providing the necessary control and management, major problems 
may be expected in reaching an international consensus about appro- 
priate limits on exploitation, methods for limiting exploitation and 
allocation or sharing of permissible yields. It is possible that entirely 
new international institutions and procedures must be created if 
optimum use of these international resources is to be realized. The 
Panel believes that intensive multidisciplinary study is needed of 
relevant factors which are likely to be encountered in the course of 
these developments. 

(3) Employment of bottom-mounted installations and equipment 
(seesecs. 4, 5). 

Implementation of the national ocean program envisaged by the 
Panel requires use of the ocean bottom for positioning instrumenta- 
tion and equipment for a variety of purposes, including emplacement 
of laboratories and test stations. Potential international legal prob- 
lems involved in these operations appear to depend on precise locations 
employed, various characteristics of the equipment or installation and 
the specific assertion of national authority demanded over the area 
concerned. If equipment or installations (manned or unmanned) 
are to be emplaced within the ocean territory of other nations, includ- 
ing in this context the Continental Shelf, problems of the type already 
discussed under ( 1 ) above may be expected, as well as others. 

The precise scope of the adjacent nation's authority over activities 
by other nations on its Continental Shelf, which is described in the 
Continental Shelf Convention as "sovereignty" for certain purposes, 
is not yet fully delineated, but it extends at least to certain kinds of 
scientific research. In addition it is conceivable that these ocean- 
floor activities, whether undertaken on a foreign Continental Shelf 
or on that contiguous to the United States, entail interference or con- 
flict with other kinds of activities in the same area, depending on 
characteristics of the equipment or installation on the bottom and the 
nature of the area's other uses. Even for otherwise permissible under- 
sea operations there might be a need, therefore, for specific efforts at 
accommodation with other activities. It should be noted again, for 
emphasis in this context, that the region of "Continental Shelf" within 
the authority of the adjacent nation has not yet been determined 
finally, and the possibility exists that under the current vague defini- 
tion of the continental shelf enormous expanses of the ocean bottom 
may come to be regarded as subject to certain controls by a particular 

Difficult questions are also involved if emplacement of equipment 
or a manned installation, such as a laboratory or test station, in high- 


sea regions beyond the Continental Shelf of any nation entails also 
the claim to some degree of exclusive use of the area, perhaps amount- 
ing to temporary or permanent acquisition of the area as part of na- 
tional territory. In connection with Man in the Sea operations the 
interest of national security may make it necessary or strategically de- 
sirable to occupy areas of the ocean for extended periods (see sec. 4). 
Contemporary conceptions of the international law of the sea evolved 
before it was technologically feasible to occupy areas of the ocean 
floor for extended periods, hence it appears that the legal consequences 
of such uses of the ocean floor require consideration of applicable 
principles of law and desirable adaptation of these principles to antic- 
ipated conditions. 

(4) Buoys. 

The Panel reconiTnends a well-planned system of employment of 
buoys as an important method of implementing the national ocean 
program (see sec. 6, app. II). Numerous legal problems may be en- 
countered as the system is developed and expanded, including issues 
about {a) access to various parts of the oceans subject to differing legal 
regimes; (b) principles to be employed in determining liability for 
damage, deliberate and inadvertent, to the buoys and to vessels; (c) 
prescriptions for theft protection of the buoy system and the data it 
contains; and {d) principles for allocating jurisdiction to adjudicate 
disputes involving the above issues. 

(5) Development of new materials in the ocean (see sees. 4, 7, app. 

The present need for substantial government investment in develop- 
ment of raw materials in the oceans is questionable, because reliance 
can be placed upon market forces and upon private experience in 
appraising the economic attractiveness of these ventures. Neverthe- 
less, there appears to be an obvious governmental role in providing a 
legal framework within which development can take place if and when 
it appears desirable. To the extent that absence of the protection 
afforded by such a framework deters initiative by indsutry in develop- 
ing the hard-mineral resources of the ocean, for example, only govern- 
ment initiative can provide a remedy. Even if economic considera- 
tions are not now favorable for expansion of hard-mineral exploita- 
tion to deep-sea areas, the possibility of improvement in circumstances 
due to technological breakthrough, emergence of different market con- 
ditions and changes in political relations warrant study and continued 
appraisal of the situation in anticipation of eventual government ac- 
tion to provide a satisfactory legal basis for effective exploration and 



Current American oceanographic ships are for the most part oper- 
ated by oceanographic laboratories through grant and contract funds 
from the Federal Government. This mode of operation developed 
during the 1930's when Woods Hole, Scripps, and some biological 
laboratories each operated a single ship in coastal and nearby oceanic 
waters. This method of operation made good sense, because almost all 
oceanographers were at these few laboratories ; ships were inexpensive 
to operate; and scientists and crews were partially interchangeable, 
especially on sailing ships. This mode of operation has continued even 
though oceanography has changed rapidly. At present ships cost at 
least 10 times what they did in the 1930's. Crews and scientists have 
far more specialized abilities and are rarely interchangeable. An 
increasing number of oceanographers are not members of major ocean- 
ographic laboratories and have corresponding difficulties in obtaining 
time on ships. Finally, the MOHOLE platform, drilling ships and 
the Antarctic research ship, Eltan'm^ among others, are operated as 
national facilities because they are too expensive for individual labo- 
ratories. We believe that the funding, scheduling and operations of 
most oceanographic ships should be revised in order to make them 
more economical and effective and to broaden opportunities for all 
American scientists and engineers to use federally owned and sup- 
ported ships, reducing the burden on oceanographic laboratories of 
maintaining large marine facilities. 

In the past the system of ship operations was flexible and respon- 
sive to scientific objectives. This may be attributed to the fact that 
ships were scheduled by scientists and were under the operational con- 
trol of scientists. These virtues must be preserved and some radical 
action may be necessary at this time to do so. Ships are already being 
scheduled more than 2 years in advance; this is hardly flexibility. 
Large ships are used to test lightweight gear near ports because labora- 
tories have only one ship, and it is large ; this is hardly responsiveness. 

Keasons for changes in ship funding are almost self-evident. At 
present the operating cost of a ship is met by a conglomeration of 
grants and contracts. The daily cost is commonly determined retro- 
actively by dividing the annual cost by the number of operating days. 
Thus, an unpopular, small ship may cost more per day than a popular, 
big one. This mode of funding came to a crisis in fiscal year 1966 
when many new sliips had been built, and insufficient funds to operate 
them had been requested by the supporting agencies. The problem 
has not yet been solved. This mode of operation may be contrasted 
with the method used by the Navy to keep books on ships provided 
for its own laboratories. Before a ship is built, the Navy makes an 


operation commitment for its expected life. Operating expenses are 
then funded separately from the cost of, for example, oceanography 
for which the ship is used. The same comprehensive budgeting sys- 
tem should be used for oceanographic ships. Funding need not be 
through a single agency at this time. The Navy should agree to sup- 
port some ships by block-funding. Others could be funded as they are 
now by the National Science Foundation, and we recommend support 
by a line item in the budget of the new environmental agency which is 
recommended in this section. 

Central block-funding will permit effective planning on use of 
oceanographic ships. It will not, however, solve the problem of 
equitable distribution of ship time to all qualified scientists regardless 
of affiliations nor eliminate the problem of ship operations at small 
oceanographic laboratories. These problems should be dealt with by 
formation of ship-user groups with joint responsibilities and pri- 
vileges. Such user groups already exist on an informal basis, because 
the larger oceanographic laboratories tend to regard themselves as na- 
tional facilities. Occasionally these laboratories have assigned ship 
time to scientists from other institutions simply because they had good 
projects and had no other way to get a ship. Some laboratories have 
even shown willingness to form user groups with neighboring uni- 
versities and assign equal priority to all applications for ship time 
from group members. Thus, there is every indication that laboratories 
are willing to share ship time, yet numerous scientists from nonoceano- 
graphic institutions cannot go to sea. This seems to reflect inadequate 
communication and indicates the need for a more formal organiza- 
tion of potential ship users. 

The problems of small laboratories with excess ship capacity of some 
types and not enough capacity of others can also be solved by forming 
user groups. A small laboratory has difficulty in using a single, 
usually large, ship effectively. On the other hand, several laboratories 
and a group of associated universities would form an efficient user 
group. The group could perhaps consolidate ship-support operations 
at one large shore facility, thereby reducing costs. The group would 
also have several ships of different sizes and capabilities and could 
assign the most effective one for a particular project. 

Therefore, we recommend that in general oceanographic ships be 
grouped into reasonable sized, regional fleets; perhaps three or four 
(fleets) would serve the Nation's needs. The fleets should be assigned 
to independent, regional organizations representing user groups of 
oceanographic laboratories and universities. The organizations should 
be comparable to the user groups which exist in high energy physics. 
Every effort should be made to include in the user group those institu- 
tions which at present do not have formal activity in ocean science 
and technology. 


Assignment of operating responsibility for a regional fleet to an 
oceanographic institution will increase an already heavy bureaucracy 
at these institutions. It is important that this administrative appara- 
tus not be allowed to overwhelm the research and educational efforts 
of the institution. Concern with the bureaucracy has prompted this 
suggestion to establish indepedent user groups. 

Fleets could be based in one place or dispersed, depending on avail- 
able operating facilities. User groups may be built around single, large 
oceanographic laboratories or a cluster of small ones. Rigid guide- 
lines or fonnulas for formation of user groups should not be estab- 
lished if they can be avoided. However, formal organizations will be 
necessary to increase flexibility and, perhaps, economy in oceano- 
graphic operations and to give all qualified scientists equal access to 
ships supported by the Federal Government. 

The essential characteristic of ship operations must be responsive- 
ness to scientific aims. The ship must be under the complete control 
of the chief scientist in all matters that do not affect its safety or inter- 
nal workings of the crew. This requires a great deal of understanding 
among scientists, crew, officers, and senior scientists in particular. We 
propose that this understanding be achieved by education. All officers 
of oceanographic ships should have training in oceanography in order 
to understand the scientists' objectives. This might be done by corre- 
spondence courses in part, but a 1-year program leading to an M.S. 
in oceanography would be far preferable. The Coast Guard and Navy, 
for example, already have farsighted programs of graduate training 
in oceanography for their officers. The training could be accomplished 
when officers are rotated to shore. On the other hand, no one should 
be designated chief scientist on a ship who is not familiar with officers' 
problems concerning privileges of the crew, safety at sea required by 
law, and similar matters. A seminar course for scientists with partici- 
pation by officers might provide an ideal solution, although training 
for junior scientists could be given at sea during expeditions. 


In sections 4 and 6 certain national facilities such as test ranges re- 
quired for proper advance of ocean science and technology have been 
considered. In this section we propose additional facilities for ma- 
rine studies. 

National Oceanographic Data Center 

The National Oceanographic Data Center was established to ac- 
quire, process, store, and disseminate oceanographic data for scientific, 
commercial, and military purposes from virtually all sources in the 
United States and from many foreign sources. NODC pursues its ob- 
jectives through four branches: preparation, processing, quality con- 

220-659 O- 


trol, and information. The Center is funded through contributions of 
various agencies. 

Despite determined efforts of the NODC staff, quite clearly the Cen- 
ter falls far short in meeting demands of users. Furthermore, a study 
is needed to determine means for improving exisitng services and for 
broadening and extending the scope and versatility of services in re- 
sponse to a wide spectrum of user requests. 

