STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE

FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGBAPHY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1 AND 2, 1962

Printed for the us
Committee on Merchant Marine

Gc

, (yLb 80597

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1962

STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE

FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGEAPHY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

rC
Z

FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1 AND 2, 1962

Printed for the use of
Committee on Merchant Marine

80597

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1962

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

HERBERT C. BONNER, North Carolina, Chairman

FRANK W. BOYKIN, Alabama
EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland
LEONOR K. (MRS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN,

Missouri
T. A. THOMPSON, Louisiana
HERBERT ZELENKO, New York
FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
L. MENDEL RIVERS, South Carolina
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts
ALTON LENNON, North Carolina
VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York
THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia
BOB CASEY, Texas
THOMAS F. JOHNSON, Maryland
JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES A. VANIK, Ohio
HARLAN HAGEN, California

THOR C. TOLLEFSON, Washington
WILLIAM K. VAN PELT, Wisconsin
JOHN II. RAY, New York
WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, California
THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington
II. R. GROSS, Iowa
MILTON W. GLENN, New Jersey
GORDON L. McDONOUGH, California
GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas
STANLEY R. TUPPER, Maine
F. BRADFORD MORSE, Massachusetts

John M. Drewry, Chief Counsel
Bernard J. Zincke. Counsel
Ned P. Everett, Special Counsel

Paul S. Bauer, Consultant
William B. Winfield, Chief Clerk

Subcommittee on Oceanography

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Acting Chairman

ALTON LENNON, North Carolina
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts
BOB CASEY, Texas
CHARLES A. VANIK, Ohio

THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington
GORDON L. McDONOUGH, California
ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH. Kansas
F. BRADFORD MORSE, Massachusetts

II

CONTENTS

Page
Abel, Robert B., Secretary, Interagency Committee on Oceanography of

the Federal Council for Science and technology 117

Alexander, Comdr. Robert J., USN, Chairman, Ships Panel, Interagency

Committee on Oceanography 81

Maxwell, Dr. Arthur E., Head, Geophysics Branch, Office of Naval
Research, and Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Ocean-
ography's Research Panel 131

McKernan, Donald I. L., Chairman, Interagency Committee on Oceanog-
raphy Panel on Facilities, Equipment, and Instrumentation, accompa-
nied by Gilbert Jaffe, Hydrographic Office, U.S. Navy; A. J. Goodheart,
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce; Lt. Comdr.
R. P. Dinshore, U.S. Coast Guard; Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, National Science

Foundation; and F. D. Jenning, Office of Naval Research 51

Stewart, Dr. Harris S., Jr., Chairman of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel,

Interagency Committee on Oceanography 189

Wakelin, James H., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and
Development and Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog-
raphy of the Federal Council for Science and Technology 2

Additional information:

Alexander, R. J., letter:

October 2, 1961, re background information on agency procedures

for contracting ship construction 88

March 7, 1962, re requested material for record 111

Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce, letter, re study
of conversion of existing naval vessels to hydrographic surveying

ships 94

College Echoes, "Adventure," by Fridtjof Nansen 209

Crowther, H. E., Acting Director, Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, letter, re hearing. 196
Dees, Bowen C., Chairman, Manpower and Training Panel of the

Interagency Committee on Oceanography, submitted statement 201

Dingell, Hon. John D., submitted correspondence he had with HEW

and Interior 61

FAtanin information furnished by Paul Bauer '_ 113

GSA No. 1595, releases, January 2, 1962, and No. 1597, January 3,

1962 78

Indian Ocean, press release, June 13, 1960 — Anne Wheaton, Associate

Press Secretary to the President 21

Interagency Committee on Oceanography, letter, April 6, 1962 74

Jacobs, Dr. Woodrow C, Director, National Oceanographic Data

Center, submitted statement 204

Library of Congress, letter, February 9, 1962, with enclosed transla-
tion of volume XLVII: "Rapports Et Proces-Verboux Des Re-
unions" 13

B Maxwell, Dr. Arthur E., head, Geophysics Branch, etc.:

s June 14, 1960, letter from James H. Wakelin, Jr., re Oceano-

= graphic Research and Facilities Panel, establishment of 132

2 Submitted statement i 143

= H McKernan, Donald L., Chairman, Interagency Committee on Ocea-

5 nography, etc., submitted statement 52

i *jj Morrison, Rear Adm. D. McG., member, U.S. Coast Guard, letter,

s :£ November 13, 1961, re contracting proceedures for ship construction. 88

s n- "Rhode Island School Gets $100,000 Grant," excerpt from National

■ _q Fisherman, March 1962 25

[ O United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization,

" CD report 146

• Wakelin, James H., Jr., inserts:

1*^ Bennett, Adm. Rawson, letter, August 9, 1956, to Dr. Bronk, re

| •— [ increasing demand for advice on oceanography, etc 3

fl? Charts, 3, showing breakdown of committees and programs 6

National oceanographic plan summary, 1961-63 32

O Hi

STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1962

House of Representatives,
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

Subcommittee on Oceanography,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 219,
House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (acting chairman)
presiding.

Mr. Dingell. The committee will come to order.

Today we are conducting the first of the open hearings on oceanog-
raphy before this subcommittee in the 2d session of the 87th
Congress.

Our subcommittee has before it legislation introduced and referred
to us in the first session of this Congress; namely H.R. 4276. Ex-
haustive hearings were held on this bill in the last session.

The position of the administration as expressed by all executive
departments and agencies with respect to this legislation was that no
legislation was necessary since the Committee on Oceanography of
the Federal Council for Science and Technology was doing an out-
standing job of coordination of our national program for oceanography.

From the aspect of legislative oversight of executive performance
within our jurisdiction, the following general questions will be asked
of the Council through its Oceanographic Committee:

1. What have you done?

2. What are you doing? and

3. What are you going to do?

These questions are of sufficient breadth to ascertain the answers
to the subquestions: What, why, when, and how so understandable
to the news media of our country.

It is with great pleasure that I welcome our first witness Hon.
James H. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research
and Development, and Chairman of the Interagenc}7 Committee on
Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology.

Following Secretary Wakelin, the chairman of the various working
panels advisory to the Committee on Interagency Oceanography will
be heard in the following order:

Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Ocean Survey.

Comdr. R. J. Alexander, U.S. Navy, Oceanographic Ships.

Dr. B. C. Dees, Training and Manpower.

Mr. D. L. McKernan, Equipment and Facilities.

Mr. R. E. Abel, ICO Working Group.

2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Dr. A. E. Maxwell, Oceanographic Research and International
Oceanography.

Gentlemen, I would like to express the thanks of the Chair to both
of you for being present this morning. I am aware of the fact that
the subcommittee members are very busy, and very frequently do
have conflicting commitments and problems with regard to other
committees, and I want to express my thanks to each of you for being
present this morning.

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for being present this morning.
I want to pay tribute before you begin as a man of ability and integrity
and devotion, and I think we are indeed fortunate to have you present
with us this morning.

Mr. Wakelin. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. WAKELIN, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND CHAIR-
MAN OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY
OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Wakelin. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to
appear before you to discuss with you the activities of the Interagency
Committee on Oceanography. Your committee, in past hearings and
in its several reports entitled "Oceanography 1961," has developed
significant documentation on the importance of oceanography to our
Nation and the progress being made to provide our national effort
with a more coherent planning structure. It was my pleasure to
appear before you during these past hearings which were conducted by
your former and very able chairman, the Honorable George P. Miller.
I am indeed honored to come before this committee again, this time
under your chairmanship, to continue our discussions. Knowing of
your interest in this subject and from our previous conversations,
I am certain that under your leadership this Subcommittee on Ocea-
nography will continue to pursue enthusiastically the objectives in the
marine sciences for which we are all endeavoring.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat in detail
material already available to the committee in your fine reports. As
Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, I would
like to offer for the record a brief history of the development of our
organization, outline our working mechanism, highlight one or two
recent developments, and then offer to your committee statements
from the Chairmen of our substantive working panels and working
group. For your information, Mr. Chairman, the following is a list
of those who will appear before your committee to comment in detail
on the specific activities of the ICO in the various areas of oceanog-
raphy.

Mr. Robert B. Abel, Secretary, ICO, Office of Naval Research.

Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Chairman, Ocean Survey Advisory
Panel, Department of Commerce.

Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Chairman, Oceanographic Research Panel
and also Chairman of the newly developed International Programs
Panel, Office of Naval Research.

Comdr. Robert J. Alexander, Chairman, Oceanographic Ships
Panel, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 3

Dr. Bowcn C. Does, Chairman, Training and Manpower Panel,
National Science Foundation.

Dr. Donald L. McKernan, Chairman, Equipment and Facilities
Panel, Department of Interior.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, our current emphasis on oceanography
was initiated by the report of the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Oceanography "Oceanography 1960-70" issued in 1959.

As a background to their organization for this study, I should like to
read for the record one of the letters addressed to Dr. Bronk which
requested the establishment for a group in the National Academy of
Sciences to perform just this function, and I think it also reflects the
character and the scope of our current endeavor in oceanography.

On the 9th of August of 1956, Rear Adm. Rawson Bennett, Chief of
Naval Research at that time, addressed the following letter to Dr.
Bronk:

In recent months there hay been an increasing demand for advice on oceano-
graphic problems of great magnitude. Many of these questions are of broad
scope and long range, having far-reaching effects on the safety and benefit of
mankind as well as considerable influence upon the foreign policy of the United
States. They often require the concerted action of oceanographers and scientists
in related fields. At present, there is no established means through which the
oceanographic institutions can act as a unit.

After recent informal discussions between representatives of the Office of Naval
Research, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we feel that there is an urgent need to estab-
lish a group which may be called upon for advice on current oceanographic prob-
lems and, in addition, will provide adequate planning, coordination, and direction
of oceanographic research. The group should include physicists, biologists,
engineers, and fisheries' experts in addition to the oceanographers. It is sug-
gested that a continuing committee with a rotating membership containing these
and possibly scientists of other disciplines be organized under the auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. The committee
should have a full-time executive secretary and sufficient secretarial help so that
the members can be fully apprised of the needs of the oceanographers and sup-
porting agencies.

Some of the matters on which the proposed committee might provide advice
and guidance are:

1. Ever-present problems arising from the international character of the oceans
which must now be dealt with through organizations like UNESCO, the Pacific
Science Association, and the Pan American Institute of Geography and History.
Advice on international affairs should be obtained from the collected efforts of a
group assembled, by virtue of their knowledge and foresight, especially for this
purpose.

2. The need for advice on the disposal of atomic wastes which has been clearly
demonstrated by the recent report of the "Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries." One of this Committee's recom-
mendations was that a continuing committee on atomic radiation in relation to
oceanography and fisheries be established. It is felt that the subcommittee of
the latter type might logically evolve from the more general committee mentioned
above.

3. Long-range planning which is essential now for the most expeditious and
judicious use of the oceans as a food and mineral resource for the world.

4. The planning, coordination, and direction of the long-range, purely scientific
investigation of the oceans which require much additional effort. Some of this
may be provided by the Committee by keeping oceanographers informed of
technical advances in other fields, by bringing scientists of other disciplines into
oceanography and by advice to the agencies supporting oceanography with regard
to adequate support in both money and facilities necessary to carry out a funda-
mental research program.

This office believes that the establishment of the proposed committee will be of
value to the Navy, and we hope you will give the suggestion your consideration.
Should you concur with these ideas, we will arrange to send representatives to
meet with you or your staff to discuss the establishment of the committee.

4 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

It is signed by R. Bennett, Chief of Naval Research.

Similar letters were addressed to Dr. Bronk also from the Atomic
Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, and, I believe,
the Department of the Interior.

I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, to show the interest that we (the
Navy) have had in sponsoring a group within the National Academy
to assist us in our science efforts in the whole realm of oceanography.

The Committee was then established, and held its first meeting in
November of 1957. It produced the report after a long and intensive
study.

The Federal Council for Science and Technology came into being
in March 1959. Oceanography was among the many items in the
initial Federal Council calendars. In May 1959, Dr. Killian, science
adviser to the President, informed Dr. York, then the Director of
Research and Engineering of the Department of Defense, of the Fed-
eral Council's decision to form a subcommittee of the Council's Stand-
ing Committee to look into plans for meeting the Nation's needs in
oceanography and, specifically, to evaluate the report of NASCO.

Dr. York was asked to appoint a Department of Defense repre-
sentative to serve as chairman of a group composed of representatives
from DOD, AEC, NSF, the Departments of Commerce and Interior,
with an observer from the Bureau of the Budget. On July 16, Dr. York
addressed a letter to me appointing me as chairman and the subcom-
mittee met for the first time shortly thereafter. In September 1959,
the subcommittee submitted its report to the Federal Council generally
endorsing the objectives and program included in the NASCO report.
It further recommended the establishment of a permanent com-
mittee of the Federal Council in order to review Federal programs in
oceanography and to serve as a coordinating mechanism whereby
oceanographic activities of the United States would be developed
in conformity with our vital national interests in the oceans.

On January 22, 1960, the Federal Council determined that our
subcommittee should be made a permanent committee of the Council,
and we became the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the
Federal Council. At this time, also, the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare was added to the Committee and the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography became an ob-
server to the committee in its capacity under congressional statute
as an adviser to the Federal Government in science and its use for
the general welfare.

In November 1960, in recognition of the Coast Guard's interest,
capabilities, and potential in our oceanographic endeavors, the
Treasury Department was invited to participate and become a perma-
nent member of our Committee. With the increase of Federal activity
in the international aspects of oceanography, the Department of
State was asked to participate with us and joined us in observer
status on May 18, 1961.

Now to go back for a moment. With the advent of the new admin-
istration in January 1961, the status of the Interagency Committee
on Oceanography was reviewed by the new Chairman of the Federal
Council on Technology, Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner. And on March 10,

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 5

1961 he addressed a letter to me affirming the continuance of the ICO
as a permanent committee of the Council under section 4 of Executive
Order 10807, the Executive order establishing the Federal Council.

In this letter, Dr. Wiesner outlined the following mission lor the
ICO- To develop annually a national oceanographic program incor-
porating its best judgment as to balance and emphasis in terms ot
both long-range scientific needs and requirements of Government
agencies through the following mechanisms:

(a) Reviewing current activities and planned programs of indi-
vidual agencies in the context of the Governments overall
long-range effort.

(?) Engaging in coordinated budget planning so as to recom-
mend level of funding required for each fiscal year.

(c) Considering special problems that may arise in implement-
ing the national program and recommending solutions therefor.
He also stated that the Committee should consider, in addition, any
other matters it deems relevant and important in advancing oceanog-
raphv in the national interest. . A, nh •

Although not definitive as an indication of permanence, Mr. Chair-
man I wish to inform the committee that the ICO has been formally
recognized within the Federal Register, the 1961-1962 edition of the
U S Government Organization Manual, on page 557

The ICO as a group has wholeheartedly accepted this responsibility
to assist in the meaningful development of oceanographic activity m
our country. Its work has been materially enhanced by the individual
associations within the Committee, the willingness of each member to
cooperate in the national interest, and the increased understanding
we have all gained of each other's programs

I have three charts, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to present.
They will give your committee a quick review of our present organiza-
tion and associations and an idea of the manner in which we work.
I know that most of your committee, individually and perhaps col-
lectively, is quite familiar with these charts. I show them merely
to establish a starting point for these hearings wherein we can see
the place of the ICO in the context of the Federal Council and also
the diversity of Federal agencies among which the ICO must provide
the coordinating mechanism for the Federal program.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Secretary, would you like to have those in-
cluded in the record?

Mr. Wakelin. May we, sir?
Mr. Dingell. I think it would be very helpful.
Mr. Wakelin. Can we bring these up to the first table ? then we
will start again. - , .

Mr. Dingell. All right, and then the reporter can copy them in

the record.

(The charts referred to follow:)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

I FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ADVISORY COMMITTEES

H FCST

INTERNATIONAL
COMMITTEE

INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON 1
OCEANOGRAPHY

1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON 1 INTERDEPARTMENTAL

H™ ENERGY PHYSICS I 1 ™«« I

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES

COORDINATING COMMITTEE 1 STANDING
FOR MATERIALS R B 0 COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON
LONG RANGE M
PLANNING

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES

RESEARCH

AO HOC PANEL ON

LABORATORY

ASTROPHYSICS

1 PANEL ON ENVIRONMENT 1 ■ AO HOC PANEL ON METHODS B
AND INCENTIVES FOR FOR IMPROVING

RESEARCH ■ FEDERALLY FINANCED RESEARCH*

mTKSASEHCT COHIIfTTCC

ASESCIES PfcRTtdPATWe .'« T«£

«ATfo«AL wummAmtc twmm

Defense (Navy)

Interior (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries)

Commerce (U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey)

Treasury (U. S. Coast Guard)

National Science Foundation

Health, Education, and Welfare
(Office of Education)

Atomic Energy Commission

OBSERVERS

State Department

Bureau of the Budget

National Academy of Sciences-Committee on
Oceanography

Office of Naval Research

Bureau of Ships

U.S.N. Hydrographic Office

Beach Erosion Board

(U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers)

Weather Bureau

Coast & Geodetic Survey

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

Bureau of Mines

Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife

National Science Foundation

Atomic Energy Commission

Public Health Service

Office of Education

U.S. Coast Guard

Geological Survey

Maritime Administration

Smithsonian Institution

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

8 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Watcelin. The first is a chart of the Federal Council for
Science and Technology, indicating its many committees and interests,
as well as the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. The
second chart represents the current structure of the ICO and indicates
as well those agencies participating in the national oceanographic
program at present. The third chart is a representation of the
organization of the ICO itself. Our own organization and panel
structure, in spite of the manner shown, should not be considered
structurally rigid. We have adopted an approach which enables the
ICO to operate freety in any manner and to associate itself with any
Federal group in order that the most meaningful results can be
achieved. Titles and blocks should be considered merely representa-
tions of the kinds of things we do. Membership is not fixed in the
ordinary sense but is open to any interested agency desiring to par-
ticipate. The panels provide us with a forum for agencies who meet
to consider a particular aspect of oceanographic planning. A chair-
man is selected to inject the necessary initiative and sense of responsi-
bility into our efforts.

Within the ICO we do review and endorse agency programs, indi-
vidually and within the context of the total national effort, as gen-
erated by the member agencies. I feel that this is a necessary proce-
dure. Each agency has a statutory responsibility provided by law.
We in the ICO have never considered ourselves to be a controlling,
an operating, or a directing authority. As you know, we have neither
the control of funds nor the program authority to do this; and we
cannot assume the prerogatives and responsibility of departmental
officials in deciding their overall program emphasis. Yet, I believe
we have been effective. The national program which we put together
in the ICO must, first of all, meet these statutory commitments of the
various member agencies. Additionally, sometimes through specific
ICO action, but perhaps more often through exchange of information
and discussion of programs at committee and panel meetings, agency
efforts are adjusted to form a more nearly coordinated program than
would be the case without the ICO.

For the past few years what we have done in program coordination
and budget recommendation is to provide initial guidelines to the
Federal departments and to the Bureau of the Budget for a sound
national program. Additionally, through the medium of a written
statement of this program, we have hoped to influence the various
departments in their oceanographic budgets by relating the work of
their agencies to the total national program.

The manner in which we work is evident from our organization
chart. The annual agency programs are first submitted to the
Interagency Committee on Oceanography and then delegated to the
panels for consideration of specific functional areas. The panels
develop these areas, insofar as is practicable, into a consolidated
national program. The segments are placed into the context of an
overall national program by the working group who then present it
to the parent committee for review, resolution of problems, endorse-
ment, and transmittal to the Federal Council. I wish to emphasize,
Mr. Chairman, that our Committee develops a plan. The plan which
we develop is not a ceiling nor a goal which we must achieve at any
cost. It is our best estimate based on existing requirements, previous
achievements and budgets, and guidelines received from the adminis-
tration.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 9

The implementation and the fiscal development of the program
remains the responsibility of the various agencies involved. Following
the transmission of the ICO program to the Federal Council, Mr.
Chairman, it is reviewed by the Council and by a special panel as-
sembled for this purpose by the President's science adviser. This
special panel and I, as Chairman of the Committee, then present
programs and findings jointly at a meeting of the Council. Actions
of the Council, including consideration of oceanography in relation
to other science areas requiring emphasis in the national interest, are
then passed to the several departments as recommendations. Note
here again the emphasis that the fiscal and substantive program
developments of our national efforts still reside at the departmental
level.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, it might be
well to digress and present a short history of the development of our
panels. During the deliberations of the subcommittee, we organized
several informal task groups to consider various functional areas.
When our status was changed and we began operations as the ICO,
we formalized this task group arrangement and formed Panels.

In May 1960, the ICO established the Ocean Survey Advisory
Panel, and in June 1960, established panels for Research and Facilities,
Ships, and for the Data Center. Members of the Data Center Panel
culminated their wTork in an interagency agreement establishing the
National Oceanographic Data Center. The agreement includes a
Data Center Advisory Board. While the ICO maintains an interest
in the progress at the Data Center, it is no longer concerned with its
functioning, its polic}7, or its direct administration. The Advisory
Board provides the necessary coordination with the agencies par-
ticipating and the administrative functions have been turned over to
the Hydrographic Office.

Consequently, on January 26, 1961, the Data Center Panel was
disestablished. Our next step was to recognize that research and
facilities were each becoming major parts of our program and that
the ICO needed to place specific emphasis on instrumentation.
Consequently, also on January 26, 1961, the Research and Facilities
Panel was reorganized into a Research Panel and an Instrumentation
and Facilities Panel. The Manpower and Training Panel was
established on April 18, 1961, for a similar reason, that of assuring
specific attention to a growing manpower problem.

The most recent development in our panel structure is the estab-
lishment of the International Programs Panel on January 11, 1962.
As you know, in July 1960 there was held at Copenhagen, Denmark,
the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanographic Research. Of
the four members of the U.S. delegation, three were members of the
ICO. The conference recommended the establishment of an Inter-
governmental Oceanographic Commission within the structure of
UNESCO. The General Conference of UNESCO at its 11th session
in November 1960 adopted this proposal and established the Inter-
governmental Oceanographic Commission in order to promote scien-
tific investigations with a view to learning more about the nature and
resources of the oceans through the concerted action of its members.
The first session of this new IOC was convened by the Director-General
of UNESCO and was held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris from
October 19-27, 1961.

10 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you are well acquainted with this first
session, having attended yourself with several members of your staff.
As you know, of the five members of the U.S. delegation, of which I
was the Chairman, three were members of the ICO, the other two
being Dr. Revelle of the Department of the Interior and Rear Admiral
Stephan, the Oceanographer of the Navy. Our reason for establish-
ing this new International Programs Panel is evident in the report of
the delegation, copies of which have been made available to your
committee.

Specifically, we hope through our panel to develop the plans and the
requirements of the United States in fulfilling our obligations as agreed
to in the resolutions adopted by the Commission. Further, we hope
through this new panel to work closely with the Department of State
in order that we consider programs and policies which might be fruit-
ful in the pursuit of national policy and objectives at the international
level.

As you will note, Mr. Chairman, when you hear from the Panel
representatives, there have been many areas, other than through the
development of a written annual program, wherein the ICO has
endeavored to enhance the national effort. These have arisen more
or less as a byproduct of our existence, generated by ourselves and
by individual agencies exhibiting a willingness to work in this "na-
tional" environment. I think it is significant that the "accommoda-
tion" approach to cooperation has given way to specific provisions
for cooperation by all agencies in their programs.

Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, perhaps one or two examples
of our activities aside from program and budget planning would be
of interest. During the special review of the program which the
ICO submitted to the Federal Council, it appeared that special
attention was warranted in the area of environmental study of
radiological and other pollutants. In order to give this area proper
emphasis, the Research Panel set aside this unique problem area as
a separate objective in our overall research program in order that it
receive independent review. The ICO then asked that the AEC,
in cooperation with the Public Health Service and the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, examine the content of the program to deter-
mine its adequacy. This was done and the results have been incor-
porated into the research plan through the Research Panel.

In another objective area of research, that of marine biology, I
have asked the Chairman of the Research Panel, Dr. Maxwell, to
set aside another small working group similarly to examine the current
program in biological oceanography. The interest of the National
Institutes of Health in this field, as well as their requirements for the
products of research currently being undertaken, will be explored.

In our endeavors to investigate other fruitful areas for coordination,
the working group has been requested to hold discussions of our pro-
grams and our requirements with National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to determine the extent to which we might serve their
program and to seek their advice on communications problems relative
to data retrieval from fixed stations and cooperation, if possible, with
their range vessels.

With reference to industrial participation, you will hear of our
specific activities from Mr. Donald McKernan, Chairman of our
Facilities and Instrumentation Panel. It is true that we are still

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 11

young in our efforts to inject industrial know-how into our programs
and that such effort as we have been able to take has been primarily in
the field of instrumentation. There are other activities in progress,
however, which I would like to highlight. As you know, there is in
existence a National Security Industrial Association. This organiza-
tion was established originally as the Navy Industrial Association, and
broadened to include the other two services and the Marine Corps,
following its initial establishment by Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary
of the Navy during World War II.

The NSIA is a nonprofit association representing all of industry
without regard to special interests or to corporate size. It serves as a
means by which the full spectrum of American industry can be con-
centrated on the vital problems affecting our national security. You
can see from this that its principal concern has been national defense
and the Defense Establishment.

Recently, the Antisubmarine Warfare Committee of XSIA organ-
ized an oceanography task team chaired by Dr. Alfred J. Carsola,
of the Lockheed Aircraft Corp. This group had its first meeting at
the National Oceanographic Data Center on January 17-18, 1962, and
received information on the Navy's total program in oceanography.
I think, Mr. Chairman, because of my very intimate association with
the ICO and with the Federal program in oceanography, I flavored
my remarks, presented to this task team in its opening session, to sug-
gest a broad view of oceanographic investigation by this industrial
team. In this message, I said, after noting the Navy's special interest
in the whole field of oceanography:

Perhaps you might consider at some future time a still greater enlargement of
oceanographic perspective for this group. You are aware, I am sure, of the pro-
nouncements by the Congress and the President that oceanography is an area of
vital national interest. In addition to its defense aspects related to the security
of our country, it has significance in our national programs relating to welfare and
economy, both domestic and international.

The staff of the ICO has discussed this concept thoroughly with
the NSIA people. It is interesting to note that at this first session
of the oceanography task team, representatives from the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, the Corps of Engineers of the Army, NASA,
AEC, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Department of State,
as well as the staff of this committee were present. The task team
has indicated to me what is in essence a followup on this broader
perspective. On April 20 they will conduct their second meeting
under the sponsorship of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Further-
more, I understand they are considering a visit to Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. The ICO staff is further exploring the
possibility of a joint meeting between this group and the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. I feel that
this NSIA group may serve to be our principal contact with industry
at some future date just as NASCO is our associaton with the scientific
community now.

One final item, Mr. Chairman, before I conclude. I would like to
recommend that your committee consider hearing from Dr. Woodrow
C. Jacobs, the Director of the National Oceanographic Data Center.
The Data Center is not only working extremely well in the coordina-
tion of data acquisition and dissemination among the Federal agencies
and the scientific community, but is also taking the lead in this

12 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

regard on an international scale as well as initiating similar programs
with that segment of industry whose work involves data acquisition
and study.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I am open to
your questioning, and that of the committee.

Thank you.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you on a very
fine statement. I am one of your enthusiastic admirers.

Mr. Wakelin. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman. In your presentation, you make
reference to a national oceanographic program. You make further
reference to the Government's overall, long-range efforts, and you
make reference to a plan. What is the plan and what is our national,
overall effort, and do you have a copy of this plan that you refer to?

Mr. Wakelin. Mr. Bauer, are you referring to a plan over the
successive 8 to 10 years in the future? There are a number of plans
that we have, and I would like to answer your question in the context
that you would want.

Mr. Bauer. Well, on page 7 you mention that you review and
endorse agency programs within the context of the total national
effort as generated by the agencies, and it has been our experience in
the last two sessions of the Congress that we are unable to get a plan
of oceanographic effort from the Department of Interior. We have
seen the TENOC plan that is purely Navy, but as far as a com-
posite plan, we have not seen such a piece of paper.

Do you have such a piece of paper?

Mr. Wakelin. I do not have such a piece of paper, but I know now
to what particular group of plans you refer.

We in the ICO have asked the departments and the agencies in
the ICO to submit to us a 10-year program somewhat similar in their
agencies and departments as the TENOC program developed last
year in the Navy. We have not received complete program plans
from all of the agencies. We have seen drafts of the Interior's plans.
We have talked to the National Science Foundation about their sub-
mitting their plan to us within the next several weeks.

We have a plan from the Smithsonian, the Department of Com-
merce, and the Beach Erosion Board. I believe that covers all that
we have in ICO right now.

I would think by the end of March or April we should have all of
the departments' and agencies' plans at our disposal and then could
develop through committee action the total national plan over the
next 10 years.

Mr. Morse. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt there?

I think a necessary first step, Mr. Secretary, is the establishment of
objectives and goals. Have you defined the goals?

Mr. Wakelin. I think our goals were fairly well described scientif-
ically in the NASCO report that was issued in 1959 by the Academy.
Of course, the goals that we have as individual agencies have to co-
incide with the roles and missions of our agencies and departments.

Mr. Morse. We are talking about a national oceanographic effort,
and it would seem to me that the very first step would be the establish-
ment of identifiable specific objectives. If we have adopted the
NASCO recommendations, all well and good. If the NASCO report

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 13

contains a specific definition of our objectives, fine. If not, we should
have a specific set of goals.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes. Actually, in the development of the TENOC
plan, there are objectives laid out in the Navy's context.

Mr. Morse. For the Navy.

Mr. Wakelin. That is right. Obviously, we could not develop a
detailed plan without having a set of broad objectives, and we hope
to get these from each of the other agencies and departments this
spring. But let me say this: that each of the panels of the ICO which
integrate across the departmental interests have a set of objectives
to which they have geared their plans for this budget preparation, that
is, for fiscal 1963.

These can be broadened, I think, when we get the long-range plans
from the other departments, into a set of national goals. We hope the
planning of the ICO will then form a coherent national program.

Mr. Morse. Well, I would think that until such time as you have
decided upon the national goals that it would be abortive to develop
plans and programs by these several participating agencies.

Mr. Wakelin. Each of the agencies has its own long-range goals.

Mr. Morse. Which may or may not be consistent with the national
goals.

Mr. Wakelin. That is correct, and that is why we want to review
all the agencies' goals over the next 10 years, and develop a set of
national goals for the next 10 years.

Mr. Morse. For the achievement of the national goals.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Morse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bauer. Well, in other words, Mr. Secretary, you don't have in
existence now a written statement of the national program for our
overall national effort. Is that right?

Mr. Wakelin. We have for 1961, 1962, and for next year's budget
as an annual program. We have not developed a complete 10-year
program on a national basis, Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer. And no long-range plans?

Mr. Wakelin. These would be our long-range plans.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to introduce
into the record a translation from the French of the resolutions of
the Conference of the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea, adopted as a long-range plan in 1899, under a conference
held by King Oscar of Sweden. I obtained this from Copenhagen.
I believe I sent Secretary Wakelin a copy of this, and I was wondering
if you happened to see it?

Mr. Wakelin. I have, sir, and I have read it.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, so ordered.

(The information referred to follows:)

The Library op Congress,

Law Library,
Washington, D.C., February 9, 1962.
Hon. Herbert C. Bonner,

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Bonner: Your recent memorandum addressed to Dr. Elsbree,
Director of the Legislative Reference Service, requesting the translation of the
resolution beginning on page 11 of "Volume XL VII: Rapports Et Proces-Verbaux
Des Reunions," Copenhague, Juin 1928, from the French, was transferred to the

80597—62 2

14 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Law Library for attention. The translation has been completed by Dr. Domas
Krivickas, of the European Law Division. Two copies of the translation are
enclosed herewith together with the book from which the translation was made.
Very truly yours,

Lawrence Keitt, Law Librarian.

[Translation from French]

RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONFERENCE

The following resolutions were adopted unanimously:

Considering that an efficient exploitation of the sea should be based, as much as
possible, on scientific research, that international cooperation is the best way to
attain satisfactory results in this direction, especially if during the research one
does not lose sight of the fact that the main goal is the progress and improvement
of fishing through international conventions, this international assembly has
resolved to recommend to the states concerned the following research plan which
should be carried out during a period of at least five years.

After each delegate had submitted the instructions received from his govern-
ment, the work was divided between sections of which the first, A, had to prepare
the program for hydrographic work, and the second, B, for biologic work. Finally,
a joint program was set up for the organization and administration of international
cooperation.

Program of Hydrographic and Biologic Work in the Northern Areas of the Atlantic
Ocean, the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, and Adjacent Seas.

The basic principles of this program, which will be given later on in extenso,
with the additions and amendments introduced during the next year and up to
1927, included:

The establishment of a Permanent International Council for the explora-
tion of the sea, consisting of two delegates from each country, who will elect
the president, vice-president, secretary general and alternates, and will pre-
pare the statutes and the order of work of this institution;

a record of fishing statistics which it will endeavor to prepare for the
participating countries according to the principles adopted in common;

the establishment of a central laboratory for physical and chemical research
connected with the exploration of the sea;

a synoptic study of the sea during all seasons by means of periodical
cruises over the entire territory of research.

A. Hydrographic Work

The object of hydrographic research shall be: the distinction of the various
levels of waters according to their geographical distribution, depth, temperature,
salinity, gas content, plankton [content] and currents in order to establish the
basic principles not only for the determination of the external conditions of the
useful creatures of the sea, but also for meteorological predictions for extended
periods in the interest of agriculture.

ir

As hydrographic conditions are subject to seasonal changes, and as these
seriously influence the distribution and conditions of existence of the useful sea
creatures, and weather conditions and other meteorological conditions in general,
it is desirable that the observations be made, as much as possible, simultaneously
during the four typical months of February, May, August and November at
certain established points and according to the same established lines.

The observations mentioned in Article II will be:

(a) Observations of temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure
every two hours, using automatic registering instruments for interpolation
and the Assmann aspirator;

The meteorological bureaus shall have an opportunity to make, on board
the vessels, physical observations in the higher altitudes of the atmosphere
by means of kites;

The other meteorological observations shall be made according to the
methods adopted by the meteorological bureaus of the nations represented;

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 15

The meteorological and hydrographies! observations made on board the
special steamers in the course of the surveillance during the typical months,
shall be immediately recorded under the control of the central bureau (see C)
for publication in a bulletin where the maritime and atmospheric conditions
shall be given in tables and synoptic tables in cooperation with the meteoro-
logical institutions of the nations represented.

(b) The temperature of the surface of the water shall be taken every two
hours and, if necessary, even more frequently. It would be desirable to have
automatic registering apparatus employed for the interpolation recording.

The observations of the vertical distribution of the temperature shall be made
at the points mentioned in Article II and shall be made at regular intervals of
0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400 metres and so on;
however, all critical parts of the curve shall be established by supplementary
studies.

The temperature at the bottom shall be determined with all possible care.

(c) At each point and each depth where the temperature is observed, a sample
of water shall be taken in order to establish its salinity and density.

By salinit}'- is meant the total weight in grams of a solid substance dissolved in
1000 grams of water.

By density is meant the weight in grams 1 of 1 cubic centimeter of water with
a temperature of t° in situ, that is to day, the specific gravity in situ with reference

to pure water of +4° C. (=S j^Y

In order to determine this [salinity and density], it must be added, a preliminary
determination of the salinity must be made on board with suitable instruments,
although the exact determination of the salinity and density of all samples must
be made in a scientific laboratory.

(d) At certain depths at the points mentioned in Article II, as well as elsewhere
on the surface, samples of water for an analysis of their gas constituents (oxygen,
nitrogen and carbonic acid) shall be collected.

For the measurement of depth, the unit employed shall be the metre, however,
at the same time the depth may also be given in fathoms.

The geographical points shall be in reference to Greenwich longitude [east or
west], and the horizontal distances shall be expressed in miles (1852 metres).

The thermometers used in determining the temperature of the surface shall be
in centigrades or Fahrenheit, however, for publication all numbers shall be re-
duced to centigrades.

On the centigrade thermometers, the distance between the lines of the degrees
shall be at least 5 mm and the degree shall be divided into at least two parts;
the Fahrenheit thermometer shall be divided in a corresponding manner.

For moderate depths the use of Pettersson isolated waterbottles is recommended
and the thermometers used for this apparatus shall have a space of at least 10 mm
between the lines of one degree and the degree shall be divided into 10 parts.

For the greatest ocean depths Negretti-Zambra thermometers or others of the
same type shall be used.

The glass in these thermometers and the thermometers themselves shall be
checked and approved by the central bureau (See C(a)).

For the determination of salinity and density, physical or chemical methods
may be used provided the salinity can be determined with an accuracy of 0.05
in one thousand (and the density up to 0.00004).

The determination of these conditions may be based either on a chemical
analysis of the halogen by gravimetry or volumetry or by a physical determination
of the specific gravity by means of pyenometers of hydrostatic and hydrometric
balance provided the measures are taken excluding the agitation produced by
thermal effects, capillarity, viscosity, etc.

The chemical analysis shall be checked by physical methods, and the physical
determinations by a chemical analysis in the following way:

At least three samples of each collection examined shall be chosen and sent to
the central bureau. Standard samples will be returned in exchange.2

1 Units of weights instead of units of quantity should be used here.

2 By standard water is meant samples of filtered sea water whose physical and chemical qualities are known
as ac3urately as possible through analysis; and a report of which shall be sent to the various laboratories
at the same rime as the samples. With regard to the halogen, the samples of ordinnary water shall be
compared with the standard water by means of analytic methods.

16 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

The specific gravity shall be represented in the tables by the formula £(70 V

v

The samples for the analysis of gas shall be collected every time in a pair of
sterilized vacuum tubes.

It would be desirable for the existing tables on the absorption of nitrogen and
oxygen to be revised.

VI

Qualitative observations of plankton shall be made every six hours, passing the
water through a silk net for 15 minutes, and at the same time a sample of water
shall be collected (1 1 1(c)).

At the points mentioned in Article II, samples for quantitative analysis shall be
collected at the different depths according to hydrographic conditions, using the
method of Professor Hensen.

Petersen's modification for Hensen's net is recommended.

The bacteriological institutions shall be given an opportunity to perform in-
vestigations in the ocean.

VII

Observations of currents and tides shall be made as frequently as circumstances
permit.

The currents shall be examined, if possible, by linear direct meters and by the
float of wood on the surface and the intermediate waters, and by drift-bottles on
the bottom.

The vessel shall be anchored occasionally in order to permit frequent observa-
tions during the period of high tide.

VIII

It would be desirable to make a map of the bottom of the sea in order to show
its nature.

A description of the deposits should be made according to a definite plan to
be established later.

IX

Normal observations shall be made along the lines provisorily drawn on the
attached map where R signifies Russian, F Finnish, S Swedish, G German, Da
Danish, Du Dutch, N Norwegian, and B British lines in February, May, August
and November. Each participating country shall furnish, for this purpose, an
exploration vessel equipped for hydrographic and biologic research in the interest
of fishing.

The plan for these periodic voyages is laid out in the following map:

[The Map]

Special points shall be decided by the respective countries, and once established'
subsequent observations shall be repeated there.

The special instructions for the stations will be issued by the respective coun-
tries and the communications concerning the scope and nature of the observations
shall be made through the central bureau (see C (a) and (e)).

For carrying out these researches it would be desirable to use motorized vessels
on regular routes, lightships, etc., and seacoast stations when it is necessary to
make observations on the temperature and to collect samples of sea water and
plankton.

These observations shall be made not only during typical months but also in the
periods between.

B. Biologic Work

(a) The determination of the topographic and bathymetric distribution of the
spawn and larvae of useful sea fish, for instance, by quantitative methods such as
those of Hensen, with special reference to the most important species such as
plaice, codfish and haddock, herring, etc.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 17

(b) Constant investigation of the life and living conditions of young fish of
useful species in their postlarval stage up to their maturity, with special reference
to their local distribution.

(c) Systematic observation of fish for sale in a state of maturity with regard to
the local varieties and their migrations, their living conditions, food (for instance
by examining the contents of their stomachs), and their natural enemies, i.e.,
observations on the presence and nature of the food of fish at the bottom of the
sea, on the surface, and in intermediate waters at a depth of at least 600 metres.

(d) Determination of the periodic variations in the presence, abundance and
average size of useful fish and their causes.

(a) Experimental fishing in the fishing areas known at the time of fishing, as
well as outside these areas and in other periods.

(b) Preparation of uniform statistical data on the results of this fishing with
detailed indications of the number, species, size, weight and condition of the fish:
for instance, as the "Scottish Fishery Board" did on board the "Garland."

(c) The use of uniform instruments appropriate for the experimental catching
of fish of various species and different sizes.

(d) The experimental marking and release of fish, for example, plaice, in as
great a quantity as possible and in wide areas, as was done, for example by Dr.
C. G. John Pettersen and Dr. T. W. Fulton (Reports of the Biologic Station of
Denmark and of the "Scottish Fishery Board") and others.