The Center's importance will increase as both federally and pri- 
vately sponsored activities in the ocean increase. Services of NODC 
need upgrading very badly, and this will require a substantial increase 
in funding, which is at present $1.4 million. The Panel recomine7\ds 
that the National Oceanographic Data Center be placed within the 
new agency recommended previously. Furthermore, to properly carry 
out its function as the country's chief supplier of oceanographic data, 
the Center should develop capability for research in problems of data 
analysis and information retrieval. All this implies a substantial in- 
crease in funding. 

Laboratories and FacUities for Specialized Marine Studies 

Experimental and long-term studies on marine communities and 
organisms and on man's ability to remain beneath the surface of the 
sea will require new types of specialized facilities. Once created, these 
facilities will make possible unique experimental approaches in these 
major research areas. They will be high in cost and special in nature. 
They should be administered so as to permit their use by investigators 
from many institutions, thus assuring full use over long periods of 
time. They should be appropriately located, whenever possible, near 
universities or other scientific centers for the contributions that such 
centers can make. 

Advances in both science and technology in several major areas 
of oceanography are presently hampered by lack of suitable facilities. 
In section 6 certain facilities required for development of physical 
oceanography (buoy systems, deep-sea instrumentation) were dis- 
cussed. In section 4 a facility of value to a wide range of technologi- 
cal efforts was considered. This section is concerned with facilities 
of importance to two areas of marine biology : 

1. Direct observational, experimental study of deep sea orga- 

2. Basic applied studies required to permit man to remain 
beneath the sea surface for long periods of time. 

Five categories of facilities of specialized types are required and 
recoTmnended for work in these two areas : 

1. One or more medium-sized surface vessels suitably equipped 
for capture, maintenance, observation, and experimental study 
of deep sea organisms. Medium-sized vessels will be suitable for 


most studies if careful choices of working areas are made. Calm 
surface conditions over most of the year are present over deep 
waters close to shore on the lee sides of many oceanic islands (the 
Channel Islands off southern California, Hawaiian Island, Tongue 
of the Ocean in the Bahamas, Galapagos) . Sizeable populations 
of deep sea organisms occur in these waters. 

2. Several undersea vehicles of varying depth and range cap- 
abilities, suitably equiped for the observation, capture, transport 
and experimental treatment of deep sea organisms. 

3. One major shore facility for maintenance, observation and 
experimental study of deep sea organisms. This facility should 
be located as convenient to deep water as possible. It might 
serve as a base of operations for a ship of the type listed above. 
Equipment in this facility should be compatible with that used 
on shipboard, to allow transfer of organisms without temperature, 
pressure, or light shocks. Shore equipment should include 
aquaria instrumented to produce controlled temperatures, pres- 
sures, and light intensities. 

4. One major shore facility fully equipped for the range of 
basic studies required by Man in the Sea (see sec. 4.11). This 
facility should be associated with a university medical research 

5. Several fully instrumented, movable submersible laboratories 
for basic studies of man living beneath the sea surface for ex- 
tended periods of time. Full logistic and manpower support for 
these laboratories should be provided. The Navy's jorogram in 
this direction should continue to be encouraged, with adequate 
opportunities for nonmilitary, basic studies carried out by other 

In marine biology as in physical oceanography, the Panel does not 
foresee the need for any additional large, multiocean survey vessels. 
This view reflects the belief, documented throughout this report, that 
oceanographic research is progressing into a new era in which em- 
phasis should shift from broad surveys to oriented efforts. 

Development of biological resources of the sea requires study of the 
Arctic, Antarctic, tropical, and temperate waters. Each of these envi- 
ronments supports characteristic biological communities and organ- 
isms living under special conditions. In order to study these commu- 
nities and their component organisms experimentally and to learn 
their potential usefulness, special laboratories are required to serve 
as centers for their subject regions and to permit simulation of certain 
major, environmental conditions of these regions. The United States 
presently has no suitably equipped laboratories of these types. Seri- 
ous attention should be given to tlie establishment of the following 


1. Arctic Marine Laboratory with controlled environmental facili- 
ties for the maintenance and study of communities and organisms of 
Arctic waters, including studies of subf reezing temperatures. Its loca- 
tion should be adjacent to northern waters to permit direct support 
of field studies of Arctic marine environments as well as laboratory 

2. Tropical Marine Laboratory with controlled environmental fa- 
cilities for maintenance and study of communities and organisms of 
tropical regions. Its location should be tropical to permit support of 
field studies of tropical marine environments as well as laboratory 

3. Temperate Zone Marine Laboratory with controlled environ- 
mental facilities for maintenance and study of communities and or- 
ganisms of the temperate seas, especially those of the open oceans, 
including food fishes. Its location should be readily accessible to the 
open sea to permit direct support of field studies as well as laboratory 

Supply of Marine Organisms. Important advances in biology and 
medicine often result from discovery of an experimental organism 
ideally suited for exploration of the biological system being studied. 
In fact, so often do we see a correlation between breakthrough and 
experimental organism that we suspect the ready availability of ex- 
ploitable biological systems may provide the key to rapid expansion in 
many biological disciplines (see sec. 6.4). 

No center currently exists from which living marine organisms 
can be obtained in good supply, although there are already centers 
where stocks of certain biological materials can be acquired. A na- 
tional center for distribution of marine animals should be established. 
Such a center, however, should be developed around certain prerequi- 
sites. It must, for example, be located near major air transport facil- 
ities. The center should also enable culture and supply of animals 
in a synthetic medium which can be controlled and which is repro- 
ducible. The center should have a good collecting staif, and it should 
be physically able to obtain, hold, and supply organisms which are 
seasonal in occurrence and which do not occur in the immediate 
area. The center may eventually but will probably never reach a 
self-supporting status; therefore, continuing Federal support will 
probably be required. 

The National Fishery Center and Aquarium appears to be the 
agency which could best perform this service, and we recommend 
that funding be provided to operate and construct such a facility. The 
center would serve as an information clearinghouse concerning avail- 
ability of marine organisms which it would not routinely attempt to 


This important function, when added to the already recognized edu- 
cation-research function, could serve to make the National Fishery 
Center and Aquarium an indispensable and important part of the Na- 
tion's research in marine and other fields of biology. 


11.0. Priorities 

The Panel has not attempted to offer a detailed blueprint of the 
national program for the oceans but believes it is essential to recognize 
a long-term goal which has been identified as the effective use of the 
sea (sec, 1.1). The Panel has examined opportunities in technology, 
science, education, and management vital to attainmg this goal. 


The Panel assigns highest priority to those efforts in oceanography 
that deal with national security. The problems outlined in section 5 
clearly indicate need for developing the capability of operating any- 
where in the oceans, either by manned or unmanned vehicles, at any 
time. We are a long way from achieving this capability. The 
Navy should continue to be the lead agency for that part which per- 
tains to national security. 

The Navy in its Deep Submergence Systems Project is making an 
intensive effort at achieving part of this capability. We give this 
program a high priority, and we feel it should be expanded, including 
extramural consultation and participation. The requirements for 
achieving the capability include : 

1. Development of large working volumes at atmospheric pres- 

2. Development of tools, manipulators, and semi-remote-control 
power tools and support structures. 

3. Development of small underwater systems having power- 
plants in the 10- to 100-kw. range, which will require a greater 
emphasis on fuel-cell power systems than the Navy has so far 

4. Knowledge about the long-term effects of high pressures 
on man (see sec. 4.11). 

In terms of national security we feel high priority should be given 
to studies of the benthic boundary, since weapon systems of the future 
may be deployed on the ocean floor, and to basic studies of weather 
in the oceans at all scales. These studies are needed for construction 


and operation of undersea structures and are critical to the ASW 

We reccyiniivend that the Navy continue and expand its support of 
basic research through ONR. It has made highly successful con- 
tributions through research and education in the past, and we expect 
it to continue to do so in the future. 

In the civilian sector the Panel gives highest priority to two related 
problem areas : Development of food resources and development of 
capability for environmental prediction. 

The economic analysis in section 7 suggests tliat greatest economic 
returns can be expected from progress in environmental prediction 
and control. For the oceans the field is still in the research stage, al- 
though sound conditions can be predicted to a limited degree in con- 
nection with ASW problems. The buoy programs discussed in section 
4.9 and appendix II are given hig^h priority by the Panel. Tliis is 
based on scientific interest and on environmental-prediction need as 
emphasized in sections 6.1, 6,2, and 6.3. Buoys and related instrument 
development will provide essential data regarding weather in the 
oceans and the nature of the ocean-atmosphere interaction. 

While development of food resources does not rate high on an eco- 
nomic basis, viewed strictly in domestic terms, it can contribute m a 
very major way to the Nation's international position (see sees. 2, 7.2, 
and 10,5). 

The Panel assigns a very high priority to development of coastal 
regions for recreation and commerce ; these functions will be possible 
only if the quality of the near-ocean environment is maintained and 
improved. The problems here are unusually complex, since they in- 
\ olve badly understood science, engineering with a high failure rate 
and a variety of legal and social problems. The Panel believes that 
standards of coastal engineering can be raised only by active participa- 
tion of university groups. There is need to enhance research at CERC 
as well as at other laboratories. 

The Panel gives low priority to continuing hydrographic surveys 
in their present form. Methods employed are outmoded, slow and are 
not responsive to user requirements. We believe that high priority 
should be assigned to development of survey technology as discussed 
in section 4,6. 

In the area of management the Panel believes the present administra- 
tion of the Federal program is unacceptable, and major revisions are 
required if the country is to progress toward the goal of effective use 
of the sea. The Panel has outlined in sectitm 10.4 one possible reorga- 
nization scheme. Tliis scheme appears logical to the Panel in view of 
the close interdependence of environmental sciences, resource develop- 
ment, use of the ocean and environmental description, and prediction. 
Because the proposed reorganization may create severe political prob- 


lems, the Panel wishes its major recommendations to stand apart from 
those regarding reorganization. However, the Panel assigns a very 
high priority to questions about present administration of the Nation's 
ocean program. 

In the field of education the Panel assigns highest priority to devel- 
oping means by which scientists from a wide variety of fields and insti- 
tutions can be brought into research in the oceans. It is important to 
develop cooperative arrangements between universities throughout the 
country with oceanographic facilities. 

In particular the Panel views its recommendations with regard 
to ship provision (see sec. 10.6) as a major step in furthering the 
goal of effective use of the sea. The heavy overburden of bureaucracy 
associated with ship management deadens the intellectual life of lab- 
oratories and should be lessened. Our solution is to provide block- 
funding for the ships and organize the ships into regional operating 
fleets under "user group" management. 


It is difficult in dealing with such complex subjects as oceanography 
to list priorities within the subject. Even more difficult is the task 
of comparing oceanography with other fields of science and tech- 
nology, although this kind of comparison is essential in developing 
a total national plan. 

Oceanography in the nondefense agencies is characterized by the 
fact that the percentage of total budget devoted to research and de- 
velopment is high ; the percentage devoted to basic research is similar- 
ly high. In terms of total expenditures for the national oceanographic 
program, basic research makes up about 10 percent ; whereas in other 
fields of science and technology the percentage devoted to basic re- 
search is 10 percent of research and development, rather than of the 
total program. 

We cannot compare oceanography, for example, with the high 
energy physics program, since that program is devoted entirely to 
science and is thus 100 percent basic research. Perhaps a large gov- 
ernmental program most nearly paralleling oceanography is the space 
program, which is something like 90-95 percent research and develop- 
ment and, like oceanography, has a similarily high percentage of basic 

We believe the present oceanographic program can be justified to 
a large extent on the basis of its contributions to national security 
and to civilian economy. We feel that a much stronger program can 
be developed along the lines outlined in our report and that oceano- 
graphy should receive a higher priority in the national planning than 
it has in the past. For example in any competition for funds with the 


space program the case for oceanography would be very good. In 
making this statement we recognize many intangibles which are often 
used to justify programs. 