(a) It would be desirable to collect uniform statistics on the number, weight
and value of caught fish, the means used for fishing and the people engaged in
that work, as, for instance, was done in the General Reports by the "Scottish
Fishery Board."

(b) It is necessary to collect material for the preparation of maps indicating
the fishing areas and the kind of fishing done in them (see A- VIII).

C. Organization of a Central Bureau

The assembly recommends that for hydrographic and biologic research of the
sea there should be an international council with a central bureau provided with a
laboratory. The functions of the central bureau should be:

(a) to issue uniform directives for hydrographic and biologic research in
accordance with the resolutions adopted in the program of the present
assembly, or in accordance with amendments which may be introduced later
with the consent of the nations represented;

(b) to control the instruments and to assure uniformity of methods;

(c) to undertake special works which might be entrusted to it by the par-
ticipating governments;

(d) to publish periodic reports and journals which could be useful for
the performance of cooperative work;

(e) to decide, in order to attain uniformity in publications, on the graphic
presentation, the scales, signs and colors to be used on maps;

(f) to establish relations with the administrations of telegraphs in order to
obtain, from time to time, regularly, determinations of the changes in the
resistance of cables which cross the areas in all directions.

(a) The Permanent International Council shall consist of representatives
chosen by the Governments concerned. Each government may appoint two
representatives who may be replaced at the meetings by alternates;

(b) The Council shall appoint its president and vice-president, and shall desig-
nate all persons doing business with the central bureau. If the secretary general
represents the hydrographic sciences, his main assistant must represent the bio-
logical sciences, and vice versa:

(c) The Council itself shall establish its own order of procedure;

(d) The expenses of the Central Bureau shall be estimated at approximately
4,800 pounds sterling per year.

18 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

The participating governments shall decide in what city the central bureau
should be established, and this city must be the place of residence of the secretary
general, and must be a city conveniently situated for hydrographic and biological
research;

(f) It shall be the business of the participating governments to decide among
themselves the quota that each one shall pay.

D

It would be desirable for the investigations to commence on May 1, 1901.

E

The assembly declares that it is of the greatest importance for deep sea fishing
and for long range meteorological forecasts to have the islands of Faroe and
Iceland included as soon as possible in the European telegraph network.

The relations between the quantity of halogen contained in water and the
density of the water must be carefully examined by an experimental revision of
the tables compiled by Knudsen (Ingolf, Exp. II, 37). The tables compiled by
Makaroff, Kriimmel and others for the relation between specific gravity, density
and salinity are also urgently in need of an experimental revision.

It has been proposed that these investigations be carried out at the Institute
of Technology in Copenhagen under the direction of a committee composed of
Messieurs Sir John Murray, Knudsen, Pettersson, Nansen, Kriimmel, H. N. Dickson
and Makaroff. The funds necessary for carrying out this work shall be requested
from scientific associations granting funds for such purposes.3

G

The assembly recommends that these resolutions be communicated to the
French and Belgian Governments by the participating nations.

H

In case the resolutions of the assembly are approved by the states, it may be
presumed that some time will pass before the organization of the central bureau
is accomplished. In the meantime, perhaps the Governments would like to have
an organization in connections with the assembly which could be useful for the
formation of the council and of the central bureau.

The members of the 3rd committee, Akerman, Drechsel, von Grimm, Herwig,
Hoek, Sir John Murray, Nansen and Pettersson offer their services in this connec-
tion.

Stockholm, June 23, 1899.

Signed: A. R. Akerman, President.

O. Pettersson, Secretary General.

(Dr. Domas Krivickas, European Law Division, Law Library, Library of
Congress, February 8, 1962.)

Mr. Morse. Would you summarize the report, Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. The essential division of the long-range plan is to
study the hydrographic work of the seas, and the Europeans by the
term "hydrography" mean all that we mean in physical and chemical
oceanography, as well as geological oceanography. In this the neces-
sity of having standardization of instrumentation is spelled out,
something that we are just about perhaps to arrive at.

In this, it describes the methods of examining the biota of the seas,
and as I understand it, we have as yet no long-range national planning
for the subject of marine biology.

3 In regard to this resolution, the British Association voted an allocation of 100 pounds sterling for this
purpose and the Russian Government promised the same sum. Requests for funds for the same purpose
were made in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway to scientific associations etc.

Dr. M. Knudsen of Copenhagen, who was appointed chief of the work of revision by the assembly, is
now ready to undertake the experimental part of the work in the laboratory of the Polytechnic Institute
of Copenhaben.— O. P.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 19

I think it is a very excellent document, and that is why I submit it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may continue?

Mr. Dingell. Proceed.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Secretary, when you look at the plans presented
for a budget cycle by the various departments, do you come to an
indication of priorities? In other words, if you have so much money,
what are the relative priorities? Is it defense, commercial fisheries,
sport fisheries, and so on? Do you consider that in your discussion?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes. Each one of the panels which reviews our
programs, in the areas into which our program is broken, consider first
the submissions of the agencies, the scientific content, the roles and
missions of the agencies with respect to the programs they have sub-
mitted, and then they themselves arrange roughly in an order of
priority the most important to the least important items.

Now, these are reviewed first with respect to their content and
with respect to the national program in that particular field. Then
we as a committee have to review the budget implications of these
suggestions. These suggestions, of course, are not always considered
at the same level in the ICO as they are developed in the panel struc-
ture.

We have to arrange a series of priorities, and then estimate what we
consider the best overall balanced program in the national effort
should be, with a certain amount of money available.

Mr. Bauer. Well, that being the case, it looks as though it is a
year-to-year operation. Is that correct?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Now, along that line, what is the first priority? If
there is so much money in the pot, who comes first?

Mr. Wakelin. I don't think any individual agencies come first.

Mr. Bauer. What field, is it national defense, perhaps?

Mr. Wakelin. I don't believe that I can answer that in terms of
our national program. I would certainly say that national defense is
a very important part of the oceanographic program.

Mr. Bauer. Well, supposing that the Coast Survey wished to
conduct a survey. Should the survey be from the interest of national
defense, first, with so much money available, or should it be from the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, or the Bureau of Sports Fisheries,
or the Geological Survey, or the production of information for navi-
gational aids? Someone must make a decision on priorities, must
they not?

Let us just take the survey for an example.

Mr. Wakelin. On the survey effort, we have an extensive sur-
vey effort in the Department of the Navy in defense, which is not
entirely related to our national effort in oceanography. These are
defense items which are vital to our existence as a nation in terms of
seapower, and the knowledge of the seas.

Mr. Bauer. Well, does not the Coast Survey contribute toward
that effort?

Mr. Wakelin. Of course.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, if the Joint Chiefs of Staff put a re-
quirement that such-and-such a survey is necessary, and you are cog-
nizant of that, I presume, in your ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. Indeed.

20 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Bauer. Then would the Coast Survey cooperate and take an
area that was of interest to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a first priority?

Mr. Wakelin. I cannot answer that for the Coast and Geodetic
Survey. It would be our suggestion that this be considered very
seriously in their survey plans, Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer. Did you give any consideration to last year's survey
between Kodiak, Alaska, and Honolulu as a national defense problem?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. Now, the next thing I would like to ask you is, you
will concur that we have no national program other than a year-to-year
basis. Is that right?

Mr. Wakelin. That is correct. We have a national plan which we
have developed, but this must, I think, be filled in by details to be
supplied to us this year by the various agencies in the ICO.

We have two long-range plans which are going to guide us in this
regard, Mr. Bauer.

We have the NASCO report, 1960-70, "Oceanography." We also
have our own analysis, agency by agency, of the recommendations
of the NASCO report. I think it is out of context to say we have
no national plan. We have no fully developed plan in detail for the
next 10 fiscal years, covering all of the agencies with their own pro-
grams ground in.

Mr. Bauer. And no guidelines such as this ICES plan?

Mr. Wakelin. I think you will find that as far as the science of the
seas is concerned, the National Academy's report outlines fairly well
the program to which the ICES has made reference here, and the
ICES program is a specific program.

Mr. Bauer. Do you coordinate all of the efforts?

Mr. Wakelin. Not all of them; no.

Mr. Bauer. Which ones do you coordinate?

Mr. Wakelin. Well, the ICO does not coordinate in detail at
present the Indian Ocean operation.

Mr. Bauer. Why not?

Mr. Wakelin. This is the responsibility of the National Science
Foundation.

Mr. Bauer. Is there a piece of paper in existence that would estab-
lish that responsibility?

Mr. Wakelin. There is a letter from Dr. Kistiakowsky to Dr.
Waterman establishing the Federal Government's interest in this
expedition.

Mr. Bauer. It is rather amazing, because on requesting the Na-
tional Science Foundation to come up with a piece of paper that made
the Indian Ocean expedition one of our national ventures, the only
thing that the National Science Foundation was able to find was a press
release of President Eisenhower dated June 13, 1960, and at this time,
Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to submit that.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, so ordered.

(The press release referred to follows:)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 21

[Press release, June 13, 1960 — Anne Wheaton, Associate Press Secretary to the President]

The White House

The White House announced today that the Federal Government will lend sup-
port to the Nation's leading oceanographers in an international expedition to the
Indian Ocean. The expedition, a scientific project of extraordinary scope and
magnitude, will begin late this year and extend through 1964. It will greatly
extend man's knowledge of these least-known waters of the world, which cover
a seventh of the earth's surface.

Like the recent International Geophysical Year, the International Indian
Ocean Expedition will incorporate a many-sided scientific attack on a single area of
interest under the leadership of a special committee of the International Council
of Scientific Unions, a nongovernmental organization with headquarters in
The Hague. Scientific responsibility for U.S. participation will be borne by the
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, national representative
to the International Council.

Acting upon the recommendation of the Federal Council for Science and
Technology and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,
the President approved a plan calling for key contributions by the Department
of the Navy and the National Science Foundation. The Navy will make avail-
able oceanographic ships sponsored by the Navy and operated by leading U.S.
oceanographic institutions. The Foundation will be responsible for planning and
coordinating Federal support for U.S. participation in the program including the
provision of financial support.

Responsibility for planning the scientific content of the U.S. program has been
assigned by the Academy-Research Council to its Committee on Oceanography.
The Committee has expressed the hope that the expedition, in addition to its
anticipated contributions to fundamental knowledge, will afford unusual bene-
fits to the heavily populated, protein-deficient nations on the ocean's perim-
eter, both in terms of increased fish harvests and in the further training of local
scientists and technologists in the techniques of oceanographic research.

The expedition's peak activity is expected to occur during 1962 and 1963 when
ships and scientific personnel from well over a dozen nations will be conducting
biology, geophysics, and submarine geology.

Details of the U.S. program will be worked out following a general planning
session of participating nations to be convened in Copenhagen in July by the
Special Committee on Oceanic Research of the International Council of Scientific
Unions.

Note. — A more complete description of the International Indian Ocean. Ex-
pedition is attached.

A Preliminaky Prospectus on the International Indian Ocean

Expedition

(The following material has been prepared by office of the Coordinator of the
International Indian Ocean Expedition to describe the area under exploration,
design of the projected expedition, scientific problems to be studied, and their
practical implications. Further information on the scientific program may be
obtained from the Information Office of the National Academy of Sciences-
National Research Council.)

THE INDIAN OCEAN

Physical characteristics. — Although the Indian Ocean's 28 million square miles
cover over 14 percent of the earth's surface, relatively little is known or under-
stood about the region, which has an area five and a half times that of Antarctica
and greater than that of Asia and Africa combined. The ocean's behavior
affects all of these continents, yet only the most general features of its topography
and circulation and the distribution of living organisms are known. For instance,
more than 300 times as many bathythermograph observations have been taken
in the North Atlantic as in the Indian Ocean; almost half of the area has had
no biological sampling and in most of the remainder observations range from
four to one per 5-degree square.

The Indian Ocean has several unique characteristics. Nowhere else in the
world is there a similar seasonal reversal of the prevailing wind. The wind
system in that part of the ocean lying above the equator is characterized by the
two monsoons, one blowing from the northeast for approximately 6 months and
the other blowing from the southwest for the rest of the year. This phenomenon

22 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

has a vast but essentially still unknown effect upon the currents and organisms
in the waters.

Another notable feature is the apparent productivity of this ocean. In June
1957, a Russian ship not far from the main trade route between Colombo and the
Gulf of Aden reported millions of tons of dead fish floating in an area some 1,000
kilometers long and 200 kilometers wide extending across the middle of the
ocean. Similar reports came simultaneously from British ships in the region.
During the same year smaller fish kills were reported in nearby parts of the
Arabian Sea. It is not known how the fish were killed, but the very size of this
catastrophe gives some idea of the potential midocean resources which are
currently untapped. There is further fragmentary evidence of unusually high
productivity.

The Indian Ocean is one of our last unexplored frontiers. Since 1873, fewer
than two dozen vessels have carried out oceanographic investigations there.
Modern techniques have been used only in quite limited areas. Limited coverage
has left great gaps both in areas visited and in the nature, intensity, and accuracy
of observations. No systematic study has been attempted nor do the combined
profiles of the observations reported give more than a preliminary picture of the
ocean's behavior and characteristics.

Socioeconomic characteristics. — Many of the nations lying in the tropical and
subtropical regions which surround the Indian Ocean are among the world's
most densely populated countries, with continuing rapid growth. Over a quarter
of the world's people live in these countries.

Population pressures on the existing food supplies result in prevalence of dis-
eases attributed to protein starvation. Such protein deficiencies are common in
India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Malaya and in parts of the east coast of Africa. Some
of the nations bordering the Indian Ocean have a seafaring tradition and conduct
extensive fisheries. To feed their crowded populations, they are interested in
expanding these fisheries.

EXPEDITION DESIGN

Participation. — Under the nongovernmental sponsorship of the International
Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and its Special Committee on Oceanic
Research (SCOR) scientists in the various nations experienced in oceanographic
research will staff vessels provided by marine laboratories of these several nations.
Scientists from countries unable to provide vessels will be invited to work on the
expedition's ships. Ever3r effort will be made to obtain active participation by
each nation bordering the Indian Ocean. The degree and nature of participation
will depend to some extent on the ability of each country to provide funds,
facilities, and personnel, and in part on general interest in advancement of the
science of oceanography.

Up to June 1, 1960, the following nations had formed national committees of
SCOR and had announced plans to send both ships and scientific parties on the
expedition: Australia, Ceylon, France, Germany (Federal Republic), India, Indo-
nesia, Japan, Pakistan, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
United Kingdom, United States of America. National committees of these addi-
tional countries plan to contribute scientific parties: China (Taiwan), Denmark,
Israel, the Netherlands. Portugal and other countries now forming national
committees may also announce plans to participate.

Timing of the expedition. — The period of peak activity will occur in 1962 and
1963. Preliminary plans will be completed by August 1960 and the first cruises
in the coordinated effort will occur in late I960. The expedition will continue
into 1964 and data analysis will undoubtedly continue past that date. An atlas
incorporating the full findings is contemplated.

Because of the present scarcity of information on the Indian Ocean, there will
need to be continuous revision and reexamination of the plans as new data are
acquired. Every effort will be made to complete preliminary processing and
analysis of data within 6 to 8 months in order to redirect subsequent cruises.
This fact, together with the importance of obtaining a series of observations of
the same area in different seasons, makes a program spread over several years
more desirable than a major simultaneous effort.

Procedure. — A preliminary and tentative cruise pattern for the entire Indian
Ocean has been agreed upon by members of SCOR and national committees.
In regions where seasonal differences due to monsoons are significant, ships will
cruise twice along the same track. To complete the pattern will require about
10 ship-years of operation over a total of 180,000 miles.

Uniform standards for observation techniques and instrumentation will be
established. Exchanges of scientists between ships of participating nations will

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 23

be arranged. Existing world data centers will be used as repositories, and new
biological centers for analysis and custody of biological specimens will be estab-
lished in the Indian Ocean area.

Ships participating in the expedition will devote at least half their time to work
according to the coordinated grid and half to independent investigations deter-
mined by the scientists involved. The intensity of studies in a given area will
depend on the nature of the phenomena anticipated; thus many more observations
may be expected in the boundary currents at the borders than in midocean.
Division of national responsibility for the various segments of the coordinated
plan will be negotiated at meetings in 1960 and 1961. All nations that have
agreed to participate have also agreed to adjust their plans to the common
program.

PROBLEMS TO BE STUDIED

Physical oceanography. — Several fundamental oceanographic problems can be
studied more efficiently in the Indian Ocean than elsewhere because of the reversal
of the winds. Understanding the oceanic processes here will contribute to a
knowledge of all oceans. The plan is to study basic questions such as: Hoav long
does it take the winds to set up a current? How rapidly does this current deepen
with time? What percentage of the energy required to maintain an ocean current
comes from the winds and what part of it comes from the horizontal density
gradients due to regional climatic differences? How does internal friction and
how does friction with the bottom influence the velocity-depth distribution?
What is cause and what is effect in the general circulation of the oceans?

The Indian Ocean is a vast environmental laboratory eminently suited for the
investigation of these problems. It is a complete ocean system, .vet small enough
to be studied as a whole. Although too large for a single nation's efforts, it is ideal
for an international cooperative endeavor. Extending from polar through tropical
waters, and divided in its northern part into small oceans each subject to radical
seasonal reversals of wind, it offers unparalleled opportunity for a wide variety of
specialized investigations.

Chemical oceanography. — The Indian Ocean is unique among the world's seas
in several ways. One of these, of course, is the extent of our scientific ignorance
about it. From this point of view, the systematic collection of physical and
chemical data during the survey will be very valuable, because for the first time
it will be possible to describe the distribution of plant nutrients and dissolved
organic compounds.

Perhaps a more significant singularity of the Indian Ocean is the fact that it is
such a large basin closed off from exchange with other seas north of about 40° S.
Into this vast gulf pour quantities of drainage water from the land carrying their
burden of substances dissolved from the rocks and soil. Thus it is an ideal place
to study the effect of runoff on the composition of sea water. For example, studies
of elements such as copper and barium, with a relatively short residence time in the
sea, should show concentrations markedly higher than in the Pacific or Atlantic.

In recent years the application of geochemical techniques to oceanic problems
has added much to our understanding of residence times and of the rates of
exchange between surface and deep waters. During the expedition samples will
be collected for carbon 14 dating, for analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes, and
for radium assay. This geochemical survey of an entire ocean will permit a much
better evaluation of the circulation than has been possible where the sampling has
been neither so systematic nor so extensive.

Meteorology. — The meteorological objective is to obtain increased understanding
of the energy exchange between sea and atmosphere, particularly near the air-sea
boundary. To this end, basic research will be carried out on radiation input and
on interaction of atmospheric pressure, winds, cloudiness, rainfall, and evaporation
with temperature, movement, and roughness of the sea. A SCOR working group
is drafting a list of desirable objectives in conjunction with various meteorological
organizations.

Marine biology. — In addition to its effect on the circulation of near-surface
waters, the monsoonal reversal of winds is expected to have important bilogical
repercussions. Regions of upwelling and of high productivity should develop,
deca}*, and shift from place to place, so that dramatic changes in the distribution
and abundance of marine organisms can be anticipated. Nowhere else in the
world ocean is it possible to study the interaction of atmosphere and biosphere
on such a scale.

Standard biological collections and measurements made systematically over the
whole area will define the biological "structure" of the ocean, the three-dimen-
sional distribution of plants and animals. Integration of these observations will

24 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

permit an assessment of the magnitude of the living resources. They also -will
provide the basic biological information — the distribution of fish eggs and larvae,
and of fish food, for example — which are essential to the eventual understanding
of fluctuations in the abundance and availability of commerical fish.

Since the war great advances have been made in the techniques for measuring
primary production of organic matter. The widespread, systematic use of these
methods by the ships of the expedition will help us to assay, for the first time, the
fertility of the Indian Ocean.

Marine geology and geophysics. — Except for data collected during the IGY,
bottom topography and the crustal structure underlying the Indian Ocean are
barely known. Old soundings delineate major structural components comparable
to those of the Pacific and the Atlantic: trenches, undersea mountain ranges, a
midocean swell, and possibly fracture zones. The arrangement of these compo-
nents and their relationship to the structures of the bordering continents are
markedly different in the Pacific and Atlantic. Is the Indian Ocean a Pacific- or
an Atlantic-type ocean? Precise modern soundings, in addition to clarifying
this issue, will be of immediate use in providing a base map for all the other studies
and data necessary for navigational charts, and it is even possible that they may
uncover rich shallow-water fisheries at considerable distances from shore. In-
tegrated geophysical studies — of the areal pattern of heat flowing from beneath
the crust, the gravity field, the crustal thickness, and magnetic characteristics of
oceanic and border areas — will certainly furnish basic information for the problems
of ocean and continent development.

Intensive coring, dredging, and bottom photography will yield data on pro-
cesses of sedimentation, productivity, climatic, and magnetic changes during the
last several millions of years and the distribution of potential ores of manganese,
nickel, and cobalt in manganese nodules.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed research will provide fundamental and valuable scientific knowl-
edge. Some findings will have direct and immediate bearing on economic de-
velopment and human welfare. Location of shoals and regions of upwelling will
identify likely fishing areas. Studies of distribution, nature, and seasonal varia-
tion in nutrients and marine organisms will indicate what to fish for and when.
Preliminary quantitative estimates of fish population, when supplemented by
exploratory fishing, will suggest the magnitude of the fishery resource.

The data obtained will provide an essential part of the information on which
decisions can ultimately be reached on the nature of fishery operations, markets
and methods of marketing, extent of investment, and related development prob-
lems. A new source of protein could mean food for hungry people. If it came
from the ocean, land and other capital devoted to protein food raising could be
shifted to other uses. Marine organisms could also provide fertilizer and animal
feed in areas now lacking adequate supplies.

Meteorological information, related to oceanographic knowledge, will be ob-
tained on a synoptic basis. This may lead to better long-range weather forecast-
ing. The ability to predict the onset of the monsoon and to estimate variations
in the quantity of rainfall bears directly on flood control and on water regimen for
agricultural use. The understanding of variations in location and intensity of
ocean currents can lead to more economic routing of ships. Such knowledge ap-
plied in the North Atlantic has resulted in savings of as much as 10 percent in
fuel consumption.

Charting and sampling the ocean floor through soundings, cores, geophysical
measures, dredging, and photography provide information useful for navigation
and fisheries and may reveal resources of economic value.

Finally, as never before, intensive training and experience in oceanographic re-
search will be available to residents of a maritime area. Possibly 20 vessels, with
facilities for about 350 scientists, will operate on the expedition. Exchange of
scientists between ships and partial cruises by individuals will increase the num-
ber of training billets available and vary their experience. Data processing
centers and biological classification laboratories will serve as nuclei for post-
expedition scientific development around the Indian Ocean.

In other parts of the world, the focus over several yars on the International
Indian Ocean Expedition would serve as a device to attract students to the field
of oceanography, helping to relieve a world shortage of marine scientists.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 25

Mr. Baiter. Now as to the funding, with respect to the Indian
Ocean, is that purely going to be funded by the National Science
Foundation?

Mr. Wakelin. No, the Department of Commerce, the Department
of Interior, and the Department of the Navy have in their budgets
the support of the International Indian Ocean Expedition.

Mr. Bauer. As far as the Navy is concerned, then, is it in the
interest of national defense that we look into the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Wakelin. We consider it so; yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. More so than performing some other surveys that
could be made closer by?

Mr. Wakelin. With respect to a priority of surveys, I would say
that the Indian Ocean Expedition does not compete in the exact
context of the term "survey." We are conducting detailed surveys in
the Atlantic and the Pacific, of course, in the national defense; but
the Indian Ocean Expedition is planned at present to be an overlook
of the whole Indian Ocean area, rather than a specific survey of that
area.

We are performing meteorological research, physical, chemical
oceanography, biological oceanography, as a first look on an expedi-
tion basis rather than a detailed charting and hydrographic study of
the Indian Ocean. So, I think to answer your question, Mr. Bauer,
the survey there is part of the whole program, and not the principal
reason for our being in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, you have so much money in the Navy,
and you are going into the Indian Ocean with Office of Naval Re-
search money. Is that right?

Mr. Wakelin. We are supplying ships and personnel for some
months' duty over the next 3 years in the Indian Ocean, as we can
see it possible through our operations at sea.

Mr. Bauer. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce
an excerpt from the National Fisherman, volume 4, March 1962,
which says that the University of Rhode Island gets a hundred
thousand dollars grant to study circulation of the Indian Ocean at
the Equator.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, so ordered.

(The excerpt referred to follows :)

[From the National Fisherman, March 1962]
Rhode Island School Gets $100,000 Grant

South Kingston, R.I. — The new school of oceanography of the University
of Rhode Island has received a $100,000 grant to study circulation in the Indian
Ocean at the Equator.

The National Science Foundation made the grant to URI after it was dis-
covered that the Scripps Oceanographic Institution at La Jolla, Calif., which was
supposed to get it, had no one available to make the study.

The reason: Dr. John A. Knauss, of the Scripps staff, had been hired to head
URI's new oceanographic school.

As a result, Scripps agreed to make available the Argo, its 213-foot, 2,000-ton
former Navy salvage vessel, for the Indian Ocean study and URI will supply
Dr. Knauss and staff.

The 30-month study will be made with an Australian vessel from July to
September this year and with several Japanese vessels from February to May
next year.

26 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Bauer. Now with respect to your budget operations, Mr.
Chairman, I notice in the budget breakdown furnished this committee
that your budgetary level of Coast Guard is at the same level as it
was in the previous fiscal year. Is that not correct?

Mr. Wakelin. That is correct.

Mr. Bauer. And yet this committee succeeded in having any limi-
tations on the Coast Guard's activities removed in the field of ocea-
nography. Is that correct?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; and with our support and concurrence.

Mr. Bauer. So they have the sum of $134,000 to conduct ocea-
nography in the advanced sense.

Now I notice that they are going to put on telemetering buoys in
the North Atlantic in connection with their ice patrol. Is that in
the $134,000 that was the same as last year?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes; part of that is for the support of their buoy
effort. I might say in regard to the Treasury's interest and support
of our program, Mr. Bauer, that I have been holding detailed con-
ferences with Secretary James Reed, who has just come into the
Treasury Department, and whose responsibility will be, in part, that
of the Coast Guard. We are trying to work out a mechanism by
which they can assume more responsibility this year and next year
than is planned for in their budget, and we hope they can do this
administratively at present. I would certainly support an increased
budget level for the Coast Guard, in the use of their already existing
ships and in the supply to them of necessary instrumentation to get
oceanographic data over and beyond their normal patrol functions.

Mr. Bauer. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Drewry?

Mr. Drewry. Perhaps this has already been covered, Mr. Sec-
retary, but this point is the thing that interested me.

You engage in coordinated budget planning so as to recommend
the level of funding required for each fiscal year, and you do that
within the framework of the existing statutory commitments of the
various agencies.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Drewry. The Coast Guard is an excellent example of the
problem. The Department of the Treasury has a great many ac-
tivities under its jurisdiction which are largely unrelated to the
functions of the broad general market functions of the Coast Guard.

Now the economy thinking of the Secretary of Treasury concerned
with things such as Internal Revenue, customs matters, for instance,
might be such that the Coast Guard would not be given the break
it should have in order to carry out its expanded functions.

How can you, how can the ICO, say to the Secretary of Treasury
that in the interests of the overall national oceanographic program
you need to do more to get greater funding level in your Coast Guard?
Do you do that, or do you tell the Secretary of the Treasury that in
order to get this show on the road, the Coast Guard is the logical,
already authorized agency to do a certain type of work, and yet, they
are not given enough money to carry out the work which is necessary
to keep the broad oceanographic program going?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; I would like to answer that in two parts.

First, I think it is a little bit early, in view of the fact that their
enlargement of charter is only a matter of about a year old.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 27

Secondly, we have made direct representations to Mr. James Reed
and to Mr. Dillon expressing onr interest and our concern about en-
larging the Coast Guard's functions in their ocean station vessels by
adding adequate instrumentation lor performing oceanographic data
acquisition when it is possible for them to do so; and they have been
quite enthusiastic in their answers to us. They are anxious to get
going in this program, and I think that is quite encouraging.

Mr. Drewry. Well, that is my basic point, Mr. Wakelin, you feel
that the ICO, or the Federal Council, acting on the recommendation
of ICO, is in a position to take an aggressive part not only in going
along within the commitments of the agencies themselves, but aggres-
sively urging the agencies to expand where expansion may be
necessary?

The Coast Survey would broaden their jurisdiction, and one of the
emphatic things brought out in our hearings in the past 3 years has
been that before you can get down to some of the more detailed and
refined and sophisticated needs that there is just the plain, old drudgery
of getting surveys done.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Drewry. And the broadening of jurisdiction of the Coast
Survey would allow it to work with the Hydrographic Office.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Drewry. Now the Coast Survey in the past has been sort of
an orphan in the Department of Commerce, and would your agencies
or would the Federal Council go right to the cabinet head and say,
"Look, you are involved in this oceanographic program through the
Coast Survey. Now they need to be souped up in order to carry the
program forward"?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes; this communication works both through
the ICO and through the Federal Council, to the secretarial levels of
the various departments. This is actually what has happened in the
review of the Coast Guard's proposed budget for 1963.

Mr. Drewry. I think this involves the thing that was behind our
proposed bill, where we develop it, that by having a statutory basis
for an oceanographic program, that you would be able to have, as
has been expressed, more horsepower in dealing with the department
heads in making up the component elements, but as I understand
what you are saying is that you feel that you can and are taking that
approach.

Mr. Wakelin. We have, Mr. Drewry, yes, sir. I would just like
to answer that, if I may, in another way.

Each one of the members of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog-
raphy has been very enthusiastic not only as a team member of the
committee but also in trying to impart within his own department the
relationship of his work and his bureau and his office to the whole
national structure.

This has been most effective in a great many departments who
have previously had lower budgets and lower support of oceanography.
I might just say, in summary, that if one looks at the actual budgets
in the various departments and the total program in oceanography
over the last 3 years, and the proposed budget for 1963, you find a
group of figures such as this: $55 million for the national effort in 1960,
which was the first budget that we had anything to do with organizing
on a national basis; $60 million hi 1961; $101 million in 1962; and

28 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

the proposed budget for 1963, which is the President's budget, is
$123.97 million.

Now I do not wish to imply that this is all the doing of the ICO,
but I think we have helped a great deal to focus the agencies' require-
ments and their responsibilities in the national context, rather than
just fulfilling their own roles and missions individually.

Mr. Drewry. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Just one very brief question. Our counsel here has
led up to something that concerned me.

Am I correct that there has been a change in the definition of what
constitutes oceanographic activity for purposes of activity and for
purposes of budgeting?

Mr. Wakelin. Not any substantive change, Mr. Chairman, I
would say.

Mr. Dingell. The point I am leading up to is simply this: is it
not correct that a portion of the increase with regard to oceanographic
activity in the budget stems from a change in definition of what con-
stitutes oceanography within the various agencies concerned, and
what constitutes oceanographic activity within the various agencies
concerned? Am I correct in this, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Wakelin. To a degree, and let me qualify my answer in this
regard. The figures that I read in reply to Mr. Drewry's question
were made on a comparable basis— these are comparative figures that
are not increased by having a budget unit added to it which had previ-
ously not been there.

Now let me say that the Coast and Geodetic Survey puts all of their
survey operations in as part of the oceanographic program. We had
until last year excluded part of the Hydrographic Office's program of
the Navy from our national oceanographic efforts, and that is in the
area of $9 million. We decided that, to make the whole program look
conformal, the part of the Navy's surveys which was unclassified,
should be part of the Survey effort in the public program.

When we did this, we added $9 million to the level of the budget
that year, but in comparing that with earlier years, this was also
added back, so that the increment did not look as though it was a
brand new item for funding.

Mr. Dingell. I see. You are saying, then, that there was no
juggling for purposes of improving appearances?

Mr. Wakelin. There is a discontinuity of $9 million if you do not
make the previous budgets conformal.

Mr. Dingell. I yield for a question.

Mr. Bauer. With respect to this budget that you have presented
us with, budget plan summary, is this budget concerned at all with
any classified oceanography?

Mr. Wakelin. No, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Would it be a breach of security to indicate the total
amount of what the classified oceanography is?

Mr. Wakelin. I would rather give it to the committee in executive
session, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. I think that would be thoroughly acceptable to the
committee.

Mr. Wakelin. If that is agreeable with you, sir?

Mr. Dingell. I think it is agreeable. If it is agreeable with the
members of the committee, I have no objection.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 29

Mr. Lennon?

Mr. Lennon. Mr. Secretary, such authority as the ICO has and
the only authority it has flows from section 4 of the Executive Order
10807, is that not true?

Mr. Wakelin. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Lennon. And a year ago, or almost a year ago, March the
10th, you were advised by the then Chief of the FCST what your
mission would be for ICO. You state here that your mission was
to develop annually a national oceanography, or oceanographic
program.

Does this statement here that you read today represent the pro-
gram that has been developed as a result of that directive that you
received on March 10 of 1961? Is this the program?

Mr. Wakelin. No, this is not the program in any sense of the
word, Mr. Lennon. This is a description of the manner in which
we operate in the Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

The program that is part of the President's budget is a separate
document.

Mr. Lennon. Now the thing that has concerned me during the last
a little more than 2 years, and you bring it up again in your statement
on page 7 :

We in the ICO have never considered ourselves to be a controlling, operating,
or a directing authority. As you know, we have neither the control of funds nor
the program authority to do this, and we cannot assume the prerogatives and
responsibility of departmental officials in deciding their overall program emphasis.

You concede that. That is an admission that we have, and that is
the weakness of this program.

Mr. Wakelin. I think that is a very fair, objective, and complete
statement of our status.

Mr. Lennon. And I think that is the weakness of this program.
I have thought so all the while. You refer to it again on page 9 in
your statement, and I quote:

Notice here again the emphasis that the fiscal and substantive program develop-
ments of our national efforts still reside at the departmental level.

Again you concede what I believe to be the weakness of this pro-
gram. I think it is human nature to assume that every department
and agency and bureau which participates in this program of at least
short-range objectives, and perhaps even long-range objectives, but
as I understand your statement, you are not permitted or authorized,
as a part of your mission, to do anything more than to project a
program on an annual basis. Is that a fair statement of what you
said?

Mr. Wakelin. I think that the adjective "annual" ought to be
expanded. We have the responsibility to develop on a national basis
a 10-year program in oceanography, as a forward look.

Mr. Lennon. Well, you state here that you are authorized by the
letter from the Chief of the FCST to develop annually a national
oceanographic program .

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lennon. Now were you authorized to develop a long-range
program, giving all of these bureaus and agencies short- and long-
range objectives?

S0o97— G2-

30 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; we have even been encouraged to do this
by Dr. Wiesner.

Mr. Lennon. You didn't mention that in your statement.

Mr. Wakelin. No, I did not, and that, I think, is a serious omission.

Mr. Lennon. I, for one, have never been able to recognize that
you can have a long-range national objective program when each
department and each participating department, agency, and bureau
has in substance the veto over the long-range objectives of your total
program, and that is what I think you have got here, and that is the
inherent weakness, I believe, of the ICO.

Do you care to comment on that statement?

Mr. Wakelin. Would you feel that the provisions of the proposed
bill 4276 would help us in this regard? And the reason I ask is for
my own information. It seems to me that if one is considering a
structure established by statute, that if one were to address oneself
to this particular issue, that this in a sense would be excising from
each department, then, a functional responsibility, and putting it
into a new organization. I feel that you are asking me a question
about the whole executive structure, using oceanography as an ex-
ample, if you understand my reply, sir.

Mr. Lennon. W'ell, it has a national and international scope, and
importance that has been attributed to it by the President, who is
constantly referring in public appearances, and even messages to the
Congress in the field of oceanography. It does seem to me that it
would be worthy of the dignity and the recognition of a department
set aside to obtain some long-range national objective, in which the
various departments and agencies and bureaus who participate in it
would not have the veto through their own budgetary problems over
the total program.

You will have to recognize that even though the program was
authorized prior to this Executive order of last year, that it was only
this committee which from time to time in the hearings developed the
fact that departments or agencies which should be participating in the
ICO came in only after it developed in these various hearings that
we have had that they were not in it, and that they had a real part or
place in it.

Much to my surprise, time and time again, agencies appeared here
who have a very vital interest in this program, and it was conceded
that they hadn't even been approached. Ultimately and subse-
quently, they were brought in, by invitation, for which we are glad,
but it just doesn't seem to me that we can ever do the job that is
necessary to be done unless we can have some central agency.

Now you take the Coast Guard. There are many of us who feel
that the Coast Guard is admirably equipped to participate to an
appreciable degree in this program. What is your budget for fiscal
1962? $134 million?

Mr. Wakelin. $134 million, sir, for oceanography.

Mr. Lennon. All right, now what part of this is included in the
Coast Guard's budget for oceanography— $134-and-some-odd thou-
sand? Is that right?

Mr. Wakelin. $134,000 is the level that we are talking to in the
President's budget, for the Treasury Department.

Mr. Lennon. Well, let us see to what extent the Coast Guard could
participate in this program, budget wise, for fiscal 1962. What does
your figure show there, Mr. Secretary?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 31

Mr. Wakelin. For 1962 it is the same figure, sir, $134,000.

Mr. Lennon. $134,000. And for the projected figures for 1963,
what is the Coast Guard's quota of this total oceanography budget?

Mr. Wakelin. In the President's budget, it is $134,000 again, sir.

Mr. Lennox. As against a total of $123,971,000 for the total pro-
gram. That is my point, Mr. Secretary. Each department and
agency is going to pull its own oars. It is going to project the facet
of this overall program that it is interested in, and it is going to push
that. Now concededly the ICO will try to bring it in line with the
total national objective, but until there is spelled out a total national
objective of the ICO, how are you going to bring into one central
agency and reconcile the jealousies, the petty jealousies that all
agencies have to excel] in whatever field that they are in?

We saw what happened here several years ago in the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force, and there is not a man or woman either
within the sound of my voice who doesn't know that if you had had
NASA back in 1955 or 1957, the sputnik I and II wouldn't have gone
up in 1957 before we had something in orbit.

And you have got the same thing here, and you will continue to
have it, until you set up a central agency that the Congress can
bring before it and ask, "What are you doing?" And I just wanted
to get into that.

I am not lecturing; I just have a very strong feeling about this,
that if the President is right about it in what he said, then you are
wrong about it, because you cannot have a goal that he has set forth
in this field unless }tou have a central responsible agency that has
authority to veto within its discretion the budgets of the individual
departments that participate in this program, and say what department
ought to get how much, and why.

I believe you happen to be the chairman at the moment. Let me
yield to my friend, Mr. Ellsworth.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, I feel very strongly about this, and
have for some time.

Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say, first of all, that I would like to encourage the
chairman to follow up on Secretary Wakelin's suggestion that we
invite Mr. Woodrow Jacobs, of the Data Center, to come and testify
before our committee. And secondly, Air. Secretary, I would like
to thank you for a very fine statement this morning, and a very broad
statement and a clear one.

I do have a couple of questions or so that I would like to ask.
First of all, Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask, is every Government
department or agency that is conducting oceanography represented
in some way on the ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. We believe this to be the case.

Mr. Ellsworth. You believe that everyone is? Now along the
lines of some of the questioning that has been directed to you already,
I am just wondering if you have available, and if you could either
read to us this morning or provide for the record later, figures to
show the 1961 budget request, department by department and
agency by agency for oceanography compared to their actual
expenditures in the departments and agencies?

Mr. Wakelin. For 1961.

Mr. Ellsworth. For fiscal year 1961.

32 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. We can supply this for the record.
(The information requested follows:)

Fiscal year 1961 budget
[Millions]

Department/Agency

Fiscal year
1961 budget
submission '

Fiscal year
1961 expend-
itures 2

Defense

$32.7

13.2

7.4

.7

9.3

2.2

.1

$31 6

Commerce ... _

11 4

Interior _ __ _ _

8 7

HEW

NSF

7 9

AEC__

1.7

Treasury . .

. 1

Total

65.6

62 1

1 Source: H. Rept. 2078 dated July 1, 1960, "Ocean Sciences and National Security." The total shown on
p. 132, table 25, of the reference, indicates a budget submission of $55,754. This has been adjusted to make
table 25 conformable to the national program by addition of the following items not included in table 25:

Table 25 total $55,754

Navy surveys 9.3

Army program .4

Air Force program . l

Total 65.6

J Source: "The budget of the U.S. Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963," schedule G-
p. 330.