It is far more difficult to compare expenditures in oceanography 
with expenditures in Great Society programs whose science and tech- 
nology component is relatively smaller. We suggest that meaningful 
although incomplete comparisons can be made using the analysis out- 
lined in section 7. In any event oceanography as conceived in this 
report complements or supplements many facets of Great Society 



Panel Membership and Activities 

In the course of formulating this report, the Panel on Oceanography 
and its Subpanel on Marine Biology gathered information in a number 
of ways. Among these were visits to laboratories, interviews with 
representatives of Federal agencies and industry and interviews with 
knowledgeable individuals. In addition representatives of the agen- 
cies listed in this appendix met with the Panel and Subpanel during 
some of their meetings. Twelve oceanographic institutions were 
polled for data summarized in the report. In all, the Panel and Sub- 
panel spent 29 days (18 for Panel and 11 for Subpanel) in formal 
meetings starting in July 1965 and ending in April 1966. The Panel, 
Subpanel on Marine Biology, places visited, people contacted, and 
Federal agencies interviewed are given below. 

In addition to contacts thrdugh meetings, each of the Panel mem- 
bers, Subpanel members, and staff having 20 different private, aca- 
demic, and governmental affiliations, during their professional activi- 
ties made contacts with a large number of individuals. During the 
existence of the Panel several hundred professional oceanographers 
and marine biologists with industrial, governmental, and university 
affiliations were contacted in this manner. No attempt has been made 
to tabulate these informal contacts, but they should be recognized as 
an important part of this study. 

Captain Edward Snyder met with the Panel on numerous occasions. 
He provided detailed information on many aspects of the Federal pro- 
gram as a representative of Dr. Robert Morse, chairman of the Inter- 
agency Committee on Oceanography. 

The Panel encountered many problems involving legal questions, 
which it discussed with Mr. Michael Cardozo and on his recommenda- 
tion sought the advice of another distinguished expert, William T. 
Burke, of Ohio State University. Professor Burke reviewed the en- 
tire draft report and raised numerous substantive questions regarding 
law. A portion of his comments form the basis for section 10.3 and 


many other suggestions have been taken into account in the prepara- 
tion of the final draft. 

In addition to the industrial representatives on the Panel and those 
members of industry contacted formally before the Panel and in- 
formally by the Panel members, appendix III includes a report for- 
mally submitted to the chairman of ICO and to the Panel. 


Dr. Gordon J. F. Macdonald, Chairman 

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics 

University of California, at Los Angeles 

Dr. Douglas L. Brooks 


The Travelers Research Center, Inc. 

Dr. Robert Charpie 
Union Carbide Corporation 

Dr. Robert Fleagle 

Department of Atmospheric Sciences 

University of Washington 

Dr. Finn J. Larsen 

Director of Engineering 

Honeywell Incorporated (until No- 
vember 1965. Now Deputy Direc- 
tor Defense Research & Engineer- 

Dr. William D. McElroy 
Chairman, Department of Biology 
The Johns Hopkins University 

Dr. John Meyer 
Department of Economics 
Harvard University 

Dr. Walter H. Munk 

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary 

University of California, La Jolla 

Dr. Jack P. Ruina 

Institute for Defense Analyses 

Dr. Henry Stommel 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu- 

Dr. Gerald B. Whitham 

Chairman, Department of Applied 

California Institute of Technology 

Technical Assistants 

Dr. Henry W. Menard 

OflSce of Science and Technology 

Executive Office of the President 

Cmdr. John C. Fry 
Office of Science and Technology 
Executive Office of the President 
(Temporary Duty — June/October 



Dk. William D. McElroy, Chairman 
Chairman, Etepartment of Biology 
The Johns Hopkins University 

Dr. Edward W. Eager 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

University of California, La Jolla 

Dr. Malcolm S. Gordon 

Department of Zoology 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Dr. Francis T. Haxo 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

University of California, La Jolla 

Dr. C. L. Markert 

Chairman, Department of Biology 

Yale University 

Dr. Ross F. Nigrelli 
Director, Osborn Laboratories of Ma- 
rine Sciences, N.Y. Aquarium 
New York Zoological Society 

Dr. Carl H. Oppenheimer 
Director, Oceanographic Institute 
The Florida State University 

Dr. Luigi Provasoli 
Haskins Laboratories 

Dr. John H. Ryther 
Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Dr. Karl M. Wilbur 
Department of Zoology 
Duke University 

Dr. Warren J. Wisby 

Director, National Fisheries Center 

and Aquarium 
Department of the Interior 

Technical Assistants 

Dr. Henry W. Menard 

OflSce of Science and Technology 

Executive OfiSce of the President 

Dr. Claire L. Schelske 

Office of Science and Technology 

Executive Office of the President 


Applied Physics Laboratory 
University of Washington 

Biological Laboratory 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

Seattle, Wash. 

Department of Oceanography 
University of Washington 

Hawaii Institute of Geophysics 
University of Hawaii 

Institute of Marine Science 
University of Miami 

Navy Electronics Laboratory 
San Diego, Calif. 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
University of California, La Jolla 

Sea Lab II Operations Center 
La Jolla, Calif. 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
Woods Hole, Mass. 

The Director and Associate Director of Lamont Geological Observatory, 
Columbia University, were consulted on laboratory activities at the panel meet- 
ing in New York City. 



Biological Laboratory 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

La Jolla, Calif. 

Institute of Marine Sciences 
University of Miami 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
University of California, La Jolla 

Tropical Atl£in.tic Biological 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 
Miami, Fla. 


Atomic Energy Commission 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

Bureau of Mines 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare 

Department of the Interior 

Department of the Navy 

Department of State 

Environmental Science Services 

Interagency Committee on 

National Oceanographic Data Center 

National Science Foundation 

Smithsonian Institution 

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Geological Survey 



Atomic Energy Commission 
Division of Biology and Medicine 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 
Division of Biological Research 

I>epartment of Health, Education, 
and Welfare 

Division of Environmental Engineer- 
ing and Food Protection 

Shellfish Sanitation Branch 

Department of the Navy 
Oceanic Biology Program 

Federal Water Pollution Control 

National Institutes of Health 

National Science Foundation 
Division of Biological and Medical 

Smithsonian Institution 



R. Abel 

Interagency Committee on Oceanog- 

M. Cardozo 

Association of American Law Schools 

W. M. Chapman 
Van Camp Foundation 

J. H. Clotworthy 

Westinghouse Electric Corporation 

W. K. Davis 
Bethtel Corporation 

A. Lane and T. P. Meloy 
National Security Industrial Associa- 

J. A. Knauss 

University of Rhode Island 


Chairman, Interagency Committee on 


Chairman, National Academy of 
Sciences Committee on Oceanog- 

A. SPiLHAtrs 
University of Minnesota 

L. G. Weeks 
Consultant on World Oil 


W. Bascom 

Ocean Science and Engineering 

T. Coleman and R. Betts 
Ocean Systems, Inc. 

J. Dunning 

Mayor's Advisory Council on Science 
and Technology (New York) 


San Diego Chamber of Commerce 

C. KiBKBRiDE and others 
Industrial Panel (See app. Ill) 

J. Kyger, J. Clark and others 
Oceanography Subcommittee, Na- 
tional Association of Manufacturers 

P. Peterson and others 
Bell and Howell 

T. Pryor and others 

Oceanic Institute and Sea-Life Park 

J. Wenzel 



Bureau of CJommercial Fisheries 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 
Biological Laboratory 
Honolulu, Hawaii 

Chesapeake Bay Institute 
Johns Hopkins University 

Cloud Physics Laboratory 
University of Hawaii 

Department of Oceanography 
Oregon State University 

Environmental Science Services 

Washington Science Center 

Fleet Numerical Weather Control 
Monterey, Calif. 

Interagency Committee on Ocean- 

Marine Biological Laboratory 
Woods Hole, Mass. 

Narragansett Marine Laboratory 
University of Rhode Island 

National Oceanographic Data Center 

Naval Oceanographic OflSce 

Naval Post raduate School 
Monterey, Calif. 

Smithsonian Institution 

Smithsonian Institution 
Scientific Information Exchange 

Stanford University 


Alan Hancock Foundation 
University of Southern California 

Chesapeake Bay Institute 
Johns Hopkins University 

Department of Geology and Geo- 

Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 

Department of Oceanography 
Or^on State University 

Department of Oceanography 
Texas A. & M. University 

Hawaii Institute of Geophysics 
University of Hawaii 

Institute of Marine Science 
University of Miami 

Lamont (Geological Observatory 
Columbia University 

Narragansett Marine Laboratory 
University of Rhode Island 

Oceanographic Institute 
Florida State University 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 
University of California, La Jolla 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu- 
Woods Hole, Mass. 



Moored Buoy Array Program 


There is in the velocity, temperature, and salinity fields of the ocean 
a richness of unexplored phenomena. What the "water bottle" oceano- 
grapher regards as noise, or what he often dismisses as "internal 
waves," "variability," or "turbulence" is in fact a host of fluid dynam- 
ical processes. Far from being noise, these evidences of variability are 
actually signals which, could we read them, would tell us much about 
the internal dynamics of the ocean which we do not presently know. 

Present-day buoy technology provides means for exploring these 
new dimensions of oceanic phenomena. The actual use of moored in- 
struments has been limited to efforts of individuals who, lacking 
resources, logistic support, and necessary organization, have to date 
been unable to maintain a dense enough array of instruments for long 
enough time to gather statistically significant data. Signals are com- 
plex, and a sophisticated measuring program will be required to read 
them. This problem would be difficult enough if all fluctuations in 
deep oceans were due to a broad spectrum of linearly superposed in- 
ternal gravity waves of random phase plus some tidal lines. Even in 
such a hypothetical case many sensors would be necessary to separate 
vertical modes, and many horizontally spaced points would be neces- 
sary to discriminate wavelengths and to determine dispersion relations 
and directional properties. But all fluctuations in the oceans are not 
due to internal gravity waves; there are stirring motions, local insta- 
bilities generating turbulence and presumably exotic convective struc- 
tures due to the unstable salinity distribution. There will also be long- 
period eddies and Rossby waves, for example. 


Among the many processes taking place simultaneosuly in oceans 
is the radiation of energy within the body of ocean water by means of 
internal gravity waves. It has a well-developed linear theory. 


Isolated sets of short-duration observations have been made (O. V. 
Schubert, Ufford, Cox, Fofonoff). Some show evidence of internal 
tides, directional propagation, several vertical modes and inertial 
motions. Preliminary discussions of any of these results immediately 
lead to questions which can be resolved only by significantly more 
complicated deploying of buoys and sensors. As an example one can 
cite measurements of water temperature at Bermuda (1958 : Haurwitz, 
Stommel, and Munk) in which long-duration measurements were ob- 
tained at the cost of mounting only two thermistors on the sloping 
bottom. More thermistors at various depths in the open oceans would 
have clearly been better but were beyond the technical resources and 
money available. It is clear that multiplication of sensors is the 
direction in which we must go; this means that oceanography must de- 
liberately attempt to establish an instrumented portion of the deep 
sea capable of obtaining refined measurements of internal gravity 

Each set of measurements would be continued for long enough dura- 
tion to contain roughly 100 of the longest period waves of interest. 
According to Eckart's analysis of internal gravity waves, we could 
anticipate that periods between 10 minutes and 1 day would be of 
primary interest, so that the duration of an individual set of measure- 
ments should be 100 days. This is a long time to keep a complicated 
array of many recording sensors operating at sea and would also lead 
to a formidable data-processing program. The array might consist 
of from 3 to 10 moored buoys with perhaps 10 to 20 vertically spaced 
sensors on each. The spacing horizontally between buoys would be 
varied : a working estimate to begin with could be 1 kilometer, the 
whole array being within a 4-minute square. 

Measurements of horizontal velocity components recently made at 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution actually do not seem to indi- 
cate coherent wave motion. This may be an inherent difference in 
the nature of velocity and temperature structure in the ocean. Above 
tidal frequencies horizontal velocity components appear to consist of 
horizontally isotropic, incoherent e-ddies resembling turbulence. Hori- 
zontal scales range from 3 to 5 kilometers at the lower frequencies (0.1 
cycle per hour) to perhaps 1 meter at the high-frequency limit of 
resolution of the current meters. Energy density decreases as the 
"minus 5/3" power of frequency. The motion is clearly not isotropic 
vertically and, because of vertical stratification, may have little vertical 
coherence. Vertical scales associated with this motion have not been 

As these turbulentlike fluctuations may be capable of developing a 
high vertical shear and perliaps generating shear turbulence, they may 
play a vital role in vertical mixing and transfer processes. Associated 
frequency distribution and spatial scales for temperature and salinity 

220-659 O— 6C 


are not known. The "minus 5/3" region contains frequencies that can 
be associated with internal waves. The particle velocities are suf- 
ficiently low that the waves cannot be identified in current measure- 
ments. However, they may be clearly identifiable in temperature fluc- 
tuations. Because considerable theoretical work has been carried out 
on internal waves, a concerted effort to measure both temperature and 
velocity may provide data necessary to test some theoretical deductions. 
At lower frequencies Fofonoff has found peaks in the kinetic-energy 
spectrum at semidiurnal tidal frequency and inertial frequency. 
Lesser peaks are found at 24 hours, at sum and difference frequencies 
of the inertial and tidal lines and at some hig'her harmonics of major 
peaks. The tidal line appears to vary to some extent, possibly because 
of the changing amplitude of tidal period internal waves. The inertial 
peak changes strongly with time and does not retain phase coherence. 
Inertial motion is usually, but not always, strongest near the surface 
and is observed at all depths. Neither the horizontal nor vertical scale 
is known. As in the higher frequency range, there is possibility of 
shear instability and generation of turbulence through phase inco- 
herence with depth. 

Energy density at inertial frequencies appears to be correlated 
with surface winds. At least in some records amplitude of inertial 
motion was found to be greater after passage of a storm. Present 
documentation is poor because of the lack of simultaneous measure- 
ments of both wind and surface currents. 

Below inertial frequency energy density decreases to a minimum 
for periods of 2 to 5 days and then rises again at longer periods. 
Present records are insufficient to provide good resolution at these 
frequencies, and very little can be deduced from records collected 
to date except for the presence of large signals. Neither vertical nor 
horizontal scales are known, although buoys set several miles apart 
show strong coherence at periods greater than 5 days. The low- 
frequency region is accessible only through long-term measurement 
and is the basic motivation for establishing a continuing program of 
measurement at selected long-term sites. 


Another portion of the signal waveband to be monitored in oceans 
is associated with lower frequencies. To detect and measure these 
Rossby waves, it will be necessary to conduct a series of current meas- 
urements by buoys moored within a four-degree square for 4 successive 
years. Arrangement of buoys within the four-degree square is to be 
designed so that synoptic maps of irregular motions in oceans can be 
drawn, and relevant statistical properties of large-scale, long-period 


turbulent motions can be computed with an acceptable significance 

In order to elucidate why it is crucial to obtain quantitative informa- 
tion on the transport of momentum and vorticity by large-scale eddy 
processes in oceans, we call attention to an analogous position in de- 
velopment of the theory of the atmosphere's general circulation about 
10 years ago, when the fundamental quantitative studies of statistics 
of upper-air data carried out by Starr and his collaborators over- 
threw the classical picture of a predominantly meridional circulation, 
in which it was thought that the observed large-scale fluctuations 
played a more or less passive, dissipative role. Starr's investigations 
of observations demonstrated that fluctuations actually drive the 
mean circulation, and present-day theoretical studies of atmospheric 
circulation allow the fluctuations to play this more important role. 

We are in a similar position in oceanography. The fundamental 
concept, about which all theoretical investigations from 1947 to 1962 
are pivoted, is the basic Sverdrup relation between local curl of the 
mean wind stress and vertical integral of the meridional velocity com- 
ponent. The theory of the thermocline, thermohaline, and wind- 
driven circulation all dej>end upon this simple idea : That large-scale, 
quasi-geostrophic eddy processes do not play an important dynamical 
role in vorticity balance in the interior of the oceans. 

Ihiring the past few years serious doubts about the neglecting of 
eddy processes have begun to arise : 

{a) Aries measurements in the Atlantic, originally planned by 
Swallow, Crease, and Stommel to determine the mean velocity field 
at different depths, unexpectedly revealed the presence of large-scale, 
long-period eddies whose root mean square amplitudes were two 
orders of magnitude greater than the expected means, indeed so large 
that it is difficult to imagine that they can be decoupled from the mean 
fields as is implicit in the Sverdrup relation. At any rate irregular 
motions were so large that it was not possible to test the Sverdrup 
relationship in the simple way which the Aries measurements were 
originally intended to do. In order to obtain a statistical description 
of these eddy processes and to be able to map and describe them, it is 
evident that an effort at least an order of magnitude greater than the 
Aries measurements is necessary. 

(b) Calculation of the amplitude of the abyssal circulation from 
IGY and Norpac data — ^by the method of Stommel (1956) — yields 
abyssal circulation rates much too large to be compatible with water- 
mass analysis and radiocarbon data. The same lack of agreement ap- 
pears when the thermocline theory is semiquantitativcly applied to 
actual density distribution in the ocean. These discrepancies also sug- 
gest that something important is omitted from the simple Sverdrup 


(c) Various simple theories of baroclinic instability (e.g. Phillips, 
1951; Robinson, 1963), when applied to the laminar thermocline 
theories based on a laminor interior regime (following Sverdrup), 
indicate that the interior solution as given by the thermocline theories 
of Stommel, Robinson, and Welander is dynamically unstable. 
The immense complication connected with the theoretical problem of 
computing the fully developed geostrophic turbulent processes in the 
oceanic thermocline and the very incomplete observational descrip- 
tion of such processes preclude further development of the unstable 
thermocline theory at present. Wlien more observational guidelines 
are available, it seems probable that the theory can proceed, numeri- 
cally if necessary. Of course, it is not at all clear whether the im- 
portant property-transferring eddies owe their existence to instabili- 
ties of the thermocline or coastal boundary currents or to irregularities 
of bottom topography or applied wind stress. 

(d) Early theories of oceanic circulation (Rossby, Hidaka, Stock- 
mann) placed much emphasis on the hypothetical existence of large, 
lateral eddy transports. Sverdrup banished them from open oceans, 
and Munk found that their influence might be limited to the western 
sides of oceans and computed fields of transport in the oceans which 
bear considerable resemblance qualitatively to observed geographic 
mean distribution of ocean currents. The magnitude and role of eddy 
processes envisaged in the Munk theory is purely hypothetical. 

One possible array is that 30 buoys be placed within a 4° square, 
centered at 32° N., 53° W. (an abyssal plain area). On each buoy 
there will be velocity and temperature measuring units at depths of 
25, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 meters. Read- 
ings are taken at each point every 20 minutes for a year so that a total 
of 8 X 10 ^ velocity vectors and 8 X 10 ^ temperatures will be measured. 
Much of this information will be needed simply to filter out short- 
period components such as tides and their harmonics and short-period 
internal gravity wave phenomena. 


Professor John Isaacs has proposed experiments with a much larger 
network of buoys — perhaps 80 — covering a significant portion of the 
Pacific in order to monitor long-period changes in circulation. This 
type of network might be compatible with meteorological moored 
buoys of the World Weather Watch and might eventually be merged 
with that service. 


Each of the three examples described above is a complicated ex- 
pensive operation. 


Such a program cannot spring into being overnight and must evolve 
from smaller pilot programs, but it is also evident that this evolution 
must be consciously planned in light of evolving understanding of the 
problems. Therefore, instead of proposing, immediate organization 
of resources for undertaking a very large program of measurement, 
the immediate task as we see it is to set out a series of experiments in 

The following diagram indicates roughly how these might be 


A A 

l-S.Eo E 

- I I 
i2 l-i 


Q- = 5 c £ < 



Industry and the Ocean Continental Shelf 


On September 20-23, 1965, a conference was held at the David Taylor 
Model Basin involving Government and industry to discuss their 
mutual roles in the exploration and exploitation of the Continental 
Shelf. The study was initiated by a letter from Dr. Kobert W. Morse, 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development and 
chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, following 
a request from the PSAC Panel on Oceanography. 

In order to assess the status of continental shelf development, it 
was decided to establish the following objectives : 

a. Determine what industry is currently doing and what it 
intends to do concerning the exploration and exploitation of the 
Continental Shelf. 

b. Determine oceanographic services currently available by the 
Federal Government and services desired by industry. 

c. Elicit recommendations from industry concerning the desired 
mutual roles of industry and Government in the future exploita- 
tion of the Continental Shelf. 

Five basic, nondefense industries were represente'd at the conference : 
petroleum, mining, chemical, fishing, and maritime industries. The 
Government was represented by the corresponding counterparts of the 
ICO. The attendees are listed below. 

Since that time the study effort lias continued within each panel, 
culminating in submission of individual panel reports in late 1965. 
Findings of each panel report are included in this appendix, and high- 
lights of the recommendations are also listed. Several areas require 
more investigation before detailed recommendations can be made. 
Examples include undersea technology, undersea engineering stand- 
ards, wast^ disposal, biological data handling, and the fishing industry 
in general. Accordingly, it is expected that follow-on studies will be 
made by pertinent panels in the near future. 



It is recommended that the function of planning, correlating and 
carrying out of ocean research and use activities supported by the 
Federal Government be strengthened considerably. Additional rec- 
ommendations are as follows : 

a. Prediction and Control of the Environment. Inadequate pre- 
diction of weather, waves, and ocean climate has been responsible for 
inefficiency in operation, as well as serious loss of life and equipment 
to those who are engaged in offshore exploitation of resources. There- 
fore, it is recommended that : 

1. Additional ocean weather stations for making measurements 
in mixed layers of the ocean and the atmosphere be constructed 
and installed. 

2. More efficient use be made of data furnished by existing 
ocean weather stations in prediction programs. 

3. Although modification/control of the environment still lies 
well in the future, steps toward its achievement should be taken 

b. Legal Problems. Uncertainties and imperfections in Federal 
and State laws and leasing procedures deter potential undersea pro- 
spectors. This is in sharp contract, for example, to the situation ex- 
isting on the Canadian Continental Shelf. Specifically, the Federal 
Government should do the following : 

1. Establish and clarify its arrangements for ownership, leasing 
and royalty payments. 

2. Clarify and minimize overlap in responsibilities of Federal 
agencies so that industry can readily determine which agency 
has primary responsibility for each area of interest, thereby sim- 
plifying procedures. 