National oceanographic plan summary, 1961-63
[Figures in thousands]

Agency and function

1961 actual
budget

1962 Presi-
dent's
budget

1962 appro-
priation

1963 Presi-
dent's
budget

Net grow th
1961 actual

to 1963
President's

budget

$31,615

11,400

6,777

7,883

1,691

694

133

$42, 158
24, 691
15, 472
19,607
3,610
1,150
134

$42, 081
23,034
14, 248
16,687
3,596
1,259
134

$57, 295

23,942

15,256

20, 140

5,345

1,609

134

250

+$25. 680

+12, 542

+8, 479

+12, 257

+3,654

+915

+1

+250

Total *

60, 193

106, 822

101, 039

123, 971

+63, 778

28, 924
875
14,048
14, 900
760
410
276

37,144
2,970

37, 050

16, 646
2,080

10, 422
510

36, 466

3,000

34. 010

16, 849

1,300

8,904

510

46. 875
6,466

38. 303

16.982
3,670

11,065
610

+17,951

+5, 591

+24, 255

+2, 082

+2, 910

+10, 655

+344

Total

60, 193

106, 822

101, 039

123,971

+63, 778

31,615

42, 158

42, 081

57, 295

+25, 680

31,077

41,593

41, 593

56, 370

+25, 293

16,618

15,692
2,150

13, 600

9,321

580

15,692
2,150

13, 600

9,321

580

19. 759
5.370

18,153

9,351

1,300

2,087

350

+3,141

+5, 370

4.200
9,311

760

+ 13,9.53

+40

IIOE_.

+540

+2, 087

188

250

250

+162

435
103

488
100

488

925

+490

Air Force, research (total)

-103

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 33

Xational oceanographic plan summary, 1961-63 — Continued
[Figures iu thousands]

Agency and function

1961 actual
budget

1962 Presi-
dent's
budget

1962 appro-
priation

1963 Presi-
dent's
budget

Net growth

1961 actual
to 1963

President's
budget

Department of Commerce (total)

$11,400

$24, 691

$23, 034

$23, 942

+$12,542

Coast & Geodetic Survey (total)

11,2(17

24,258

22,851

23,709

+12,442

Research

11

850

4,700

5,446

512

820

16, 725

5,941

230

850

14, 185

7,344

549
831

14,500
7,477

+538

Instrumentation

-49

Ship construction

+9,800

Surveys

+2,031

IIOE

Facilities __

250
10

180
80

162
80

272
80

+22

Data Center

+70

Weather Bureau (total)

133

433

133

183

+50

Research

123
10

423
10

123
10

50

173
10

50

+50

Instrumentation Data Center

Maritime Administration, research
(total)

(»)

50

Interior Department (total)

6,777

15, 472

14,248

15, 256

+8, 479

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
(total) .

6,188

14, 869

13, 619

14, 006

+7,818

3,938

25

2,055

7,409

7,409

8,465
70

2,650
20
70

2,651
80

+4, 527

Instrumentation

+45

Ship construction

3,225
1,250

3,225

+595

+20

IIOE

+70

Facilities

160
10

2,905
80

2,905
80

+2, 491

Data center

+70

U.S. Geological Survey (total)... .

425

425

425

1,000

+575

Research

425

425

425

550
195
255

+ 125

Instrumentation

+195

Facilities.

+255

Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wild-
life, research (total)

154
10

158
20

154
50

200
50

+46

Bureau of Mines (total)

+40

20

50

+50

Survevs..

10

50

-10

National Science Foundation (total)

7,883

19,607

16,687

20, 140

+12,257

4,742
3,093

7,190
3,500
1,500
7,337
80

7,050

3,000

720

5,837

80

8,960
3,000
2,300
5,800
80

+4,218

-93

IIOE

+2,300

+5,800

48

+32

Atomic Energv Commission (total)

1,691

3,610

3,596

5,345

+3, 655

1,681
10

3,600
10

3,586
10

5,335

10

+3, 655

P)

Health, Education, and Welfare (total)

-694

1,150

1,259

1,609

+915

Public Health Service, research

660
34

1,150

1,150
109

1,500
109

+840
+75

Treasury Department, surveys (total)

133

134

134

134

250

+1
+250

'No change.

34 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Ellsworth. All right, I would appreciate it if you could. I
think it might be enlightening as to the fate, perhaps, of some of the
recommendations — once they got back into the hands of the various
departments and out of control of the ICO again — what the fate of
it was.

Mr. Secretary, I would like to second a great many of the sentiments
that have been expressed here this morning. I notice that from time
to time in your statement, for example, on page 7, you say that "We
in the ICO have never considered ourselves to be a controlling, operat-
ing, or directing authority." You say that you neither have the
control or funds for the program authority to do this. At the top
of the page, you say that, "Agency efforts are adjusted to form a
more nearly coordinated program than would be the case without
the ICO," and you say subsequently, that you have hoped to influence
the various departments in their oceanographic budget.

At the top of page 9, you say that the implementation and fiscal
development of the program remains the responsibility of the various
agencies involved, and from time to time, in your extemporaneous
testimony, you used words like "we hope," "we want to," and "we
would suggest," to the various agencies the development of programs.

I would like to say that I feel very strongly, as evidently a good
many other members of the committee do, that this is not enough,
that this is not sufficient for the development of a truly national and
truly long-range oceanographic program, and development that
would conform with the President's continued emphasis on it.

I would like to refer to your testimony on page 5, where you say
that he — referring to Dr. Wiesner —

He also stated that the committee should consider, in addition, any other mat-
ters it deems relevant and important in advancing oceanography in the national
interest —

and I would like to ask if you don't feel that within the framework
of that authority, you could very well develop and set forth in writing
a long-range national set of national goals, right within the authority
you already have?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; but we interpret this statement to mean
just that in terms of our long-range plans and our long-range goals,
which we are now working on.

Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, how do you insure against two things that I am
sure you are confronted with and every operation of this kind is
confronted with, and that is duplication and also the problems that
arise out of self-evaluation programs, as far as the individual depart-
ments and agencies are concerned in their oceanographic work?

Mr. Wakelin. In the first place, we have a very close association
with the National Academy of Sciences, and Mr. Vetter and Dr.
Spilhaus meet with us as observers, and quite often, within the panel
structures, we view from the scientific community's point of view
our programs in the whole field of oceanography, either in research,
or instrumentation, or surveys, or ship construction, or in manpower
and training.

We also have had, during the last three budget hearings, prior to
the submission to the President of our plan, a committee convened
by the Federal Council and chaired by Dr. Maurice Ewing of Co-

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 35

lumbia University, with the people that he has selected to work with
him to review our whole national effort.

So we have Dr. Swing's panel that has in the last 2 or 3 years
reviewed our program, the relationship to the National Academy, and
of course, a close working relationship with civilian oceanographic
institutions at Woods Hole, at Columbia, the Miami University, Texas
A. & M., and the University of Washington, on the west coast. We
have constant feedin and recommendations from the civilians who
are most knowledgeable in this field.

Mr. Ellsworth. But the only way that that filters back into the
actual operating departments and agencies and finds itself reflected
in their spending of money and in their operations is through the
power of persuasion. Is that correct?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; entirely.

Mr. Ellsworth. Well, if you can provide those figures on fiscal
year 1961 , I would appreciate it, and I have no further questions,
Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lennon. We are delighted and honored to have our chairman
of our parent committee here, this morning. Mr. Bonner, would you
like to ask something?

Any more questions?

Mr. Bauer. One last question, Mr. Secretary, and that is, we have
a precedent in the executive department for creating such a group as
has been described by Congressman Lennon, and so on, and is spelled
out in H.R. 4276, do we not? We have a precedent, do we not?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. And I am referring to the President's message on
water resources and the companion bill before the House, H.R. 8177,
and also the creation of the Space Council, which is now Public Law
87-26 passed in the 87th Congress. I just want to get that in.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Bonner. May I ask him one question?

Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir; Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bonner. You have been a very interesting witness. I haven't
had the opportunity to hear as much of the testimony on this subject
as I would have desired. But do I understand that you advocate
some one agency to coordinate this work? It looks to me from your
statement that this thing is just scattered all over everywhere, helter-
skelter, and there is no central organization, is there?

Mr. Wakelin. We feel that the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography provides the coordinating mechanism, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bonner. But you don't have any — as Mr. Lennon, 1 think,
asked the question — you don't have any influence on these various
agencies to bring them in to carry on coordinated, uniform programs,
do you.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir; we have a great deal of influence.

Mr. Bonner. Influence, that is all you have

Mr. Wakelin. We have the influence, but we don't have the
authority; yes, sir.

Mr. Bonner. That is what I meant.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

36 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Bonner. Well then, in your opinion, shouldn't there be some-
body that does have the authority to coordinate and direct uniform
system of this study?

Mr. Wakelin. I would like to answer that, Mr. Chairman, in
another way, if I may.

First of all, I think that the Interagency Committee on Oceanogra-
phy is most effective in the coordination and planning of a national
effort. I think that if one is talking about directing the work, this
is a responsibility which we have never had, and I would doubt that
it would be good for us to have, as an operating agency at this time.
The reason I say so is the following: If one looks at basic research in
the national picture, if one looks at national resources, at the whole
program of meteorology, in all of these areas which are scientific at
base, and which also bear on roles and missions of the various agencies,
if we excise oceanography as a special function and set up a special
agency for this, then I think we ought to consider what we should do
for the other programs of the national interest. Nuclear physics is
another one. Basic medical research is another national program
which is coordinated in much the same way, Mr. Chairman.

I think there is a larger problem that we ought to address ourselves
to in the scientific community, if we are going to start with ocea-
nography.

Mr. Bonner. Well, did I understand or do I misunderstand you
that there are projects here and projects there carried out by different
agencies that are overlapping?

Mr. Wakelin. I don't believe the degree of duplication and over-
lapping is a very vital problem to us. But each of the agencies which
contributes to the national program, and which is a part of the
national program, actually operates its research, its survey work, its
facilities, in its own department.

Mr. Bonner. And one might be doing that, whereas if they were
coordinated, they would get better results for the particular interest
each individual department may have?

Mr. Wakelin. They are now coordinated, but they are not oper-
ated by the Committee.

Mr. Bonner. They are not what?

Mr. Wakelin. They are not operated by the Committee. The
operation of each part of the oceanographic program lies within the
responsibility of an agency or a department.

Mr. Bonner. Well, these hearings — one reason I wanted to come
up here and get a little information myself — have been going on 3
years. Has there been any progress made?

Mr. Wakelin. We feel that we have made a great deal of progress
in the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, not only through
your help and the help of this subcommittee, but the help of the
scientific community in oceanography, in bringing out at a national
level the interest and importance of oceanography.

Our whole national effort has increased budgetwise by a factor of
five in the last 6 years, from the order of $23 millions in 1959 to about
$123 millions proposed for 1963.

We feel also that insofar as our responsibilities are concerned, we
have made a very good first attempt in bringing the oceanographic
work of the separate departments into a coordinated national program,
Mr. Chairman.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 37

Mr. Bonner. Well, the full committee, at the time this subcom-
mittee was set up, felt that the subject of the oceans, and the seas,
was a subject under the jurisdiction of this committee.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bonner. And therefore, we directed the establishment of that
subcommittee, and I am interested to know of its measurements, and
of whether it is just hearing reports from one agency and another
agency, and especially the long-range program that Mr. Lennon
asked you about.

Now if you are just going from year to year, I don't think that you
in a vast subject of this kind, a field of this width, can make much
headway with just a program from year to year. This has been going
on 3 years, and you haven't got any scheduled program for continuity
of the work, and I don't know whether we have made much headway
here.

Mr. Wakelin. We have a program proposed by the

Mr. Bonner. Is some other committee of Congress having hearings
on this subject with a proposal similar to that which is pending before
this committee?

Mr. Wakelin. No, sir; not that I know of, in the House.

Mr. Bonner. Well, do you think there should be something of the
nature that this bill the committee has before it proposes?

Mr. Wakelin. I think if one proposes this bill for enactment on
oceanography, that one also should address oneself to the other areas
of a similar kind which are concerned with national efforts.

Mr. Bonner. Well now, you mean in some jurisdiction that this
committee doesn't have delegated to it?

Mr. Wakelin. No, I am not referring to jurisdiction. I am
referring to fields of science that are becoming important in the whole
national effort, such as the field of nuclear physics.

Mr. Bonner. Well, some of the things you refer to would be
under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, or Science
and Space, and so forth.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, and of course, I testify before Mr. Mahon's
committee on that part of our appropriation in the Navy that con-
cerns oceanography, as well.

Mr. Bonner. For economy, I would think that some directive
authority, or the coordination of the various funds spent in different
agencies that I have heard mentioned here today would promote this
subject, and be of value, not only to this Nation, but to the world.
Wouldn't it?

Mr. Wakelin. I think for coordination, it would be.

Mr. Bonner. That is just what I am asking. Should there be
some coordinative agency?

Mr. Wakelin. We have authority now to coordinate and plan for
the national effort, and we don't have authority over the funds in
the various departments in the operating agencies.

Mr. Bonner. Mr. Bauer, was that what you were trying to
develop?

Mr. Bauer. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bonner. Conceivably, your effort was to develop this that I
am trying to bring up.

Mr. Bauer. Yes, what I tried to bring out was that we have no
national program as such that is long range in nature, and that

38 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

furthermore, any coordination that was measured by ICO is on a
friendship basis, because they have no authority or responsibility to
a national program of oceanography.

Mr. Bonner. That is what I gather, just from my short attentive
listening to your fine statement. You yourself admit that there is a
lack of something, and there should be more coordination by authority.
And I think Mr. Lennon — is that what you were talking of, Mr.
Lennon?

Mr. Lennon. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the guts of Secretary
Wakelin's statement is here, and I read from his statement, "What-
ever national program that we put together in the ICO must, first
of all, meet the statutory commitments of the agencies."

Mr. Wakelin. This is correct.

Mr. Lennon. Now that is the most significant thing you said, and
that is certainly to my rather prejudiced way of thinking, bearing
out what I said all the time. If you have got any national program,
be it long-range or short-range objectives, that must first of all be
contingent upon the statutory commitments of the several agencies,
I don't see that you can have a long-range program.

Now I would like for you to tell me over what period of years we
have had statutory enactment of law in the various agencies and
departments for them to participate in any fashion of oceanography.
It certainly would run at least 15 or 20 years, wouldn't it?

Mr. Wakelin. Oh, yes; and farther back than that.

Mr. Lennon. Are you here now prepared to say that in all of the
statutory enactments over the last quarter of a century on this subject,
delegating to this Department and agency and this Bureau authority
in this field, that you would not find some inconsistencies in statutory
regulations of the various agencies that are involved in this program?

Mr. Wakelin. Oh, I think they must exist. I can't quote chapter
and verse on it.

Mr. Lennon. Therefore, the necessity for a new law, for bringing
these departments and agencies and bureaus in a central department
that we ran bring them before this committee on whatever committee
may have jurisdiction, and say, "Now what is the program? Short-
range, long-range, what is being done about it?" That is the thing
that we are interested in.

I can see your hesitancy about endorsing such a move, because you
think — and I think I have heard you express this before — that if you
moved into this field with a central agency, you would be asked to
move into this one and that one and the other one, all in the field of
science and related matters.

Mr. Bonner. With respect to that, doesn't the Secretary of Defense
have jurisdiction as the head of studies by the Marine Corps and the
Navy, and the Army and the Air Force, in outer space and science
and development in that field?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bonner. So there is, in that field, then, a coordinated head?

Mr. Wakelin. In the Department of Defense, yes.

Mr. Bonner. And a directive. Well, that is why you are doing
all this work in outer space, missiles, and so forth, for peaceful pur-
poses as well as other purposes. So it is coordinated there.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, it is.

Mr. Bonner. Now what other field, then, were you talking about?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 39

Mr. Wakelin. I am talking about a number of other scientific
fields.

Mr. Bonner. And I understood you to say you hesitated because
it seemed that the policy of the Budget of the administration was
not favorable to the proposal that is pending before this committee,
or some such proposal.

Mr. Wakelin. No, sir.

Mr. Bonner. Did I misunderstand you in your testimony?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir, I do not hesitate on that point.

Mr. Bonner. Would you think, then, to coordinate this, it might
be better to bring down the Director of the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Bonner. To get to the bottom of this matter.

Mr. Wakelin. Right.

Mr. Bonner. Have you had him down.

Mr. Dingell. No, Mr. Chairman, we have not scheduled the Di-
rector of the Budget. It also appears that it might be wholesome
for the committee to consider having Dr. Wiesner, who is Scientific
Adviser to the President, to appear, too.

Mr. Bonner. Well, of course, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting
many of the gentlemen that you have mentioned. Dr. Wiesner.
What authority has he?

Mr. Dingell. He is the President's science adviser.

Mr. Bonner. He is the head of the works.

Mr. Dingell. As I read the signals that come up from downtown,
would it be fair to infer that Dr. Wiesner is perhaps the principal
formula tor of policy within the administration on this point?

Mr. Wakelin. On science and technology.

Mr. Bonner. Well, that covers the whole field.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, it does, sir.

Mr. Bonner. We are interested in this subject.

Mr. Wakelin. But in this regard, Mr. Bonner, I might suggest
that there are other very important programs in the field of science
over which the Federal Council for Science and Technology has a
responsibility to coordinate the national effort on a planning and
programing basis. They include the Committee on Atmospheric
Sciences, which is concerned with the national program on meteorologi-
cal work, our program on oceanography, the program on nuclear
physics.

Mr. Bonner. All this comes under Dr. Wiesner?

Mr. Wakelin. That is all Dr. Wiesner's Council, yes.

Mr. Bonner. Have you had Dr. Wiesner yet?

Mr. Dingell. Not yet, Mr. Chairman, no.

Mr. Wakelin. There is also a Committee on Water Resources,
and a very important Committee on Development of Materials.

Now my only concern about oceanography is not that I feel that
legislation couldn't help us. I think in some respects it would.
I don't feel that we should look at oceanograplw as a special part of
science, without considering other programs in the national interest
that are planned on a national basis.

Mr. Bonner. Well, then, do I understand you to mean, then, there
should be a Department of Scientific Development?

Mr. Wakelin. No.

40 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Bonner. In that Department, of course, one committee of
Congress could have jurisdiction on certain functions, and this com-
mittee would have jurisdiction on oceanography.

Mr. Wakelin. I am not talking about a Department of Science.
I am talking about similar legislation as a prospect that includes all
these other fields of science ■

Mr. Bonner. What secretary, Cabinet status, is this Dr. Wiesner?

Mr. Wakelin. He is a Special Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology.

Mr. Bonner. Well, I don't want to upset the President's business,
because I am very favorably inclined to the gentleman, but I think
something should be done in this field, bringing this to a head. We
will be running on here for another year or two, holding hearings.

Mr. Wakelin. I think as far as coordination of the national pro-
gram is concerned, that in the coordination role, we are doing a job.
If you wish, then, to take out from each of the agencies their author-
ity over funds for oceanography and to set up a separate department
or agency, this is quite another matter.

Mr. Bonner. You mean that setting up an oceanographic agency
would conflict and interfere with the other scientific developments
that are going on?

Mr. Wakelin. In part, and also, of course, each of the agencies
has by statute responsibilities in this field that one would have to
consider in setting up such a new agency.

The Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Defense: each of us has to do a
certain amount of work in oceanography basic to our mission, and
if you are going to excise that from the responsibility of Mr. Mc-
Namara in Defense, and Mr. Udall in the Interior, then I think you are
talking about quite a reorganization of the executive department.
In an area in which many of our interests overlap, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bonner. That is all.

Mr. Lennon. Mr. Secretary, how did the Department of Defense
react when in 1958 the Congress enacted the statute providing for
NASA? And why was the necessity for it?

Mr. Wakelin. I think this is the pursuit, Mr. Lennon, of space
exploration and space research for peaceful purposes; and of course
the Department of Defense still continues its military applications in
a research, development, test, evaluation, and operational status in
space, necessary for the common defense.

Mr. Lennon. Wei], don't we have a comparable situation with
respect to exploration of the field of oceanography for peaceful pur-
poses in addition to the facets as enjoyed by the missions of the
various defense agencies in oceanography?

Mr. Wakelin. Not entirely. Because I don't believe that in the
space effort there were many roles and missions that had been con-
ducted in the various agencies for a long period of time, such as In-
terior, Commerce, AEC, and the National Science Foundation as well
as Defense, all of whom have had for a long period of time programs
in the field of oceanography.

Mr. Lennon. But those fields they are interested in in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and the Department of the Interior are certainly
related to peaceful purposes in oceanography.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 41

Mr. Wakelin. Indeed, but they are long-established functions as
a role of their performing for their department the necessary back-
ground and research and development to fulfill their roles and missions.

Air. Lennon. Could not such a separate agency relate both the
national defense effort and peaceful purposes to oceanography, and
bring them together, and yet let them continue their missions under
the jurisdiction of this central agency?

Mr. Wakelin. Then I think if you did that, you would have to re-
vise the roles and missions of each of the executive departments which
have been conducting their work in oceanography over a long period
of time.