3. Distinguish clearly between State and Federal jurisdiction. 

c. Navigational Systems. Accurate, reliable, and economical all- 
weather navigational systems are needed to permit industry to utilize 
existing charts and maps effectively and to perform its own mapping 
requirements. A company which has staked a claim in a given area 
must be able to relocate this area quickly, efficiently, and accurately. 
In this respect industry and government must work together in de- 
signing and manufacturing the best system. It is recommended that : 

1. Navy navigational technology be made available to industry. 

2. Classified information on this subject be made available as 
long as companies and individuals concerned meet proper secu- 
rity requirements. 

d. Surveys. The Federal Government need not conduct detailed 
investigations from which industry traditionally develops its profit- 
oriented planning. Whereas the mining industry may want closer 


grid spacing to assist in the location of potential ore bodies, the oil 
industry would prefer broader spacing similar to the quality and 
degree of detail presently provided by the U.S. Geological Survey on 
land. It is recommended that : 

1. Information obtained from presently planned surveys be 
disseminated in a timely and coordinated fashion ; otherwise, its 
value will be limited. 

2. The Federal Government conduct a survey of the U.S. con- 
tinental shelf and the water column above, taking into considera- 
tion the broad experience of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

e. Information Services. Industrialists are generally confused by 
the multiplicity of information services operated by the Federal Gov- 
ernment. Accordingly, the following recommendations are made : 

1. Information should be made available to industry by subject 
categories concerning who in the Government produces informa- 
tion, who stores it, the forms in which it may be retrieved, how it 
may be retrived, how it is categorized and subindexed, and the 
location of responsible Government contact points. 

2. Classified information should be made available to industries 
having an established need. 

Subsequent investigation of this subject area led to examination of 
several items in further detail. Thus, the present direction and fund- 
ing of the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), which is 
by voluntary agreement of the participating agencies, does not ade- 
quately provide for sound management, planning, or growth to meet 
obvious needs. Second, although handling proprietary information 
from scientific and international political standpoints is now in effect 
at NODC, a doctrine for procedures in handling industrial data has 
yet to be worked out. Accordingly, the following recommendations 
are made : 

1. The direction and funding responsibility of NODC should 
be placed under a single agency. Other agencies and customers 
should be served on a cost-reimbursable basis. 

2. A doctrine for procedures in handling industrial data should 
be worked out through a joint task team study. OSTAC would 
be willing to work with the ICO on this matter. 

3. The NODC should be exclusively responsible for storage, 
machine processing, retrieval, and dissemination of all marine 
physical, chemical, and bathymetric information and for such 
geological and biological information as lends itself to machine 

4. The Smithsonian Institution should continue to be respon- 
sible for the processing, storage, and distribution of all geological 
and biological specimens resulting from the national ocean 


5. Finally, an additional recommendation concerning better ex- 
change of information is that industry should provide an observ- 
er on the ICO on a rotating basis for a term of at least 1 year. 
OSTAC would be pleased to submit nominations, it being under- 
stood that the appointment would be subject to approval by ICO. 

f. Tax Writeoff, A rational tax writeoff of fimds invested in 
oceanographic exploration and exploitation woulS encourage and ac- 
celerate commercial exploitation of the Continental Shelf. The hos- 
tility of the shelf's environment and the lack of operating techniques 
make companies reluctant to invest. A wise tax law would encourage 
more commercial work in oceanography. 

g. Waste Disposal. This is a subject requiring more investigation. 
However, as a start an appropriate Federal agency should establish 
reference points so that the effect of projected increases in the rate of 
disposal into the ocean can be accurately determined and a knowledge 
obtained as to the type of material being disposed. 

h. Oceanographic Instrumentations. A National Oceanographic 
Instrumentation Center should be established under management and 
funding responsibility of a single agency. It should serve every agen- 
cy on a cost-reimbursable basis. Its functions should include the 
service of calibration and standardization of instruments, develop- 
ment of standards and specifications, and consulting services on instru- 
mentation development. 

The above recommendations for single agency management of 
NODC and an NOIC do not contemplate duplication of present efforts. 
Furthermore, in each case the agency to be charged with the responsi- 
bility for the respective center should not only serve its own needs, 
but should be responsive to the interests of all Federal and State 
agencies, the scientific community, and industry. 


Conference Planning Committee 

RoBEET Abel Dr. Thomas P. Mbiloy 

Executive Secretary Chairman, Continental Shelf Confer- 

Interagency Committee on Oceanog- ence 

raphy AUis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. 

John H. Jorgenson Capt. Edward Snyder 

OSTAC Committee Executive Special Assistant to Assistant Secre- 

NSIA tary of the Navy ( R. & D. ) 

Amor L. Lane 

Chairman, OSTAC Executive Commit- 
American Machine and Foundry Co. 


Industry Panel Chairman and Coordinators 

M. T. Aquino 

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. 

Db. Wilbert M. Chapman 
Van Camp Sea Food Co. 


Lockheed-California Co. 

Roger W. Fulling 
duPont de Nemours & Co. 

Dr. Chalmer G. Kirkbride 

Sun Oil Co. 

(Presently Chairman, OSTAC) 


Government Coordinators 

.Joseph M. Caldwell 
Corps of Engineers 

Dr. Harve J. Carlson 
National Science Foundation 

Dr. John P. Craven 
Bureau of Naval Weapons 

Col. F. O. Dierks 
Corps of Engineers 

Howard H. Eckles 
Department of the Interior 

Harry G. Hanson 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Milton Johnson 
Department of Commerce 

Dr. Edwin B. Shykind 
Interagency Committee 

on Ocean- 

Government Panel Members 

{In many cases those listed helow 


CoL. C. W. Barbee 

U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey 

Dr. Gilbert Cobwin 
U.S. Geological Survey 

H. W. Dubach 

National Oceanographic Data Center 

Lt. Comdr. Charles J. Glass 
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters 

G. R. GwiNN 
Bureau of Mines 

Thomas Hickley 

U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey 

Dr. Fred Hubbard 
Public Health Service 

John M. Ide 

National Science Foundation 

James H. Johnson 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

appeared before more than one 

Richard L. Kirk 

Atomic Energy Commission 

Frederick Knoop 

Bureau of Yards and Docks 

Gordon Lill 

National Science Foundation 

Dr. John Lyman 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 

Edward M. MacCutcheon 
Maritime Administration 

Max C. McLean 

National Science Foundation 


National Oceanographic Data Center 

Feodob Ostapoff 

Environmental Science Services Ad- 


N. E. Promisel 

Bureau of Naval Weapons 

Stanley Rockefeller 
Bureau of Yards & Docks 

Dr. George J. JIotariu 
Atomic Energy Commission 

Paul Zinne^i 
Bureau of Mines 

Industry Panel Members 

Roger W. Fulling 

Chairman E. I. du Pont de Nemours 

J. C. Blauvelt 
American Cyanamid Co. 

Dr. James H. George 
A. D. Little, Inc. 

J. A. Scherer 
Hercules Powder Co. 

C. H. Shigley 
Dow Chemical Co. 

Fred L. Johns 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 

Food — Fish 

Dr. Wilbert M. Chapman, Chairman 
Van Camp Sea Food Co. 
Dr. H. W. Bruins 
Quaker Oats Co. 

Dr. B. F. Buchanan 
General Foods Corp. 


H. J. Heinz Co. 

Dr. C. T. Sollenberger 
Allis-Chalmers Co. 


M. T. Aquino, Chairman 
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. 

J. V. Harrington 

General Dynamics/Electric Boat 

Adm. E. Moran 

Moran Towing & Transportation Co. 

Daniel T. Mallett 
George C. Sharp, Inc. 

John A. Davis, Jr. 
Grace Lines 

Captain J. M. Ballinger 

Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. 


L. D. CoATEs, Chairm/m 
Lockheed-California Co. 


Ocean Science & Engineering, Inc. 

N. D. Birrell 

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry- 
dock Co. 

F. E. Briber 

Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. 

T. J. Coleman 
Ocean Systems, Inc. 

Chester O. Ensign 
Copper Range Co. 

Peter Reisneb 

International Minerals & Chemical Co. 

Prof. Antoine Gaudin 
Massachusetts Institute of 

Thomas N. Walthier 
Bear Creek Mining Co. 

C. G. Welling 

Lockhead Missile <& Space Co. 



Dr. Chalmer G. Kirkbride, Chairman George C. Howard 

Sun Oil Co. Pan American Petroleum Co. 

F. GiLMAN Blake Dr. Richard J. Howe 

Chevron Research Esso Production Research Co. 

Dr. Warren B. Brooks Dr. Merton E. Simons 

Socony Mobile Oil Co. Phillips Petroleum 

Keith Doig Dr. Karl C. tenBrink 

Shell Oil Co. Texaco Corporation 

HoLLis D. Hedberg Dr. Charles L. ThomAo 

Gulf Oil Corp. Sun Oil Company 


Industries involved in the study have different objectives and are 
in different states of technological involvement in the sea ; as a result, 
they also have different problems. The significant findings are listed 


a. The petroleum industry is committed to exploitation of the off- 
shore oil and gas fields. 

b. It has an investment of over $10 billion and a recent annual sales 
rate of over $700 million. 

c. The industry is increasing its own effort in research, develop- 
ment, and operations. 

d. The technological problems of exploiting a commercial oil deposit 
in shallow to moderately deep water have been developed. 

e. Its major concern is with finding an effective means of killing 
hurricanes in their early stages and improved services in environmental 

f. The traditional guidelines established by the U.S. Geological 
Survey on land are believed to represent an appropriate separation of 
the government's and industry's proper spheres of action in the sea. 


a. Sand and gravel constitute the largest single segment of the min- 
ing industry, totaling almost $900 million in 1964. About half of this 
came from coasts,! States, but only a small fraction was from offshore 

b. Sea-floor mining of sulfur and oyster shell resulted in about $45 
million in sales in 1964. 

c. Annual income derived from platinum dredging averaged about 
$1 million. 


d. Negligible income is derived from known deposits of phosphorite, 
manganese nodules, gold, tin deposits, magnetite, chromite and tita- 
nium sands, calcium carbonate, and barite. 

e. Techniques for underwater mining, except for dredging, have 
not been developed. The problem of exploiting a deposit of ore is 
more difficult by an order of magnitude than that required for oil. 

f. The industry awaits the discovery of geologically promising 


a. Six categories of this industry were considered. These include 
extraction of raw material, waste disposal, direct utilization of sea 
water (such as desalination), products of the chemical industry suit- 
able for ocean environment, services of the chemical industry appli- 
cable to oceanography, and process development currently underway 
which has relevance to oceanography. 

b. The interest of the chemical industry in further development of 
ocean resources is reflected in the relatively recent emergence of several 
ventures encompassing chemical industry firms and oceanographic- 
oriented enterprises. 

c. The annual dollar volume of raw materials presently extracted 
from sea water is more than $200 million. The invested capital for 
sea and subsea minerals is estimated at over $300 million. 

d. The chemical industry has a multitude of products which are 
required, in a hostile marine environment, for application and pro- 
tection of personnel, manmade structures, equipment, fish, and plants. 
Current and projected ocean programs require new and improved 
products, including organic and inorganic chemicals, finishes, plastics, 
elastomers, metals, synthetic fibers, films, and photographic equipment. 

e. Overall process engineering ability represents the biggest potential 
contribution the chemical industry can make. 


a. A large part of domestic fish production is made on, over, or in 
close relation to the Continental Shelf. 

b. The fishing industry has a domestic capital investment in vessels, 
plants, etc., of about $1.4 billion. The value of the catch at the fisher- 
man level in 1965 was $460 million. There is broad scope for increase. 

c. Because of the conmion-property nature of fishery resources and 
conservation problems attendant thereto, the fishing industry relies 
almost exclusively on governmental and academic institutions for 
oceanographic research. 

d. The industry is particularly interested in expansion of ocean 
research supported by the Government on the Continental Shelf re- 


garding resource location and measurement, ocean-climate change and 
the effect of the latter on availability of resources. 

e. The industry desires that better provision be made for dissemi- 
nation of ocean science and technology findings to those that can use 
it, particularly to the fishermen. 


a. The panel considered the following in its study : coastal transport, 
ocean towage, ship and platform design, and salvage operations. 

b. A recent report assessing the financial size of the industry shows 
an annual income of almost $2.5 billion for marine engineering (in- 
cluding shore protection, construction, harbor and channel construc- 
tion maintenance, shipbuilding, and salvage) . It also shows a rate of 
over $11 billion for transportation (including freight and passenger 
revenues and past income). In addition the industry is responsible 
for secondary outlays in the order of $8 billion. Hence, the total 
amount generated by the industry is about $22 billion a year. 

c. The vital items of interest to the industry are related to its 
sociological aspects ; i.e., its economics and labor relations. 

d. Many areas of the industry are so busy trying to stay alive that 
little thought has been directed to oceanographic activities to be under- 
taken by the Government. 

e. The industry is only now beginning to discover new uses for the 
technological base available to it and is making a start at substituting 
rational for traditional practices. 


References used by the five panels included, but were not limited to, 
the following: 

a. "Ocean Engineering," Volumes I to VIII, edited by Richard D. 
Terry, North American Aviation, Inc., El Segundo, Calif., 1965. 

b. Volume IV of Project SEABED report : "Advanced Sea-Based 
Deterrence, Summer Study 1964 — Advanced Undersea Technology 
(U)," issued by the U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, 
Md., dated 8 March 1965. 

c. Preliminary report, "An Economic Study of the Continental 
Shelf and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Products and Services," 
prepared by the Battelle Memorial Institute for U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, August 18, 1965. 



The National Oceanographic Program — A 

Perspective ^ 

The ocean has long had special significance to the people of the 
United States. Since colonial days we have both profited and suffered 
from our intimate relationship with the sea. Today, we face the sea 
along a general coastline of 12,500 miles. Our cities, villages, and 
farms have experienced the destructive forces of hurricanes and storm- 
generated waves. Our mariners have known the fury of troubled seas. 
Yet we have grown and prospered in many ways because of the sea. 
Quite early, our proximity to the ocean encouraged private enter- 
prise to develop and expand industries such as fishing and shipbuilding. 
Opportunities for trade stimulated the growth of a merchant 
marine, which eventually projected U.S. maritime power throughout 
the world. 

From the first days of the Republic, American industry looked to 
the Federal Government for protection and assistance in these en- 
deavors. Thus, among its early acts, the Congress established in 1790 
a seagoing Revenue Service (later the Coast Guard) to enforce U.S. 
laws at sea. In 1798, it authorized a navy, to defend our coasts and 
our ocean commerce, and a marine hospital service (later to become 
the Public Health Service) to provide medical care for merchant 
seamen. The Coast Survey (later the Coast and Geodetic Survey) 
was estabilshed in 1807 to improve navigation in coastal waters. As 
the Nation became more involved in the marine environment, the Fed- 
eral Government assumed additional responsibilities in the national 
interest: To dredge harbors and navigable channels (U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, 1824) ; to protect and improve the management 
of our fishery resources (Department of State, 1828 ; and the U.S. Fish 
Commission, 1871 — later, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) ; to provide charting and 

^ Preface : National Oceanographic Program, fiscal year 1967, ICO Pamphlet 
No. 24, 1966. 


routing services to naval and merchant ships (the Depot of Charts 
and Instruments — 1830, now the Naval Oceanographic Office). In 
assuming these responsibilities, the Government sought practical solu- 
tions to practical problems, principally in the fields of navigation and 

In the 19th century, the scientific community emerged to give new 
direction to our efforts at sea. Here, as in Europe, naturalists with 
an interest in the marine environment were essentially landbound, 
working from small boats in shallow waters and along beaches. A 
few men, however, sought a broader understanding of the ocean's 
processes, boundaries, and contents. Their research required the 
collection of data over broad ocean areas, but only the Government 
was in a position to provide the facilities for such ocean wide studies. 
Throughout most of the century, the Navy, the Coast and Geodetic 
Survey, and the Smithsonian Institution (founded in 1846) encouraged 
scientists to accompany Government-sponsored expeditions. The 
Navy, through the efforts of Matthew Fontaine Maury, requested 
mariners to make systematic observations of winds and currents from 
merchant vessels so that forecasts could be made of sailing conditions 
in distant oceans. 

Thus, research and data collection — insofar as it was relevant to an 
agency's mission — was encouraged and often supported by the Federal 
Government. By the early 1870's, for example, our New England 
fisheries clearly required a scientific basis for management. But few 
scientists were then available in Government to provide this support. 
Fortunately, the Smithsonian Institution — the only Government 
agency at that time with a charter permitting it to conduct basic 
research — was able to encourage naturalists to perform research for 
the U.S. Fish Commission. Spencer F. Baird, assistant secretary of 
the Smithsonian, became first Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries 

By the turn of the century, working relationships with the scientific 
community — small as it then was — had been established by all agencies 
with ocean-oriented missions. Industry, too, had a stake in the modest 
but active programs of these agencies, especially the fishing and ship- 
ping interests. Furthermore, strong international ties had been estab- 
lished between marine scientists in the United States and Europe. 

Following World War I, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Fish Com- 
mission, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey continued their essentially 
descriptive work at sea. Nevertheless, there was concern on the part 
of the recently established National Research Council (NRC) of the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the marine sciences in 
the United States lacked sufficient scientific leadership. In contrast 
to Europe, where marine scientists enjoyed wide government support 
and recognition, the United States had few institutional facilities for 


220-659 O— 66— — 10 

training and developing leadership in oceanography. Recognizing 
this need, the National Research Council established its first Commit- 
tee on Oceanography (NASCO), in 1927, to consider the role of the 
United States in a worldwide program of oceanographic research. 
The Committee report had a major impact upon the scientific com- 
munity and was instrumental in obtaining — from philanthropic 
sources — funds for endowing institutions on both coasts and for con- 
structing a ship and a few shore facilities. 

During the 1930's, such oceanographic laboratories as the Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography and the Woods Hole Oceanographic In- 
stitution became the centers of scientific excellence which were to serve 
the United States so well during World War II. Then, for the first 
time, investigations were pressed by the Federal Government in an 
effort to apply oceanography to the solution of urgent defense prob- 
lems. The small nucleus of oceanographers trained in the 1930's was 
augmented by scientists from other disciplines, many of whom re- 
mained associated with the marine sciences after the war. 

Following World War II, oceanographic programs in the Office of 
Naval Research, the Navy Hydrographic Office (now the Naval 
Oceanographic Office) , the Bureau of Ships, the Bureau of Commercial 
Fisheries, and the newly established Atomic Energy Commisison 
expanded to meet the growing problems of the marine environment. 
At the same time, the Government continued to support oceanographic 
research at universities and research institutions. By 1949, the Na- 
tional Academy of Sciences again became concerned over the relative 
growth of the marine sciences in the United States. A second Com- 
mittee on Oceanography was appointed. Rather than urge a greatly 
expanded effort, the Academy's 1951 report stressed the necessity 
of regaining the balanced program of basic research that had 
characterized oceanography in the years before the war. Coming as it 
did in the first year of the Korean conflict, the report failed to stimulate 
effective action. However, in 1951, the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) made its first grant in the field of oceanography, and by 1954 
a significant percentage of the grants in NSF's Environmental Biology 
and Earth Sciences programs had been made in oceanography. 

A third NAS/NRC Committee on Oceanography was established 
in 1957. At that time the United States was spending less than $35 
million annually for studies of the ocean out of a national basic re- 
search budget of well over $1 billion. Three Federal agencies with 
oceanographic programs (Atomic Energy Commission, Bureau of 
Commercial Fisheries, and the Office of Naval Research) requested 
the Committee to identify the national requirements for oceanographic 
research and to propose a 10-year program for their accomplishment. 
It was apparent from the Academy's deliberations that the traditional 
concept of "oceanography" as basic science had changed since the 


1930's. While emphasizing oceanography as an interdisciplinary sci- 
ence, the NASCO panels addressed themselves to such subjects as 
marine resource development, ocean engineering, and man's eflfect 
upon the ocean environment — all very "practical" concerns directly 
related to the national interest. Programs that had never been recog- 
nized as "oceanography" in its classical sense were considered: Ma- 
rine biology ; water pollution control ; shellfish sanitation ; recreation ; 
and coastal and deep ocean engineering. "Oceanography" had been 
broadened to include many aspects of man's activities in or on the 

In considering the problems identified by its panels, the Academy 
was concerned, on the one hand, with an assessment of the needs of 
the field, and on the other, with such limitations on its development 
as the rate at which ships and facilities could be built and new man- 
power trained. The report concluded that: "Action on a scale appre- 
ciably less than that recommended will jeopardize the position of 
oceanography in the United States relative to the position of the sci- 
ences in other major nations, thereby accentuating serious military 
and political dangers, and placing the Nation at a disadvantage in the 
future use of the resources of the sea." 

When released in 1959, the first chapters of the 12-volume report 
catalyzed action by both the executive and the legislative branches of 
Government. In the Senate, a resolution concurring in the NASCO 
recommendations passed unanimously. A subcommittee on Oceanog- 
raphy was established by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee. Legislation was enacted to strengthen the marine sci- 
ences by removing certain statutory limitations upon the Coast Guard, 
Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Geological Survey, enabling these 
agencies to participate in broader oceanographic work. In the ex- 
ecutive branch, the recommendations were considered by the Presi- 
dent's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), which had earlier con- 
cluded that oceanography was a neglected field requiring additional 
emphasis. The PSAC endorsed the objectives of the report and com- 
mended it for action to the newly established Federal Council for 
Science and Technology. 

At the Council's request, the President's Science Adviser estab- 
lished a Subcommittee on Oceanography in mid-1959, with repre- 
sentatives from the Departments of Defense, Interior, and Commerce, 
the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, 
and the Bureau of the Budget. 

The Subcommmittee on Oceanography, in turn, examined ways by 
which an overall and integrated national program in oceanography 
might be initiated by the Federal Government. The Subcommittee's 
report recognized that "the resources of the sea are of interest to 
every major department and agency of the Government, and that the 


strengthening of the marine sciences poses one of the most difficult 
problems of coordination in the organization of science in Govern- 
ment." It concluded that "it is evident that procedures for formu- 
lating programs within the several agencies are well established but 
that there are deficiencies in coordination between agencies, in pro- 
viding adequate funding, and in the mechanisms for carrying out a 
coordinated national program." Among its general recommendations 

1. That as a national objective the Federal Government undertake 
a program for a substantial and orderly expansion of effort in the 
field of oceanography. 

2. That this expansion of the national effort * * * be planned in 
general conformity with the NASCO recommendations as modified 
in the Subcommittee's report. 

3. That full advantage be taken of existing Federal programs which 
can support training, education, and basic research in oceanography. 

4. That professional oceanographers and interested scientific and 
research institutions take vigorous action to recruit scientists and 
organize educational programs. 

5. That the national program in oceanographic research and sur- 
veys be planned and conducted taking maximum advantage of the 
mutual benefits to be derived from international cooperation. 

The Subcommittee went on to make the following specific recom- 
mendations : 

1. That a permanent interagency committee be established by the 
Federal Council to implement, coordinate, and review a national pro- 
gram in oceanography, 

2. That the Federal agencies concerned develop 10-year plans for 
expansion of their existing programs in oceanography consistent witli 
the national objective. 