Mr. Lennon. How are you going to relate a national total effort?
Because we know every agency is interested in a little bit different
facet, at least, so far as its immediate objectives are concerned, in
the field of oceanography. Isn't that true?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. They have a different puprose, a different motiva-
tion. What is going to bring them together with a long-range ob-
jective?

Mr. Wakelin. But many interests of these several departments
concerned with this are not in conflict with the national program, and
they are not separate from it.

Mr. Lennon. Well, maybe when you bring to us a long-range
national objective for oceanography, maybe I might change my views,
and let me see what is the national objective of oceanography. I
haven't gotten that yet.

Mr. Wakelin. There are two such plans we can show you immedi-
ately. The National Academy's plan in 1959, and our own plan for
the Navy that would be a prototype for the whole national program
in oceanography and as a part of the whole national effort. These are
very interesting plans to look at.

Mr. Dingell. Will you yield?

Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. I am concerned now with regard to this. I happen
to know, Mr. Secretary, that you had had a great deal to do with the
TENOC plan, that you were probably the leading light behind it,
and it is an excellent plan, but would you say in fairness that this is
or should be or will be the national program on oceanography, if it
ever is evolved?

Mr. Wakelin. It is certainly as good a guide to the Navy's work in
oceanography over the next 10 years as any long-range plan would be.

Mr. Dingell. I agree. It is an excellent plan for the Navy, but
is it a plan for the whole endeavor of the United States with regard
to say, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Coast and Geodetic Sur-
vey

Mr. Wakelin. Oh, indeed not.

Mr. Dingell. And this other plan, you say National Science
Foundation?

Mr. Wakelin. National Academy's.

Mr. Dingell. Would we be fair in inferring that perhaps the
National Academy plan might be an excellent plan for the National
Academy, but it might not comport with the needs of all of the other
agencies of the Federal Government? This would be fair to say,
would it not?

42 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. But the National Academy considered programs for
each of the Government agencies and departments then working in
the field of oceanography.

Mr. Dingell. Do you know of your own knowledge that the
National Academy coordinated with these other agencies in regard
to the formulation of their plans?

Mr. Wakelin. I don't know the details of the level of coordination,
but I do know that they had to work closely with the Government
departments in order to prepare such a plan, and were requested to
by the Navy, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Science Foundation,
and Interior.

Mr. Dingell. Would it be fair to infer, then, perhaps, that this
should be the plan, and we should simply adopt that? Wouldn't that
be in effect an admission that if the National Academy of Sciences
can do this, we ought to have them coordinate it, and to get rid of,
perhaps the ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. This is a possibility. I don't believe, however, that
it is right to delegate to the Academy responsibilities for work per-
formed in Government departments under their own Government
funding. I think, as a coordinating mechanism, it has worked very
closely with us.

What we did, Mr. Chairman, was the following when we received
the NASCO report: We reviewed this, and set up our own 10-year
program in the ICO, through the membership of the ICO. We have
that plan now, which was generated early in 1960. We don't feel this
is of sufficient depth and explains the whole program in enough detail
to be helpful, as helpful to the national interest, as our TENOC
program was in the Navy.

As a result of this, we asked the Navy to develop the 10-year
ocean ographic program, developed originally for scientific work — we
asked the Chief of Naval Operations to include the operational aspects
to the program, and to integrate the whole effort, research, develop-
ment, and operations, into a 10-year plan for the whole Navy.

Now we are asking the other Government agencies to do the same
thing from their point of view, in terms of their own roles and missions,
and when these are integrated, we will have truly a national plan as
a Government agency development.

Mr. Dingell. That is right, and formulated reasonably, I hope,
by the heads of the sundry departments involved; am I correct? At
least after careful consideration by these?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Now I don't want to transgress on Mr. Lennon's
time, but I do want to pursue this: Now, what attention have the
heads of the various and sundry departments given to the affairs of
the ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. Direct attention?

Mr. Dingell. Direct attention.

Mr. Wakelin. Their direct attention through their Under Sec-
retaries at that level has been given to the program in the Federal
Council for Science and Technology when we present our total pro-
gram to them each year.

Mr. Dingell. Has any of them ever attended a meeting of the
ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. No, they haven't.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 43

Mr. Dingell. Has anyone at Cabinet level, other than yourself,
ever attended a meeting of the ICO, or participated in the delibera-
tions of ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. I do not believe so.

Mr. Dingell. You see, Mr. Secretary, I happen to think you are an
extraordinarily able and dedicated public servant, and I think you
have done a fine job in this field, but I think you are the only man on
a policy level in Government who has ever devoted any significant
amount of time to this problem of coordination of oceanography, and
I will make that bald statement and challenge you, as a representative
of the administration, to deny it or to rebut it.

Has anyone at the policymaking level in Government, aside from
yourself, ever given any thought to the coordination of this whole
program?

Mr. Wakelin. Oh, yes, the Secretaries of the various departments
have given very serious thought to our proposal for a National
Oceanographic Center.

Mr. Dingell. The Secretaries did?

Mr. Wakelin. And entered into an agreement among themselves
as to its support.

Mr. Dingell. Have they ever given any other attention to this
program?

Mr. Wakelin. Each one of the Secretaries must review it, as it
comes up in their total budget preparations.

Mr. Dingell. I see. They must review it as it comes up in the
course of their total budget preparations, but Mr. Secretary, isn't
it true to say that they only review it after somebody else has made
the basic decision, and they rarely upset the basic decisions of the
people down below?

Am I correct?

Mr. Wakelin. I can't speak for any Department other than the
Navy in this regard.

Mr. Dingell. As a matter of general assumption, it would be
fairly general to say that determinations of budget made at a lower
level are rarely upset, wouldn't it?

Mr. Wakelin. I can't comment in general on this. I don't know,
Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Now let's talk about this business of the requests, or
rather of the projected governmental program. This has been
kicking around now how long, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Wakelin. Which program, the national program in oceanog-
raphy?

Mr. Dingell. The national program in oceanography. That has
been bouncing around for how long?

Mr. Wakelin. 1 would say in terms of certainly the last 4 years.

Mr. Dingell. And the initial requests went out to the sundry
departments concerned when?

Mr. Wakelin. The initial request to

Mr. Dingell. To the departments concerned to submit their
participating portion.

Mr. Wakelin. On a 10-year plan?

Air. Dingell. Yes, of the national oceanographic program that
vou referred to in vour notes.

44 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. In that time period, I would say it has been no longer
than a year.

Mr. Dingell. No longer than a year, and you indicated you have
seen drafts; but have you seen anything else, further than rough
drafts?

Mr. Wakelin. We have, of course, talked with each of the members.

1 have talked with each of the members of the ICO about their prepara-
tion of the plan and about their ideas of the plan, and how far they are
along in some of the features of it, but we have not had complete re-
turns from each of the agencies for their 10-year program plans.

Mr. Dingell. What agency has made any return to you?

Mr. Wakelin. The Smithsonian has.

Mr. Dingell. The Smithsonian. Has anyone else?

Mr. Wakelin. And the Navy.

Mr. Dingell. And the Navy, and, of course/you are responsible to
see that the Navy has, and you have done an excellent job. As I
have indicated, my concern is not that you are not doing an excellent
job. My concern is that apparently there is not enough attention by
others in Government to this same problem.

Those two agencies have submitted returns to you. Is there any
other agency that has?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, we have a draft of the program suggested for
the Department of Interior. We have the approved plans of the
Department of Commerce.

Mr. Dingell. All right, now, that is three departments.

Mr. Wakelin. We are going to get shortly the Atomic Energy
Commission's, within the next several weeks, if it isn't in now. The
Atomic Energy Commission's long-range plans, and the National
Science Foundation's long-range plans.

Mr. Dingell. And who else?

Mr. Wakelin. There is Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Treasury Department.

Mr. Dingell. Those are the only other agencies?

Mr. Wakelin. That are involved in the ICO.

Mr. Dingell. And you are expecting these momentarily?

Mr. Wakelin. I would expect to have all of them in the next

2 months.

Mr. Dingell. Now let's switch over. You have in ICO what size
staff, sir?

Mr. Wakelin. We have Mr. Robert Abel, who is going to talk to
you la tor.

Mr. Dingell. I mean full-time personnel staff whose principal
responsibility is carrying out staff functions by, for, and on behalf
of ICO.

Mr. Wakelin. As far as full-time staff is concerned, certainly Mr.
Robert Abel, in the Office of Naval Research, assisted them by two
other people.

Mr. Dingell. Now Mr. Robert Abel is in the Office of Naval Re-
search. His principal job is somewhere else in the Office of Naval
Research, is it not?

Mr. Wakelin. His principal function right now is Executive Sec-
retary of the ICO.

Mr. Dingell. Does he devote full time to this?

Mr. Wakelin. As far as I know, he does.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 45

Mr. Dingell. He has no other responsibility?

Mr. Wakelin. He may have, but I don't think he has time to
fulfill anything else except this particular role.

Mr. Dingell. Well, in what you are talking of, he is shortchanging
the Government with regard to one responsibility or the other, be-
cause he doesn't have time enough to carry them both out, am I
right?

Mr. Wakelin. As far as I know, he has been delegated to work in
the Office of Naval Research for me, and the ICO, and he reports to me.

Mr. Dingell. This is his principal job in the Government. Then
he has no other job.

Mr. Wakelin. That is correct.

Mr. Dingell. Now who else do you have, full-time staff, in ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. We don't have anyone else full time, with the ex-
ception of Comdr. Steven Anastasion, who spends a major fraction
of his time as my special assistant. A very able man. Exceptionally
fine, and an outstanding officer.

Mr. Dingell. True, I agree. Does he have other responsibilities
in the Government, too?

Mr. Wakelin. Only as I delegate the responsibilities to him.

Mr. Dingell. But his responsibilities are as your aid?

Mr. Wakelin. He is one of my aids, yes.

Mr. Dingell. Now this has been very helpful, but as to meetings
of ICO, is there any regular schedule of meetings for ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. There isn't any regular scheduled group of meetings,
Mr. Chairman. As the pressure of work builds up we convene the
ICO.

Mr. Dingell. Approximately how often does the ICO convene for
meetings?

Mr. Wakelin. Of the order of once every 1 or 2 months, as a full
committee. Of course, the panels are in conference a great deal of the
time in between the ICO meetings.

Mr. Dingell. I see. Now is there an attendance taken at ICO
meetings?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. Do you always have a quorum, and what constitutes
a quorum?

Mr. Wakelin. We are not organized on a quorum basis, with
respect to parliamentary procedures, but usually we have representa-
tives, in fact, we always have representatives from each of the depart-
ments. If they are not members of the ICO, their alternates come.

Mr. Dingell. Do you have designated members of the ICO who
are supposed to attend meetings of ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Do these members generally attend?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes. In fact, they almost always attend.

Mr. Dingell. Now can you tell us what subprograms under the
national oceanographic program have been worked on by ICO?

Do you have any subprograms under that that have been worked on
by ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. I am not sure I understand the question.

Mr. Dingell. Or subdivisions of the major programs that have
been worked on by ICO itself?

80597—62 4

46 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. In addition to the work of the panels, which are
specific to various functional areas, such as research, ships, manpower
and training, facilities, and instrumentation, almost all of the work in
the ICO is directed to one panel or another. The newest one, of
course, is our International Programs Panel.

Mr. Dingell. How often do these panels meet?

Mr. Wakelin. They meet at least once a month.

Mr. Dingell. At least once a month, to solve major programs in
the field of oceanography?

Mr. Wakelin. These are continuing programs, Air. Chairman, and
each of the panel members may be involved in the operation of that
particular part of a program in his own agency, but as far as the
coordination is concerned, this doesn't consume vast amounts of time.

Mr. Dingell. Now, what staff do you have to assist the panels in
providing continuity of direction to the sundry panels?

Mr. Wakelin. The panel staffs, of course, have available to them
people in the various departments where their responsibilities are.

Mr. Dingell. Who have other responsibilities within their respec-
tive departments?

Mr. Wakelin. Indeed.

Mr. Dingell. Who are in effect part-time employees. Am I
correct?

Mr. Wakelin. Well, I can't speak for all of them, but each of the
panel chairmen will come before you, and I think they can, themselves,
answer this question better than I.

Mr. Dingell. Now, let me ask you this question. Are you familiar
with the budgets of all of the departments of Government and agencies
of Government which are involved in oceanography? And I only ask
you, are you familiar in a general way with them?

Mr. Wakelin. With the budgets in oceanography?

Mr. Dingell. Yes; of assorted and sundry Government depart-
ments.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. Was there a meeting of ICO on budgets of the
agencies involved in the field of oceanography?

Mr. Wakelin. We have numbers of meetings on budget problems.

Mr. Dingell. Was there with regard to the budget requests of
these various agencies ever a meeting of ICO?

Mr. Wakelin. Oh, yes, indeed; of course. We meet the beginning
of each calendar year to consider the next year's budget.

Mr. Dingell. All right; now, with regard to that, are you familiar
with the requests of the agencies to the Bureau of the Budget with
regard to their oceanographic activities, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. Can you, or is there somebody in Government who
can, submit to this committee a statement or a list of the initial budg-
etary requests of the agencies as started out in the budgetary process
of these different agencies in Government dealing with oceanography?

Mr. Wakelin. I can only speak for the Navy Department, and I
think the other members of the other departments should speak for
their own departments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Would I be fair in inferring, though, that the requests
of everybody but the Navy got substantially whittled down in the
field of oceanography?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 47

Mr. Wakelin. They were decreased. I don't know whether I
would say "substantially whittled down." They weren't decreased
by a major fraction of their request.

Mr. Dingell. But they were substantially limited with regard to
any increase of activity in the held of oceanography. Am I correct?

Mr. Wakelin. In certain special areas; yes.

Mr. Dingell. And as a matter of fact, the only agency in Govern-
ment which received any significant increase in oceanographic dollar
budget was the Navy, whereas most of the other agencies received
substantial reductions in then requests and very slight increases, if
any, in their actual oceanographic activity. Am I correct?

Mr. Wakelin. If you will allow me simply to look at the various
agencies across the board, I would say apart from — well, let us com-
pare 1962 actually with the President's budget which is now before
the Congress.

There was an increase for the Department of Defense, a very small
increase for Commerce, a small increase for Interior, a modest increase
for the National Science Foundation, a substantial increase in the
Atomic Energy Commission, a small increase in Health, Education,
and Welfare, the same for Treasury, and a sum for taxonomy of
$250,000 for the Smithsonian, which I can't tell you was in last year
in their own budget or not, so this may not be an increase of that
amount.

Mr. Dingell. So actually, aside from Department of the Navy,
there was a very insignificant increase in the budgets of these agencies.
Am I correct?

Mr. Wakelin. The whole budget went up by $22,900,000.

Mr. Dingell. Yes.

Mr. Wakelin. Across the board. If you have got the same figures
I have, sir.

Mr. Dingell. But the largest portion of that was the Navy's; am
I correct?

Mr. Wakelin. The largest portion of the increase — and this is of
the order of $15,200,000— was for the Navy.

Mr. Dingell. I want you to know, Mr. Secretary, I am not critical
of your part in this. I think the Navy well deserves and I commend
you for the Navy having achieved an increase in its oceanographic
budget, but I wonder, these other agencies, it would appear that
ICO was not much help in achieving any additional emphasis on the
part of these other agencies.

Mr. Wakelin. Would you, Mr. Chairman, explain for my informa-
tion, if I might ask this question, how your bill 4276 would help this
particular problem ?

Mr. Dingell. Well, the idea is not to make an assumption or an
assertion that the bill that we have been discussing would make any
significant increase, or any steps toward the solution of the problem,
but it would appear that at least it would give some emphasis to con-
sideration of budgetary problems. Am I correct, Mr. Secretary?
It will give some statutory dignity to the agency which is in effect
supervising the whole control of these budgetary operations with
regard to coordination, and it might give, at least we are hopeful it
would give, a counterweight to the Bureau of the Budget with regard
to the increase as opposed to the Budget's natural effort and pressure
to cut budgets, and hold down expenses, which is a sizable thing.
Am I correct'/

48 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Wakelin. In that regard, I certainly consider the Bureau of
the Budget's responsibilities are those of trying to arrive at a total
figure for the whole national budget by integrating over a number of
national programs, one of which is oceanography. So that in this
regard, I could not be assured that your bill would give us any more
total support in the Bureau of the Budget than the current mechanism
of going through the ICO and the Federal Council, and working closely
with the Bureau of the Budget people, as we do right now.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Secretary, the point I have been leading up to
is simply this: Wouldn't it be fair to infer that on the basis of raw
figures alone that ICO has had modest success, if at all, in increasing
activities by governmental agencies involved in the field of oceanogra-
phy in that field?

Mr. Wakelin. Do you consider a factor of 5 over the last 6 years
as being inconsequential?

Mr. Dingell. Let us talk in terms of the agencies other than the
Department of the Navy. It has been relatively lacking in success
with agencies outside of the Department of the Navy, and I speak
just in terms of last year's budget.

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. I haven't made scrutiny, but it wouldn't be unfair
to make that statement, would it?

Mr. Wakelin. I think it would be unfair. That is my personal
opinion.

Mr. Dingell. Can you give us an idea of what the proposed budg-
ets in this field were that came from the representative departments
to the Bureau of the Budget, so that we can make an objective com-
parison between what was requested, and what the various and
sundry departments thought was appropriate and necessary, as op-
posed to what the Bureau of the Budget finally let them have?

Mr. Wakelin. I am not sure that I can give you the precise figure,
but thev are of the order of $138 million versus $124 million.

Mr. Dingell. $136 million and $124 million. So that that is a
cut of approximately $12 million and this cut came principally out-
side of the Navy's budget, I am correct? It came in the various
civilian agencies?

Mr. Wakelin. It came mostly outside of the Navy, right. But
I don't understand how your proposed bill is going to help in this
regard, because the budget process must consider oceanography along
with all the other national efforts. I am not opposed to the bill.
Please understand that.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Secretary, I am not even discussing the bill at
the moment.

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your helpfulness this morning, and your
very fine statement, and I want to commend you.

Mr. Bauer has a few more questions.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Secretary, one last approach here.

If you look at the oceans as an environment, you of course would
have to consider the atmospheric part of the environment, the part
having to do with the physics and chemistry of the oceans, and the
part having to do with the biology of the oceans. Is that not correct?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Do you regard the oceans as important as study of
environmental problems and requiring coordination as water resources?'

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 49

Mr. Wakelin. Indeed.

Mr. Bauer. In the study of the oceans, is it not true that solid
state physics could conceivably be involved as well as nuclear physics,
as well as the other particular scientific disciplines that you have
mentioned?

Mr. Wakelin. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. And why is there any objection to regarding the oceans
as an environment and coordinating the oceans as an environment
precisely in the same fashion that outer space has been coordinated
by the space council, and the President has indicated that he wants
to have the water resources of the United States brought in in similar
fashion?

Mr. Wakelin. With respect to coordination, I have no objection.

Mr. Bauer. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Drewry?

Mr. Secretary, we want to thank you very much for your kind-
ness in coming before the committee. You have been most generous
with your time, and most helpful to the committee.

There were a number of other witnesses who were scheduled today,
Dr. Stewart, Commander Alexander, Dr. Dees, Mr. McKernan,
Mr. Abel, and Dr. Maxwell.

Gentlemen, the committee apologizes to you for having detained
you this morning. Would it be possible for you to be back, here with
us tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock?

Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

Mr. Wakelin. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dingell. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock
tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to resume at
10 a.m., Thursday, March 1, 1962.)

STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1962

House of Representatives,
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

Subcommittee on Oceanography,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room
219, House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (acting chairman)
presiding.

Mr. Dingell. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries has been conducting a general oversight
on the conduct of the ICO. We are honored to have with us this
morning a group of distinguished witnesses from the Interagency
Committees on Oceanography.

Our first witness is Mr. D. L. McKernan, Chairman of the Equip-
ment and Facilities Panel. Mr. McKernan is also Director of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

We are privileged to have you with us, Mr. McKernan. You are
certainl}' most welcome.

Do you have anyone with you that you would like to have sit
with you today?

STATEMENT OF DONALD I. McKERNAN, CHAIRMAN, INTER-
AGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY PANEL ON FACILI-
TIES, EQUIPMENT, AND INSTRUMENTATION, ACCOMPANIED
BY GILBERT JAFFE, HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE, U.S. NAVY;
A. J. GOODHEART, U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; LT. COMDR. R. P. DINSMORE,
U.S. COAST GUARD; DR. DIXY LEE RAY, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION; AND F. D. JENNINGS, OFFICE OF NAVAL
RESEARCH

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of members of
my panel who are specialists in this field, and perhaps if technical
questions come up during the course of our discussions this morning,
it might be well if I simply introduced them, and then if you wouldn't
mind, we could call on them to give you more complete information
on any subject that you desire.