In late 1959 the Federal Council for Science and Technology ac- 
cepted and endorsed the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 
Oceanography was recognized as an important field requiring addi- 
tional emphasis in the national interest. The Interagency Committee 
on Oceanography (ICO) was established in February 1960 as a per- 
manent committee, charged to provide the essential direction and 
coordination by preparing annually a National Oceanograpic Pro- 
gram, incorporating the Committee's judgment as to balance and em- 
phasis in terms of both long-range scientific needs and requirements of 
Government agencies. Represented on the ICO were those Federal 
agencies with statutory responsibilities involving the marine environ- 
ment, and observers from NASCO and the Bureau of the Budget. 

Ten-year plans were prepared by each of the member agencies and 
synthesized into a long-range national oceanographic plan for the 
period 1963-72 ("Oceanography, The Ten Years Ahead," ICO Pam- 


phlet No. 10). Approved by the President in 1963, this plan (1) ad- 
dressed itself to oceanographic problems of national interest, and (2) 
outlined the goals toward which a national oceanographic program 
must be directed to meet national needs. In effect, the plan provides 
a means by which Federal, academic, and industrial members of the 
oceanographic community can look ahead together by providing a 
perspective in which they can see their various programs in relation 
to each other and to the national goals they support. 

In developing its annual programs since 1964, ICO has been guided 
by, but not bound to, the long-range plan. The annual program is 
based on the recommendations and findings of seven special ICO 
panels * which reflect skills and competence found in the agencies 
and provide a means for expression of many points of view. In 
planning the program, panel members identify technical needs in 
various areas, devise programs and measures to meet these needs, iden- 
tify desirable allocations of technical effort among the agencies, and 
suggest the assignment of technical leadership. 

The Interagency Committee on Oceanography reviews these panel 
recommendations and findings to assure an appropriate division of 
technical effort among the agencies as well as a meaningful balance 
of oceanographic effort. It examines the adequacy of the overall 
program and the manpower base required for its implementation. 
Finally, it recommends policies to improve the quality and vigor of 
the national effort. 

The Committee's recommended program is in turn reviewed by the 
staff and consultants of the Office of Science and Technology, which 
forwards its comments to the Federal Council for Science and Tech- 
nology for final review and approval. 

The recommended program is then integrated into the agency pro- 
grams through normal agency channels. The agencies themselves 
retain responsibility for accepting or rejecting specific projects, for 
developing or conducting their own annual programs, and for de- 
fending them individually before Congress. 

This process helps reduce competition for such resources as skilled 
manpower and funds and promotes their most effective use; encour- 
ages centralized planning and joint cooperative enterprises, promotes 
communication among key members of the oceanographic community: 
fosters a realistic and effective balance of effort among participating 
agencies and institutions, prevents needless duplication of work, and 
makes possible an orderly progression toward goals important to the 
national interest. 

♦Research, Ocean Engineering, Surveys, Instrumentation and Facilities, Ships. 
Manpower, International Programs. 



Earlier Views on Federal Reorganization 
of the Environmental Sciences 

In 1884 the National Academy of Sciences recommended to the 
Congress that it consider the formation of a Department of Science. 
A Joint Commission of the Senate and House of Representatives held 
hearings to "consider the present organizations of the Signal Service, 
Geological Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Hydrographic 
Office of the Navy Department, with the view to secure greater 
efficiency and economy of administration." John W. Powell, Director 
of the Geological Survey, presented extensive testimony at these hear- 
ings ^ and expressed views remarkably similar to those derived 
independently by the Panel 82 years later. 

Powell thoroughly documented the interactions and interdepend- 
ences of the agencies which were concerned with the environmental 
sciences at that time, "* * * i have endeavored to fully set forth the 
relations which exist between the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the 
Geological Survey, and I think that I have shown that these relations 
are many, far-reaching, and fundamental. I have also shown, in a 
less perfect manner, that the relations existing between the Geological 
Survey and the National Museum and Fish Commission are in like 
manner many, far-reaching, and fundamental" (p. 173) ; "thus it is 
that the Geological Survey is profoundly interested in the general 
problems of meteorology and in the operations of the Signal Service, 
and that the Signal Service is profoundly interested in the operations 
of the Geological Survey" (p. 175) ; "the Signal Service and the Geo- 
logical Survey should work for each other and with each other" 
(p. 175). 

On the basis of these interactions and interdependencies, Powell 
recommended the formation of a single agency incorporating the 
Geological Survey, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Smithsonian 

* On the Organization of Scientific Work of the General Government, Govern- 
ment Printing OflSce, Washington, 1885. 


Institution, and the National Observatory. He recommended that 
the hydrographic work of the Coast Survey be transferred to the Navy 
Hydrographic Office and was "loath to volunteer any opinion" about 
the organization of the Signal Service, Put in modern terms this is 
a recommendation to combine the Geological Survey, Coast and Geo- 
detic Survey, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (which since 1884 
has moved from the Smithsonian to Commerce to Interior) . In this 
respect the Panel is in complete agreement. However, we are not loath 
to include the Weather Bureau (which in 1884 was in the Signal Serv- 
ice of the Army) and the Coast Survey hydrographic work which was 
not so clearly related to the environmental sciences 82 years ago. We 
also include part of the work of the Bureau of Mines which did not 
exist at that time. 


An Act 

To provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program 
in marine science, to establish a National Council on Marine Resources and 
Engineering Development, and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering 
and Resources, and for other purposes. 

Be it eruwted hy the Senate and House of RefvesentaMves of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled^ That this Act may 
be cited as the "Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act 
of 1966". 


Seo. 2. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States 
to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, 
and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of 
mankind to assist in protection of health and property, enhancement of 
commerce, transportation, and national security, rehabilitation of our 
commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of these and other 

(b) The marine science activities of the United States should be 
conducted so as to contribute to the following objectives : 

( 1 ) The accelerated development of the resources of the marine 

(2) The expansion of human knowledge of the marine 

(3) The encouragement of private investment enterprise in 
exploration, technological development, marine commerce, and 
economic utilization of the resources of the marine environment. 

(4) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader 
in marine science and resource development. 

(5) The advancement of education and training in marine 

(6) The development and improvement of the capabilities, 
performance, use, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and in- 
struments for use in exploration, research, surveys, the recovery 
of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine 

(7) The effective utilization of the scientific and engineering 


resources of the Nation, with close cooperation among all interested 
agencies, public and private, in order to avoid unnecessary dupli- 
cation of effort, facilities, and equipment, or waste. 

(8) The cooperation by the United States with other nations 
and groups of nations and international organizations in marine 
science activities when such cooperation is in the national interest. 



Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby established, in the Executive Office of 
the President, the National Council on Marine Resources and Engi- 
neering Development (hereinafter called the "Council") which shall 
be composed of — 

(1) The Vice President, who shall be Chairman of the Council. 

(2) The Secretary of State. 

(3) The Secretary of the Navy. 

(4) The Secretary of the Interior. 

( 5 ) The Secretary of Commerce. 

(6) The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. 

(7) The Director of the National Science Foundation. 

(8) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

( 9 ) The Secretary of the Treasury. 

(b) The President may name to the Council such other officers and 
officials as he deems advisable. 

(c) The President shall from time to time designate one of the 
members of the Council to preside over meetings of the Council during 
the absence, disability, or unavailability of the Chairman. 

(d) Each member of the Council, except those designated pursuant 
to subsection (b), may designate any officer of his department or 
agency appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve 
on the Council as his alternate in his unavoidable absence. 

(e) The Council may employ a staff to be headed by a civilian execu- 
tive secretary who shall be appointed by the President and shall 
receive compensation at a rate established by the President at not to 
exceed that of level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. The 
executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is authorized 
to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel, including not 
more than seven persons who may be appointed without regard to civil 
service laws or the Classification Act of 1949 and compensated at not 
to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the 
Classification Act of 1949, as amended, as may be necessary to perform 
such duties as may be prescribed by the President. 

(f) The provisions of this Act with respect to the Council shall 
expire one hundred and twenty days after the submission of the final 
report of the Commission pursuant to section 5(h). 



Sec. 4 (a) In conformity with the provisions of section 2 of this 
Act, it shall be the duty of the President with the advice and assistance 
of the Council to — 

(1) survey all significant marine science activities, including 
the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all depart- 
ments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities ; 

(2) develop a comprehensive program of marine science activ- 
ities including, but not limited to, exploration, description and 
prediction of the marine environment, exploitation and conser- 
vation of the resources of the marine environment, marine en- 
gineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, 
and communications, to be conducted by departments and agen- 
cies of the United States, independently or in cooperation with 
such non-Federal organizations as States, institutions and 
industry ; 

(3) designate and fix responsibility for the conduct of the fore- 
going marine science activities by departments and agencies of the 
United States ; 

(4) insure cooperation and resolve differences arising among 
departments and agencies of the United States with respect to 
marine science activities under this Act, including differences as 
to whether a particular project is a marine science activity ; 

(5) undertake a comprehensive study, by contract or other- 
wise, of the legal problems arising out of the management, 
use, development, recovery, and cxjntrol of the resources of the 
marine environment ; 

(6) establish long-range studies of the potential benefits to 
the United States economy, security, health, and welfare to be 
gained from marine resources, engineering, and science, and the 
costs involved in obtaining such benefits ; and 

(7) review annually all marine science activities conducted 
by departments and agencies of the United States in light of 
the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant 
to this Act. 

(b) In the planning and conduct of a coordinated Federal pro- 
gram the President and the Council shall utilize such staff, inter- 
agency, and non-Government advisory arrangements as they may 
find necessary and appropriate and shall consult with departments 
and agencies concerned with marine science activities and solicit 
the views of non-Federal organizations and individuals with capa- 
bilities in marine sciences. 



Sec, 5. (a) The President shall establish a Commission on Marine 
Science, Engineering, and Resources (in this Act referred to as the 
"Commission"). The Commission shall be composed of fifteen mem- 
bers appointed by the President, including individuals drawn from 
Federal and State governments, industry, universities, laboratories 
and other institutions engaged in marine scientific or technological 
pursuits, but not more than five members shall be from the Federal 
Government. In addition the Commission shall have four advisory 
members appointed by the President from among the Members of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives. Such advisory mem- 
bers shall not participate, except in an advisory capacity, in the 
formulation of the findings and recommendations of the Commis- 
sion. The President shall select a Chairman and Vice Chairman 
from among such fifteen members. The Vice Chairman shall act 
as Chairman in the latter's absence. 

(b) The Commission shall make a comprehensive investigation and 
study of all aspects of marine science in order to recommend an over- 
all plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will 
meet the present and future national needs. The Commission shall 
undertake a review of existing and planned marine science activities 
of the United States in order to assess their adequacy in meeting the 
objectives set forth under section 2(b), including but not limited to 
the following : 

(1) Review the known and contemplated needs for natural 
resources from the marine environment to maintain our expand- 
ing national economy. 

(2) Review the surveys, applied research programs, and ocean 
engineering projects required to obtain the needed resources from 
the marine environment. 

(3) Review the existing national research programs to insure 
realistic and adequate support for basic oceanographic research 
that will enhance human welfare and scientific knowledge, 

(4) Review the existing oceanographic and ocean engineering 
programs, including education and technical training, to deter- 
mine which programs are required to advance our national 
oceanographic competence and stature and which are not ad- 
equately supported. 

(5) Analyze the findings of the above reviews, including the 
economic factors involved, and recommend an adequate national 
marine science program that will meet the present and future 
national needs without unnecessary duplication of effort. 

(6) Recommend a Governmental organizational plan with esti- 
mated cost. 

(c) Members of the Commission appointed from outside the Gov- 


eminent shall each receive $100 per diem when engaged in the actual 
performance of duties of the Commission and reimbursement of travel 
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized in 
section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. 73b-2), for persons employed intermittently. Members of 
the Commission appointed from within the Government shall serve 
without additional compensation to that received for their services to 
the Government but shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including 
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized in the Act of June 9, 
1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 835-842) . 