Mr. Dingell. That would be fine.

51

52 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. McKernan. I should like to introduce, Mr. Chairman, some
of the members of our panel who are here.

Mr. Gilbert Jaffe, of the Hydrographic Office of the Navy. Perhaps
Mr. Jaffe would stand, so you can see what good-looking men we have
on this panel.

Mr. Goodheart, from the Department of Commerce, Coast and
Geodetic Survey in the Department of Commerce.

Lt. Comdr. R. P. Dinsmore, U.S. Coast Guard.

Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, from the National Science Foundation.

Mr. Dingell. Dr. Ray is well known to the committee.

Mr. McKernan. And today we also have Mr. F. D. Jennings, of
the Office of Naval Research. Yesterday he was away on an official
visit and wasn't here. It is wonderful to have him here.

And yesterday, at least, we had an observer from the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography, Mr. Richard
Vetter. I am not sure whether he is here this morning or not. Per-
haps he will come in later, Mr. Chairman.

All of these people, in addition to myself, will be pleased to con-
tribute toward a more complete record of our hearing.

Mr. Dingell. Ladies and gentlemen, you are most welcome.
The committee is happy to have you here, and we look forward to
hearing from you.

Mr. McKernan. I am a member of the Interagency Committee
on Oceanography, and am Chairman of the Panel on Equipment,
Facilities, and Instrumentation. I have a prepared statement which
I submit for the record. If there are no objections, I will briefly
discuss my remarks in this paper.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, so ordered.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Statement of Donald L. McKernan, Chairman, Interagency Committee
on Oceanography, Panel on Facilities, Equipment, and Instrumentation

purpose and objectives

Mr. Chairman, the Panel on Facilities, Equipment, and Instrumentation is one
of the newer panels of the Interagency Committee. It was organized in January
1961 to insure coordination between Government agencies, private oceanographic
institutions and industry in the development of instruments, procurement of
major items of equipment and construction of shoreside facilities. The principal
objective of the panel is to give impetus to development of instruments and
instrument systems for oceanographic research and surveys.

Last year we believed that plans for new techniques and new ways of obtaining
oceanographic information were not proceeding as rapidly as they should. There
was a need for new instruments to be placed on research and survey ships which
were scheduled for construction. We recognized progress being made in other
fields of science as a result of close work with industry. Following this example,
we believed industry know-how had to be applied to oceanographic instrumenta-
tion so that rapid advances could be made. There were a number of instrumen-
tation problems before us, and our panel was organized to meet them.

PANEL MEMBERSHIP

Representation on the panel is from all member agencies of ICO which have
operational requirements in oceanography. In addition, liaison is obtained with
non-Government scientists through a representation from the National Academy
of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. Membership on this panel is by desig-
nation from each agency. Special care has been taken to insure that, where
possible, instrument specialists serve on the panel.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 53

For the record, our present membership is as follows:
Interior:

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, D. L. McKernan, Chairman.

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, alternate, H. H. Eckles.
Navy:

Office of Naval Research, F. D. Jennings.

Hydrographic Office, G. Jaffe.

Hydrographic Office, alternate, Comdr. T. K. Treadwell.
Commerce:

U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, A. J. Goodheart.

U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, alternate, Theodore V. Ryan.
Treasury: U.S. Coast Guard, Lt. Comdr. R. P. Dinsmore.
Atomic Energy Commission: Dr. I. E. Wallen.
National Science Foundation, Dr. R. G. Bader.
National Science Foundation, alternate, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography:

Observer, A. C. Vine.

Alternate, R. C. Vetter.

WAYS OF ACCOMPLISHING OBJECTIVES

During the past year the Panel held a series of meetings to develop and co"
ordinate the 1963 instrument and facilities program which each agency had sub-
mitted to ICO. Descriptions of facilities and plans for instrument development,
with estimated costs, were studied by an ad hoc group which summarized sub-
missions for the Panel. The purpose and need of each recommendation were
discussed. An evaluation was made on whether each item was necessary to the
oceanographic program and whether balance in programs was being maintained.
A final recommendation was then made to the Interagency Committee for in-
clusion in the 1963 program. One of the main benefits of the Panel's review of
facilities was pointing out opportunities for future cooperation; for example,
development of a port facility in Seattle.

Ad hoc groups have carried out special tasks such as determination of need
for an instrument test and calibration center and organization of a symposium
on instrumentation.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OP THE PANEL

Although this panel of the Interagency Committee has been organized just
slightly over a year, we have undertaken a number of special tasks which we
believe will contribute to progress of the total oceanographic program. One of
the most important of these was the Government-industry oceanographic instru-
mentation symposium which I have just mentioned.

A general introduction and background on oceanography was given to 700
industry members who attended this symposium which we held in August 1961.

This was a cooperative undertaking by Government and non-Government
scientists, marine surveyors, and others interested in oceanography. The infor-
mation presented and that developed during question periods allowed each com-
pany to determine its interest in the oceanographic program and its capability
for developing and producing instruments for the various fields of science which
make up oceanography.

Written descriptions of future instrument needs were prepared as handouts.
These were given to the attendees and also received wide circulation by mail.
We believe these lists, which are being kept up to date, will be helpful to both
Government and industry in future instrument development. Results of the
symposium will be published in about 2 months and will be a compendium of
knowledge about the oceanographic program and future needs for instrumenta-
tion. It is our aim that the proceedings and additional materials which will be
presented with them, will answer many of the questions about oceanography
which are often asked by industry members and other persons. For the record
the proceedings will contain the following:

1. Papers presented by the speakers.

2. Answers to questions asked at the meeting.

3. A list of scientific agencies which use oceanographic instruments.

4. A list of industrial groups which manufacture oceanographic instru-
ments.

5. Attendance list.

6. Required oceanographic instruments for oceanographic survey vessels.

7. Requirements for oceanographic instruments for ships-of-opportunity.

54 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

8. Requirements for shipboard oceanographic synoptic system for regional
and mobile observational networks (ASWEPS) .

9. List of instruments needed in fishery research.

10. Oceanographic bibliography.

As a result of the symposium and industry's general interest in oceanography
we are developing a master instrumentation proposal and capability file at the
National Oceanographic Data Center. Reviews of proposals made by each
agency are to be placed in the file and also made available to other Government
or nonprofit research groups which might have an interest in the instruments
concerned. The file will be privileged so as to protect the rights and ideas of
companies. This file will, however, be a central source of information on instru-
ment possibilities. Considerable time can be saved by maintaining a central
system for exchange of information over that required if each agency carries out
separate reviews and maintains a separate file.

Another task which we have undertaken has been study of the need for an instru-
ment test and calibration center, following which recommendations were made to
the Interagency Committee for two such facilities. At the present time the
Hydrographic Office has plans to develop an instrument center, in the same build-
ing as the data center. This will be the forerunner of the first national test and
calibration center and will provide experience on which a cooperative, jointly
operated facility can be designed.

We have other accomplishments, Mr. Chairman, but to save time I will mention
them very briefly. In cooperation with the Research Panel we carried out a
review of oceanographic facilities which are planned for Seattle. Our program
submissions showed that three agencies — Coast and Geodetic Survey, Office of
Naval Research, and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries — had plans for new
facilities in Seattle. This information was pointed out to the Research Panel
and members of this panel went to Seattle to discuss possibilities of a joint facility.
Dr. Maxwell, Chairman of the Research Panel, will tell you about the results of
the study which was carried out.

At the request of the Department of Defense, we contacted each agency on
the Interagency Committee to determine their interest in Tongue Point, Oreg.,
as a possible oceanographic facility. Our panel did not discover a need for the
base, but the study was necessary and, we believe, a help to the Department of
Defense.

According to previous plans, instrument specialists from each agency on the
panel reviewed specifications and made recommendations for modification of an
instrument system for which the Hydrographic Office will soon place a develop-
mental contract. This was done to insure that the system will furnish data
which will be useful to all cooperating agencies.

FUTURE PLANS

The main job of the panel in the future will be to continue planning on a
coordinated basis to define immediate and long-range needs for major oceano-
graphic facilities and equipment and to foster the Government's oceanographic
instrumentation program.

Development of observational oceanographic buoys is being pursued by both
Government and non-Government research groups. The panel plans to follow
this work, and to fill gaps in effort where necessary. In this connection we are
working closely with the new Devices Panel of the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Oceanography which is studying radiofrequency requirements for
data transmission. We plan to assist at the appropriate time in obtaining fre-
quency allocations for use by marine scientists on oceanographic buoy systems.
We also plan experiments on anchoring of buoys and further studies on radio
transmission problems. We believe the panel can carry out an important function
in insuring that oceanographic buoy systems meet the needs of all agencies which
require data from them.

We expect to establish an encyclopedia of oceanographic instrumentation which
would furnish accurate descriptions of instruments now in existence whether de-
scriptions of them have been published or not. This would then be kept up to
date by an active staff who would be knowledgeable in the instrumentation field.
The encyclopedia will be very useful for the working oceanographer to locate in-
struments which he may need and might prevent expenditure of funds and waste
of time for development of instruments which are already in existence.

The panel also plans to give special attention to biological instrumentation.
A meeting of marine biologists and biological oceanographers is planned for the
summer of 1962 to define their instrumentation requirements. Following this

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 55

we expect to hold a symposium in which industry members and marine biologists
will discuss instrument development programs.

Mr. Chairman, if our future plans are successfully carried out, we will have a
good exchange of information between Government agencies, private institutions,
and working scientists at all levels. Duplication of effort should be avoided and
mutual sharing of results should enhance the varied programs which now consti-
tute the national effort in oceanography. The work of this panel should result in
better instruments and proper facilities for oceanography in the United States.

Mr. McKernan. This particular panel, Air. Chairman, is one of
the newer ones on the Interagency Committee.

It was organized in January of 1961 to insure coordination between
Government agencies, private oceanographic institutions, and in-
dustry in the development of instruments and instrument procurement.

The principal objective of this committee came from a feeling of the
Interagency Committee on Oceanography that there should be some
impetus put into instrumentation development, instrumentation
research, and to acquiring instrument systems for new vessels which
are being constructed in various departments of Government for the
national oceanographic program.

As you may have noted from my introductions, we have people
represented on this committee from practically all of the operating
departments of Government, men who are specialists in this particular
field, and we have been working very closely with a special committee
of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography.
The people on this committee from outside of Government, mostly
from educational institutions, are internationally known specialists in
the field of instrumentation.

During the past year, we have held a series of meetings, developing
the 1963 instrumentation and facilities program, which has been
submitted to the Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

Mr. Chairman, I was a very interested listener yesterday in your
discussions, and my real purpose here this morning would be to give
the committee an idea of how the Interagency Committee on Ocea-
nography does coordinate oceanographic efforts.

This is in a sense the story of one panel which has been set up under
the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, but I believe it is a
typical and excellent example of coordination which has occurred
through this Committee on Oceanography.

We have held some 17 meetings over the past year of this particular
panel, and we have discussed each other's problems in oceanography
and our programs, with special attention being given to the kinds and
types and systems of instruments which would contribute to the na-
tional effort. I believe that there have been a number of accomplish-
ments.

I wouldn't say that they were anything to get on the rooftops and
holler about, but, on the other hand, they are rather solid accomplish-
ments in the way of coordinating our effort in getting more for our
dollar and leading the way toward the development of better instru-
ments in oceanography for all disciplines, biological, physical, and
chemical.

In the first place, soon after our Committee got started, we felt
that we ought to bring in industry, because we thought that there
was a tremendous amount of engineering and technical skill in various
instrument companies.

56 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

We were aware of the great success that the Defense Department
has had, and NASA as well, in using or contracting out to various
specialized industries instrument systems of various kinds. So we
held an instrumention symposium — in a sense a preliminary, rather
broad one — to discuss the needs in the field of oceanography and to
discuss the possibilities of what these companies contribute.

There were about 700 people attending this symposium, representing
a great number of companies throughout the United States. I
believe the meeting was very successful. It has been followed by a
more specialized meeting in the Navy, since that time, and there is
now under consideration by our panel and by the Panel on Instru-
mentation of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Ocea-
nography a special biological meeting, to discuss with industry and
Government and non-Government scientists the needs and possible
developments for instruments in biological oceanography.

I believe that most of us in the panel believe — I may be biased
here, Mr. Chairman, because I am a biologist myself — -but many of us
believe that the biological instruments that we are using on our ships,
oceanographic ships and fishery research ships, are really further be-
hind modern instrumentation than probably any other field.

I believe that the general meeting we held last September bore
this out, that we are pretty much in the neighborhood of a hundred
years behind knowledge in physics, and chemistry and electronics in
developing more systematic and more automatic instruments in
biological oceanography.

As a result of this, we are developing a master instrumentation pro-
posal and capability file at the National Oceanographic Data Center.
Now the advantage of this is, to me, that all of the agencies of Govern-
ment know what other departments are doing. We have one central
filing system where all of the proposals that are brought before in-
dividual Government agencies are available for examination. One
central file where we can see what industry capabilities are.

All of us don't have to, in a sense, talk to literally hundreds of agents
of these companies ourselves. Wlien these proposals can come in,
they can be considered and filed, and they can be available to all, to
any Government agent who has a need for any particular instrument
or system of instruments.

Another task that we have undertaken has been to study the need
for an instrument test and calibration center, and recommendations
have been made to the ICO for two such facilities. We are now con-
sidering the proper timing of funding for these facilities. Informal
conversation has led me to believe that the Navy Hydrographic
Office is going to start such an instrumentation center, even without
special funding, by bringing together some of their own specialists,
over here at the Weapons Center. So in a sense, we are gaining some
leadtime now in this very important field.

We are thinking ultimately of an instrumentation test and calibra-
tion center on the Atlantic coast, perhaps, to be located here in
Washington, and another one on the west coast eventually.

We believe, by the way, that this kind of cooperation exemplifies
the efforts and the success of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog-
raphy. I would call to your attention that the National Oceano-
graphic Data Center is another example of this coordination and the
success of it.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 57

From the standpoint of a civilian agency who uses these facilities,
and who is represented on the governing body, I would say that this
has been a tremendous success. It is exciting and stimulating to all
of our scientists to see the coordination and cooperation between
various departments of Government who arc bringing together their
information in one center. It means we know where we can go for
data. Furthermore, we have a voice in how it is arranged and how
it is put together.

This is new, of course. There are lots of bugs in it, but, never-
theless, it is working very well.

We have many other accomplishments, Mr. Chairman, that are
important to me, perhaps, because I am not an instrumentation spe-
cialist myself, as you are well aware, I am a biologist, and I suspect
that I have learned more about instruments from my participation in
this Committee than anyone else.

But one minor example of cooperation that has resulted from the
deliberations of these various panels of the ICO has been the planning
of oceanographic facilities, or the discussion of oceanographic facilities
in the Pacific Northwest. Two committees, our own and the Research
Panel, met in Seattle and discussed with various people at the Univer-
sity of Washington and the Government agencies the needs in this
area.

We have been largely guided — we and the various Government
agencies, I mean — in our funding by the deliberations and the coor-
dination that has been carried out by these regional meetings. It is
our plan in the ICO to continue these, and to visit other parts of the
country where there are substantial establishments by various de-
partments carrying out programs in oceanography. We will see
where further coordination of physical facilities and of programs
might be carried out right on the spot, talking to people that are
right in these areas.

I am sure Dr. Maxwell, who will meet with you and discuss with
you the Research Panel, will discuss this in perhaps greater length.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you mentioned when we started yesterday,
when you started this series of discussions, that you would like to
know something about future plans, and in our panel we have been
considering this matter of future plans at some length. I certainly
don't mean to imply that we have resolved all of the problems of co-
ordination in Government, because we haven't, but I believe that
we have made substantial contribution toward this coordination.

We are thinking this year, for example, in terms of observational
oceanographic buoys and systems of taking observations of ccean
phenomena by telemetering buoys. These would take the tempera-
tures and the chemical composition of the water, perhaps eventually
even certain aspects of the biological composition of the water, and
telemeter this into centers where it could be compiled and used by
scientists. Maybe some of us who are prone to seasickness when
we go to sea can simply sit in our office and get these observations
directly from such systems.

These are almost magical to a biologist who does not have specialized
training in electronics, but I am told by experts in this field that we
are in this particular area right now, and that we do have such systems
that are now being tested, and that these are very successful.

58 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

A number of agencies in Government are contributing toward
research in this area, including our own Bureau, and a number of
other agencies in Government. We are attempting to coordinate
this effort, to know exactly what each other is doing, and to make
sure that all phases of this work are carried out within the best public
interest.

In connection with this, of course, there are many technical prob-
lems involved, such as a radiofrequency problem. That is, if you
have buoys out in the ocean, and they have to radio in, you have the
tremendously complicated problem of how to get enough frequencies
available for them and also for ships and aircraft and other needs.

We are working very broadly in Government, and are attempting
to work within organizations both nationally and internationally to
attempt to resolve this problem. It apparently is not an insurmount-
able problem, and again, we are told by experts in this field that this
can be done, although it will take some time.

In fact, we are intending to go to international meetings this fall,
and have certain specific suggestions from the U.S. Government con-
cerning the radio band frequencies which would apply to such things
as buoys, and other needs in the field of oceanography.

We expect to establish an encyclopedia of oceanographic instru-
mentation, which would furnish accurate descriptions of instruments
now in existence, whether these descriptions have been published or
not. We would hope to keep this encyclopedia up to date by a staff
who would be knowledgeable. No matter where in the world, or no
matter where in industry such developments were taking place, we
would hope to filter them into a central place, where all new develop-
ments would be available to any scientist or technician in oceanog-
raphy. He could take advantage of this encyclopedia, and could
either develop his own specialized instruments from the knowledge
gained through the encyclopedia or could perhaps order them directly
in the numbers needed for his specialized use.

I mentioned before that we are considering for sometime in 1962
a meeting of marine biologists and biological oceanographers to define
more clearly the needs in biological oceanography.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if our plans are successfully carried
out, that we will establish a good working relationship between
specialists in the field of instruments and that we will open up lines
of communication, we will tend to prevent duplication of effort, and
we would hope to stimulate the effort in the development of better,
more efficient instruments for the use of those in the field of
oceanography.

I believe this is a brief summary of how our panel works, Mr. Chair-
man. I believe it has worked well. I think it has been successful,
and my own opinion is that it is rather typical of the various panels
that have been set up within the Interagency Committee on Oceanog-
raphy.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk first about facilities.

Just how do you go about coordinating the construction or the plan-
ning of new facilities? Do you take what each agency or department

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 59

has decided to do, and then approve it, or do you conic up with sug-
gestive ideas as to the necessity, and so on?

Mr. McKernan. The way this lias worked so far is that our pane]
has received suggestions in the very early stages of budget formation
from the various groups. We have reviewed the need for them in
terms of the general national program and the direction that the
Interagency Commit tee on Oceanography has indicated we should go.
We have attempted to critically examine them in terms of whether or
not they are needed and when they are needed. When we have finally
made our recommendations to the ICO, that is, when the Panel has
made its recommendation to ICO, we have incorporated the prelim-
inary thinking within the departments, and we have incorporated a
critical review of the need and the timing for these particular facilities.

Now what happens is that there is a matter of our initial examina-
tion, our initial recommendations. These then go gack to the de-
partments, such as in my own small bureau, and we then put this
through our own budget process. We make these recommendations
to our own Assistant Secretary, and they go on up to the Department.

In the meantime, they have had further review within the ICO,
perhaps at another stage, or with further deliberation, it is decided to
set some other priorities. Then I have come back within my own
Department and said, "Now we have given a little different emphasis
to this, and the recommendation now is to wait until next year," or
perhaps, "We want to speed this up, and so we would like to add
another facility for this year."

Then our Department, of course, goes through its regular review.
At the present time in our own Department, we have had excellent
cooperation from everyone in realizing that we are giving much more
than the usual critical review within our oceanogrpahic program.
I think the system is a good one although it is far from perfect.

Then the ICO takes this program, which by this time has had
rather thorough critical review, has in a sense been firmed up both
within the Department and within the ICO. After the ICO has
approved this program, it has undergone review by, for example,
the Ewing Committee and the National Academy of Science's Com-
mittee on Oceanography. Then, Federal Council examines it.

Now, on the Federal Council are secretarial officials. From our
Department, at the present time, it is the Secretary's science adviser,
a very famous oceanographer, by the way, Dr. Roger Revelle. He,
in a sense, is speaking for the Secretary in giving general approval or
disapproval, or critical approval, to the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography's budget in oceanography.