(d) The Commission shall appoint and fix the compensation of 
such personnel as it deems advisible in accordance with the civil serv- 
ice laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. In addition, 
the Commission may secure temporary and intermittent services to 
the same extent as is authorized for the departments by section 15 of 
the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 810) but at rates 
not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals. 

(e) The Chairman of the Commission shall be responsible for (1) 
the assignment of duties and responsibilities among such personnel 
and their continuing supervision, and (2) the use and expenditures of 
funds available to the Commission. In carrying out the provisions 
of this subsection, the Chairman shall be governed by the general 
policies of the Commission with respect to the work to be accomplished 
by it and the timing thereof. 

(f ) Financial and administrative services (including those related 
to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and procure- 
ment) may be provided the Commission by the General Services Ad- 
ministration, for which payment shall be made in advance, or by reim- 
bursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as may be 
agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the Adminis- 
trator of General Services : Provided. That the regulations of the Gen- 
eral Services Administration for the collection of indebtedness of per- 
sonnel resulting from erroneous payments (5 U.S.C. 46d) shall apply to 
the collection of erroneous payments made to or on behalf of a Com- 
mission employee, and regulations of said Administrator for the ad- 
ministrative control of funds (31 U.S.C. 665(g)) shall apply to 
appropriations of the Commission: And 'provided further. That the 
Commission shall not be required to prescribe such regulations. 

(g) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any execu- 
tive department, agency, or independent instrumentality of the Gov- 
ernment any information it deems necessary to carry out its functions 
under this Act ; and each such department, agency, and instrumentality 
is authorized to cooperate with the Commission and, to the extent per- 
mitted by law, to furnish such information to the Commission, upon 
request made by the Chairman. 


(h) The Commission shall submit to the President, via the Council, 
and to the Congress not later than eighteen months after the establish- 
ment of the Commission as provided in subsection (a) of this section, a 
final report of its findings and recommendations. The Commission 
shall cease to exist thirty days after it has submitted its final report. 


Sec. 6. The Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the 
President and as he may request, shall coordinate a program of inter- 
national cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, pursuant to 
agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the 


Sec. 7 (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress in Jan- 
uary of each year a report, which shall include ( 1 ) a comprehensive 
description of the activities and the accomplishment of all agencies 
and departments of the United States in the field of marine science 
during the preceding fiscal year, and (2) an evaluation of such activ- 
ities and accomplishments in terms of the objectives set forth pursuant 
to this Act. 

(b) Reports made under this section shall contain such recommen- 
dations for legislation as the President may consider necessary or desir- 
able for the attainment of the objectives of this Act, and shall contain 
an estimate of funding requirements of each agency and department 
of the United States for marine science activities during the succeeding 
fiscal year. 


Sec. 8. For the purposes of this Act the term "marine science'' 
shall be deemed to apply to oceanographic and scientific endeavors 
and disciplines, and engineering and technology in and with relation 
to the marine environment ; and the term "marine environment" shall 
be deemed to include (a) the oceans, (b) the Continental Shelf of the 
United States, (c) the Great Lakes, (d) seabed and subsoil of the 
submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of the United States to the 
depth of two hundred meters, or beyond that limit, to where the 
depths of the superjacent waters admit of the exploitation of the 
natural resources of such areas, (e) the seabed and subsoil of similar 
submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands which comprise 
United States territory, and (f) the resources thereof. 


Sec. 9. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
as may be necessary to carry out this Act, but sums appropriated for 
any one fiscal year shall not exceed $1,500,000. 


Subject Index 

Abyssal ocean : 46 

Air-sea boundary : 47 

Anchovy : 7, 9 

Antarctic program : 86 

Antisiubmarine Warfare : 30, 103 

Aquiculture : Ch. 2.0, 78 

Arctic lee : 43 

Arctic marine laboratory : 100 

Arctic program : 86 

ARPA : 84 

Atmosphere : XVI, 41 

Atomic Energy Commission : XVI, 86 

Benthic boundary : XIV, 91, 92, 102 

Biomedical problems: XI, XIII, 37, 

Biotoxins : 53 

Bottom-mounted installations : 93 

Buoys: XIV, 26, 46, 47, 94, 98, 103, 
112, 113 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries : XV, 
10, 12, 63, 84, 88, 89, 128, 130, 135 

Bureau of Mines : 84, 88, 89 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- 
life : 84, 128 

Bureau of the Budget : XVI, 90 

Chemical industry : 119, 126 

Olams : 11 

Classification policy : 35 

Coastal boundary : 48 

Coastal Engineering Research Cen- 
ter : 25, 84, 103 

Coast and Geodetic Survey : 85, 135 

Coast Guard : XV, 85, 88, 89, 97 

Codfish : 18 

Commerce, Department of : 85 

Congress : IX, XVI, 18, 40, 61, 80, 84, 

Continental Shelf : 92, 93, 94 

Corps of Engineers : 59, 84 

Data processing : 41, 42 

Deep-ocean tide : 45 

Deep-sea instrumentation : 98 

Deep Submergence Systems: XI, 36, 
37, 39, 40, 68, 83, 102 

Defense, Department of : 83 

Desalinization : 16, 17 

Diamonds : 28 

Earthquakes : 43 

Education in oceanography : 76, 104 

Eltanin : 95 

Environmental prediction : 57 

Environmental sciences : XIII, XVI, 
1, 41, 89 

Environmental Science Services Ad- 
ministration : XV, 35, 40, '85, 88 

Federal Council for Science and Tech- 
nology : XVI, 67, 81, 86, 90 

Federal Government, role : X 

Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- 
ministration : 85 

Fisheries : 60, 74, 92 

Fishing industry : 119, 126 

Fleets : 96, 97 

Food chains : 50 

Fuel-cell power systems : 102 

"General circulation" : 46 

Geological Survey : XV, 84, 88, 89, 121, 
125, 135 

Geophysical fiuid dynamics : 48 

Gold : 28, 126 

Great Lakes : 17 

Great Society Programs : 61, 105 

Gulf Stream : 43 

Hake : 9, 10 

Health, Education, and Welfare : XVI, 

Hydrodynamics : 44 

Hydrographic Survey Program : 35. 

Interior, Department of the : 84 

Interagency Committee on Atmos- 
pheric Sciences : XVI, 90 

Interagency Committee on Oceanog- 
raphy, role of : 86 

Interagency Committee on Oceanog- 
raphy : XVI, 4, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 81, 
82, 83, 86, 90, 106, 119, 121, 132, 133 

Intergovernmental Ocean ographic 
Commission : 67 

"Internal waves" : 112, 113 


Internal tides : 113 

International Ck)uncil of Scientific 
Unions : 67 

International Geophysical Year : 67, 

International Indian Ocean Expedi- 
tion : 67 

Iron ores : 28 

JOIDBS : 45, 48, 84 

T^gal problems : 91, 120 

Legislation : IX, 80 

Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) : 

Magnetite: 126 

Manganese nodules : 126 

Man in the Sea : XI, 27, 39, 99 

Marine food resources : XII, 2, 50, 92 

Marine mining : 78 

Marine organisms, supply of: 52, 100 

Marine populations : 49, 51 

Marine Resources and Engineering 
Development Act of 1966 : 136 

Marine Study Center : XIV, 79, 91 

Marine wilderness : XIII, 18 

Maritime Administration : 85 

Maritime industry : 119, 127 

Mining industry : 119, 125 

Mineral resources : 28 

Modification of environment : 1, Ch. 3, 
43, 57, 120 

MOHOLE : 22, 45, 48, 68, 86, 95 

Moored-buoy arrays: APP. II 

Municipal government: 73 

NASCO Report on Economic Benefit 
From Oceanography Research : 57, 
58, 59, 60 

National Academy of Sciences : 4. 66, 
80, 130 

National Aeronautics and Space Ad- 
ministration : 86 

National Fishery Center and Aquar- 
ium : 101 

National goals: X, 1 

National Institutes of Health : 85 

National Oceanographic Data Center : 

88, 97, 98, 121 

National Oceanography Instrumenta- 
tion Center : 122 

National Science Foundation : XVI, 
56, 57, 63, 68, 71, 72, 78, 84, 86, 87, 

89, 90, 96 

National security: X, Ch. 5, 102 
Navy Hydrographic Office: 130, 134, 

Naval Oceanograi)hic Office : 83, 130 

Navigation: 21, 61, 120 

Navy : X-XVII, Chs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 

Navy's Oceanographic Program : 34 

Navy's role in Education and Re- 
search : 37 

Near-sihore environment : XIII, 61, 103 

Nuelear-i)owered oceanographic ve- 
hicle (NR-1) : 36 

Nuclear weapons, recovery : XI, XII, 
Ch. 5 

Oceanic circulation : 41, 116 

Oceanographers, number of : 70, 71 

Oceanography, defined : IX 

Ocean resources : XVI, 2 

Ocean weather : 43, 49, 103 

Ocean weather stations : 120 

Office of Education : 85 

Office of Naval Research : XII, XVI, 
37, 39, 68, 78, 83, 87, 90, 102 

Oysters : 11, 12, 13, 125 

Oyster culture, Japanese : 13 

Panel membership: APP. I 

Panel objectives : IX 

Peru : 7 

Petroleum industry: 74, 119, 125 

Phosphorite: 28, 126 

Phytoplankton : 7, 11, 13, 14, 49, 50 

Polaris: 32, 33 

Pollution : XIII, 17, 57, 61, 78 

Poseidon : 33 

Power plants : 26, 102 

Prediction of environment : X, XI, 89, 
103, 120 

Protein: XII, Ch. 2.0 

Public Health Service: 12, 85, 128 

Radioactive wastes : 17 

Raw materials : 59, 60, 94 

Reactor technology : 26 

Resources : X, 28 

Rossby wave : 112, 114 

Royalties, petroleum industry : 74 

Science, Department of : 81, 134 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography : 

Sea-air interaction laboratory : 87 

Sea-bottom conditions : 89 

Sea-level canal : XIII, 16, 17, 51 

Search and recovery missions : XI, 34, 

Shellfish: 11, 12 

Ships: XV, XVII, 95 

Ship funding: 95 


Ship operations : XV, 95 

Shrimp: 11, 14 

Smithsonian Institution : XVI, 86, 90, 

121, 129 
Sonar : 31, 45 

Soviet submarine force : 30 
Squid: 14,52 
Standards: 24 

State, Department of : 85, 128 
State government : 73 
State laws: 120 
Surface waves : 43, 47 
Surveys : XIV, 23, 41, 54, 120 
Survey technology : 103 
"Swallow" floats : 41 
Temperature Zone Marine Laboratory 

Test range : XII, 39 
Thermocline : 46. 115, 116 
Thermohaline circulation : 115 
Thresher : XI, 34, 36, 38, 40 
Tidal friction : 45 

Tidal predictions : 42 
Tides: 42 
Tin: 28,126 
Titanium: 126 
Tools: 21,22 

Treasury, Department of : 85 
Tropical Marine Laboratory : 100 
Tsunamis : 43 

Undersea technology : XI, XIV, 119 
User groups : 96, 97 
Waste heat: 17 
Wave generation : 43, 48 
Weather Bureau : 57, 85, 135 
Weather in oceans : XIV 
Weather modification : 16, 18, 19 
Whales: 17 
Wilderness Act : 18 
Wind-driven circulation : 115 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu- 
tion : 68, 95 
World Weather Watch : 26 
Zooplankton : 7, 14