In this way, it seems to me, we have a horizontal review as well as
vertical review within the departments, and I think pretty success-
full, although not perfect.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. McKernan, you mentioned another committee.
We are somewhat confused, I believe, at least the staff is. What is
the Ewing Committee? What do they do? I thought we had heard
of all the committees.

Mr. McKernan. Well, I believe that Secretary Wakelin mentioned
yesterday that the programs in oceanography have not only been
reviewed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography but the
President's Science Adviser has asked Dr. Ewing, as Secretary
Wakelin mentioned yesterda}7, to set up a group of non-Government

60 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

oceanographers to give a final look at this program, and to make sure
that all of the national interests, both within Government and from
without Government, have been given consideration.

Now, as I understand it, this is a committee to advise the President's
Science Adviser on what he might recommend the Federal Council
do with this program when it comes in to them. So, in a sense, it is
an independent review that the Federal Council has by another group
on how this works.

Now, this is a rather brief review. As I remember, it takes about
a week. They draw in top scientists in oceanography from various
institutions, and they ask us to critically review the program much
like you are critically reviewing our program.

Mr. Bauer. Well, do you know the composition of the Committee?

Mr. McKernan. Yes; I am not sure I can remember all of them.

Mr. Bauer. Would you supply it for the record?

Mr. McKernan. I would be glad to.

Mr. Bauer. Now does this Committee review the budget recom-
mendations of ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. And the members of this Committee are recipients of
the moneys that are in the budget?

Mr. McKernan. No; not necessarily.

Mr. Bauer. Well, Dr. Ewing is.

Mr. McKernan. Well, Dr. Ewing may have some contracts, but
I am quite certain you will find

Mr. Bauer. How about the other members?

Mr. McKernan. I am quite certain you will find that for example
in our own budget, none of the people that reviewed this program are
recipients of any of our funds.

Mr. Bauer. Anyone from Woods Hole on the Committee?

Mr. McKernan. I think so.

Mr. Bauer. Isn't it true that you have a contract with Woods Hole
for the sum of $28,000 for oceanographic research?

Mr. McKernan. I would have to check, but I don't believe that
anvone from Woods Hole was on this last year. Art? Dr. Maxwell
I believe Dr. Carritt, from MIT. Dr. Carritt from MIT was on this
committee.

Mr. Bauer. Well, the point that I am raising is, Isn't it possible
that if the program were reviewed by the benefactors of the program
it could create a conflict of interest?

Mr. McKernan. I think this is possible. I would hope, of course,
that this weren't so. It would be impossible within the United States
to get eminent oceanographers who were not directly or indirectly
supported in one way or another by contracts of the Government, be-
cause this is the way much of the very expensive ship operations is
derived at the present time, from contracts with Government.

By the way, I agree this is a disadvantage. I don't right offhand
see how you overcome it.

Mr. Bauer. Doesn't industry have competent oceanographers
working for them?

Mr. McKernan. Of course, quite a lot of the industry has con-
tracts with the Government, too.

Mr. Bauer. In the field of oceanography?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 61

Mr. McKernan. They have had, and especially in the field of
instrumentation, of course.

Mr. Bauer. But not in the support of general operations to the
tune of 90 percent of their entire budget. Is that right?

Mr. McKernan. Well, I would suspect that some specialized
industries are supported almost a hundred percent, although I have
no personal knowledge of this, but I would suspect that some of these
instrumentation agencies are supported almost entirely by Govern-
ment, Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer. The next question, sir, is, Is HEW a member of the
panel?

Mr. McKernan. HEW a member of our panel?

Mr. Bauer. Yes.

Mr. McKernan. I don't believe they are active in our panel.

Mr. Bauer. Do you coordinate HEW's requirements with facilities
and instrumentation?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, to the extent that they have such require-
ments, these requirements do come into our panel.

Mr. Bauer. How many shellfish laboratories are operated by the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries?

Mr. McKernan. I think about four, Mr. Bauer. I am pretty
sure this is right.

Mr. Bauer. On the Atlantic coast you have three, do you not?

Mr. McKernan. No, we have four on the Atlantic coast, and then
in fact, there is some work going on at our Woods Hole Lab which
would be a fifth.

Mr. Bauer. Did you coordinate the development and construction
of the shellfish research center to be built in Providence, R.I., by
HEW?

Air. McKernan. Yes, we did.

Mr. Bauer. Why was it necessary?

Mr. McKernan. Well, we have communicated a considerable
amount of information to your chairman on this subject. I am not
sure that we have satisfactorily answered all the problems, but we have
attempted to do so.

Mr. Dingell. As a matter of fact, the chairman in his corres-
pondence gleaned that it came as quite a surprise to both the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries and the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare that these two facilities to which Mr. Bauer is referring
were being set up, and I will submit the correspondence I had back
and forth with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and with the Department of Interior on this point to speak for itself.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,
Washington, D.C., February 8, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Dingell: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1962, which
transmitted a copy of your letter of the same date to the President concerning
your proposal for the consolidation of Public Health Service and Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries shellfish research laboratories in New England. The two labo-
ratories under consideration are the Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation
Research Center scheduled for construction at Kingston, R.I., with funds appro-
priated for fiscal year 1962, and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Shellfish
Research Center at Milford, Conn., authorized by Public Law 87-173.

80597—62 5

62 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

The Fish and Wildlife Service has maintained close technical and administra-
tive relationship with the U.S. Public Health Service for many years. The two
agencies have conducted cooperative research on many occasions and in several
instances the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has provided laboratory space for
projects of the Public Health Service. The frequent contacts and free exchange
of information has been extremely helpful to both agencies.

During the planning for the Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Research
Centers, representatives of the Public Health Service consulted with the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries in an attempt to consolidate facilities to a mutual
advantage. In fact, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries offered the use of land
at several of its laboratories.

One of the criteria established by Public Health Service for selecting a location
was a supply of uncontaminated sea water. Waters in the vicinity of several
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries laboratories, including that at Milford, Conn.,
are moderately contaminated by domestic sewage. The low level of contamina-
tion does not adversely affect biological research programs conducted by Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries at these locations, but must make these waters unsatis-
factory for sanitation research of the Public Health Service.

We have also considered the possibility of combining facilities proposed for the
new Milford laboratory with those which the Public Health Service is planning
to construct at Kingston, R.I. We have many years of experience at Milford,
and know that the water conditions there are favorable for the culture of oyster
and clam larvae. We do not know whether the sea water at Kingston, R.I., is
equally satisfactory. Therefore, we would be taking a certain risk in the con-
struction of a large facility for rearing shellfish in a new location.

We are conducting several other shellfish research projects at the Milford
laboratory, in close connection with the oyster industry of Long Island Sound.
It would be impractical to relocate all functions of our present laboratory in
Rhode Island because of the distance from Long Island Sound. If, on the other
hand, we continued some of our operations at Milford and established the new
shellfish hatchery-laboratory in Rhode Island, the coordination of the two oper-
ations would require extensive travel back and forth which would be generally
undesirable as well as expensive.

In conclusion, we are convinced that expansion of research facilities at Milford
in accordance with Public Law 87-173, will best suit the research purposes of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Stewart,

Stewart L. Udall,
Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Washington, February 8, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Dingell: Thank you for sending me an informational copy of your
letter to President Kennedy on the establishment of Public Health Service Shell-
fish Research Centers in Alabama and Rhode Island.

The White House has requested our comments and those of the Department of
the Interior preparatory to preparing a reply to your letter.
I am sure that you will be hearing from them soon.
Sincerely,

Abraham Ribicoff, Secretary.

The White House,
Washington, January 29, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
House of Representatives , Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of
January 19 concerning shellfish laboratory facilities.

The questions you raise with respect to the relationship of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare shellfish research facilities to those of the Depart-
ment of the Interior certainly merit serious inquiry and the Director of the Bureau

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 63

of the Budget has been asked to look into the situation. He will advise you further
regarding his findings and conclusions.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Sincerely yours,

Lawrence F. O'Brien,
Special Assistant to the President.

The Secretary of the Interior,

Washington, January 24, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear John: I just want to acknowledge your kind note of January 19 in which
you transmit a copy of your letter to the President of even date.

We are most interested in your letter and are doing some background exploring.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,

Stewart L. Udall,
Secretary of the Interior.

January 19, 1962.
Hon. John F. Kennedy,
The White House, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President: I enclose copies of GSA releases Nos. 1595 and 1597.
The first announces that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is
initiating steps to build a shellfish research laboratory in Mobile, Ala. The
second announces that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is
building a shellfish research center in Providence, R.I. Both of the above will
deal with sanitation in harvesting and marketing of shellfish. The cost will be
about $1^ million.

I am sure you recall that last year my committee reported and the Congress
enacted legislation setting up a shellfish research institution in Connecticut to be
administered in large part by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the Depart-
ment of the Interior.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's research will be con-
ducted largely on the dangers of shellfish for human consumption, I assume, under
the interstate-quarantine program of that Department.

It would appear that the two Departments could get together, construct one
facility, staff it jointly, and maintain and operate it jointly. This should be done
both for economy and because diseases, pollution, reproduction, and natural
enemies of the shellfish very frequently are related directly or indirectly to the
problems we have with danger to human health from shellfish from polluted
waters and from other causes.

It appears there is a chance to save the taxpayers some money and I hope that
bringing this matter to your attention will be of assistance to you.

With every good wish,
Respectfully yours,

John D. Dingell,

Member of Congress.

Mr. McKernan. I think that would be an excellent idea, because
if the record appears this way, why this means that there is some
misunderstanding, and we certainly did not communicate properly
with the chairman, because we held several meetings with the Health,
Education, and Welfare people and ascertained that the problems of
absolutely pure water which were needed in their research could not
be obtained at any of the locations where we were carrying out
shellfish research.

Air. Dingell. Well now, as a matter of fact, let's look at this
business of absolutely pure water. Shellfish can live in water which
is substantially polluted; am I correct?

Mr. McKernan. Substantially polluted.

64 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. Substantially polluted, right?

Mr. McKernan. Right.

Mr. Dingell. And can also live in water which is less polluted.

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. And for all intents and purposes, pollution which
would adversely affect the life of the shellfish would adversely affect
the life of a human being, would it not?

Mr. McKernan. No, not necessarily. Not at all. I don't think
these are necessarily related.

For example, hepatitis. The organism causing hepatitis, which
may be passed by shellfish, would have no effect on the shellfish, on
the species, whatsoever.

Mr. Dingell. Now where did HEW propose to set up their two
laboratories?

Mr. McKernan. One in the gulf and one in Rhode Island.

Mr. Dingell. You are going to tell me that they have set up in
an area where there is absolutely pure water in Rhode Island?

Mr. McKernan. This is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. This is what they report to me, but I want to know,
is there absolutely pure water in Rhode Island, where they set up?

Mr. McKernan. Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am at fault in
one respect, but what we have done is in a sense take the word of
then- specialist in this regard, so I can't come before you and say that
we have tested the water in this particular locality. We do know
that it is very pure water.

Mr. Dingell. As I understand, as a matter of fact, the water in
the coastal area up and down Rhode Island is substantially polluted,
is it not?

Mr. McKernan. I would question this, Mr. Chairman, but I have
no personal knowledge. I think that there may well be currents — I
know that there are current systems along the coast which bring about
such flushing that there could be pure water. I don't know in this
particular location of personal knowledge.

Mr. Dingell. Well, a current system which removes pollution does
not remove it absolutely; isn't that a fact?

Mr. McKernan. No, not necessarily. For example, I am sure
you could see if you had a swift current going by any particular loca-
tion you might have pure water, depending upon the kind of pollu-
tion, whether it was continuous or intermittent pollution, and these
kinds of tilings.

Now, in this particular rase, what we did was to get together our
technical people with their technical people, and we attempted to
look at the criteria that each had. Now the criteria that they pre-
sented to us appeared to me to make pretty good sense.

Mr. Dingell. So the fact of the matter — I don't want to belabor
the point and take the time of the committee — but the simple fact of
the matter is this: that it is possible to put these three shellfish
laboratories together in one area and one facility at a substantial
saving to the Federal Government, is it not?

Mr. McKernan. Physically, it is possible. Assuming the objec-
tives that the HEW has set out are proper objectives for their labora-
tory, I could not answer your question in the affirmative.

Mr. Dingell. But as a matter of fact, though, it is possible — and
you are a biologist, and you understand these things quite well —

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 65

and it is possible to do fairly complete research on both the health of
shellfish and the healtb of humans who will consume shellfish in one
facility, is it not?

Mr. McKernan. I would not like to answer that with an equivocal
"Yes" or "No."

Mr. Dingell. Well, will you deny that statement, then?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, I will deny that statement. I f the objectives
are, for example, to test the accumulation of E coli, why then you
would have to have the kind of environment to start your experiments
which was relatively free of this, and then you would have to design
your experiments so that the accumulation of such organisms would
be at a known rate.

Now, if you were trying to find out whether shellfish accumulated
these pollutants or not, you could not have extraneous sources of the
pollutants coming in at odd hours or times.

Mr. Dingell. It is still possible to do all of this at one facility, is
it not?

Mr. McKernan. It is physically possible, but scientifically ■

Mr. Dingell. It is physically and scientifically possible — I mean,
if it is physically possible, it is also scientifically possible.

Mr. McKernan. It may not make good scientific sense to do so.

Mr. Dingell. Well, it is both physically and scientifically possible
to accomplish this research at one facility, is it not?

Mr. McKernan. It is possible, but it may not make for good
scientific results.

Mr. Dingell. Yes, and it is possible to have good scientific results,
and have it physically and scientifically possible; is it not? I am
getting into the realm of theory, but I — — ■

Mr. McKernan. You have lost me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. I regard it as being very foolish for the Government
to establish three facilities. Frankly, when the departments do this,
it makes it very difficult for somebody like myself who supports these
appropriations. It subjects me to criticism, and it makes it very, very
difficult in Congress to get money for Governmental agencies, when
we find out that there are three of these facilities set up in three
different places, all to do research on shellfish, and as I read shellfish,
as I understand them — I am not an expert on the subject — it is
possible physically and scientifically to do the research in one place
on both the health of the shellfish and on the individual, and on the
impact on human beings who will consume them.

By the way, I intend to pursue this further. I am not satisfied
with the correspondence I received from either your Department or
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the subject.

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome participation in
this with you, and I would hope to convince you, as I myself have
been convinced, that after carefully examining the objectives of the
two Departments, that these particular facilities appear to be justified.

I certainly want to offer my own services and those of my staff.
We have had rather long and searching examination into this. I
appreciate your interest in it very much. If I were you, I would do
the same, and I certainly would welcome this. I would even say
that it might be possible that our examination has not been searching
enough, but I also would say that we have conscientiously attempted to
look into this problem, and so far, I am convinced of the merits
of the proposal, but I would certainly

66 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. I am convinced of the breakdown of coordination
here in regard to these two facilities.

Mr. Bauer.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. McKernan, is it a fair statement to say if you
have an oyster, and the oyster gets sick and dies, and doesn't transmit
sickness to a human being, then that is the property of the investi-
gative responsibility of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. And if the oyster gets sick and someone eats the sick
oyster and gets sick himself, that is the responsibility of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. And if the oyster doesn't get sick, but absorbs a little
beastie that makes people sick, then that is the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare that has the responsibility?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. Does the oyster care how you organize departments?

Mr. McKernan. Not in the slightest.

Mr. Bauer. Thank you, sir.

The next question I would like to ask you, sir, is with respect to the
development of the facility for biological research at Scripps; are you
concerned with that?

Mr. McKernan. Oh, yes. Are you talking about the laboratory
which has been authorized and is now in design by our Bureau at
Scripps?

Mr. Bauer. That is correct, sir. Where do you intend to build it?
On whose land?

Mr. McKernan. On land which now belongs to Scripps, but which
is being deeded to the Federal Government.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, it will be on your land?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Bauer. Now, with respect to the Seattle Conference, I notice
in your statement that it was decided that the additional facility in
Seattle was not necessary. Is that correct? I think you said that.

Mr. Pelly. That was Tongue Point, Oreg.

Mr. McKernan. I don't believe I said that there was no new
facility needed.

Mr. Bauer. What came out of the Seattle discussions? Was there
any new agreement as to the necessity for the facility?

Mr. McKernan. They talked about a number of things at Seattle.
They talked about separate facilities, physical facilities, or joint phys-
ical facilities, somewhere, for all interested agencies.

They felt that there was enough reason, enough established facili-
ties at the present time, so that some of the groups should go ahead
on their own and further develop their own facilities. For example,
we have an existing laboratory very close to the university but not on
the campus, and it was decided to go ahead with the expansion of that
particular facility, that this seemed to be most efficient.

On the other hand, with respect to the needs for facilities, expansion
of facilities at the Department of Oceanography in the campus of the
University of Washington, it is my understanding that they agreed
that having these facilities right on the campus for teaching and
graduate research needs was also necessary.

Now, with respect to joint vessel facilities there, between ourselves
and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, if my memory serves me cor-

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 67

rectly, I believe they decided to try and cany those out together.
This is still under study at the present time.

Mr. Pelly. If he will yield to me at that point, I talked to the
group about the university there, and they seemed to feel it highly
desirable to have their own docking facilities for oceanographic vessels
and I would certainly hope that that would be carefully reviewed,
because I think that it is the oceanography department of the uni-
versity that certainly is conscious of what their particular problems
are.

Mr. McKernan. Well, I am probably stepping out of my role a
little bit here, because I believe Dr. Maxwell who was there can be
more specific. On the other hand, I am also trying to be responsive.

I think that there is still under study joint facilities between Coast
and Geodetic Survey and ourselves which might be done efficiently at
some savings also.

Mr. Bauer. Now, with respect to instrumentation, you mentioned
biological instrumentation. Would you tell the committee which
department of the Government has taken the lead in biological
instrumentation development?

Mr. McKernan. Well, I believe that since we have begun
thoroughly considering this matter within the ICO, that the Depart-
ment of Interior has taken the lead, but I certainly would want to
hasten to give due credit to the National Science Foundation, who
have also considered this to be important, and I know are giving
careful consideration to any applications for grants and for funds to
carry out biological instrumentation needs.

They participate ver}^ actively in our own committee, and in the
panel of which I am Chairman, so that I believe both of these particular
agencies are giving good consideration to this, and then, of course,
there is the biological group at ONR, under the very able Dr. Sid
Galler, who is concerned with this matter also.

Mr. Bauer. Well, isn't it historically true that ONR have taken
the lead in the development of biological instrumentation for many
years?

Mr. McKernan. No; I think that this is a matter of opinion, and I
would not feel I could necessarily agree with this, although I wouldn't
want to take anything away from ONR for the very excellent work
they have done in various fields.

I believe our own Bureau in the last few years has made some
major contributions in this regard.

Mr. Bauer. Now, with respect to buoys, I understand that the
Bureau of Aeronautics in 1949 initiated the program to develop the
methods of anchoring telemetering radio buoys, and have carried on
extensive work, and as a matter of fact, have had buoys operating in
deep water for many years. Is that correct?

Mr. McKernan. I am not aware that they had moored buoys,
because we are still having trouble in the moorings. Can I call on
Mr. Jaffe to expand on that?

Mr. Jaffe?

Mr. Jaffe. Yes; I think that there are moored buoys which are
available for oceanography. As you probably know, the most
critical problem in the buoy situation is that of telemetering the
information over long distances, so while there are a number of
prototype buoys that have been developed, the real crux of the

68 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

problem is still in the communication of information from the buoy
over long distances.

Mr. Bauer. Are you familiar, Mr. McKernan, with HEW's plans
in Lake Michigan to put out a hundred telemetering buoys with the
development of the instrumentation that is being done by the Army
Engineers?

Mr. McKernan. I am generally familiar with this; yes, Mr. Bauer.
Mr. Bauer. As I understand, Woods Hole has put out a string
of telemetering buoys for some years, also.

Mr. McKernan. Well, I think Mr. Richardson has been doing
some pioneering work in this field, and some very excellent work.
He now has this string of buoys that extend out from New England,
and I believe these are quite successful. They are being watched verv
carefully by all of the scientists interested in buoy systems, but I am
sure that no one believes that these are the final production models
at the present tune.

I believe, incidentally, Mr. Bauer, that all of these buoys store their
information, rather than send it. This, of course, brings problems,
you have to come and pick up the information. What we are search-
ing for, of course, is being in a position not to have to go out once a
week or once a month to collect the information. I think also there
are limited sensor points on this particular buoy. The accumulation
of mformation at various depths is still a problem that none of us have
solved to my satisfaction.

Mr. Bauer. Now, one further question with respect to standard-
ization of instrumentation. Is this something new?

Mr. McKernan. Oh, no. This standardization of instrumentation
has been a subject of discussion among scientists interested in the
oceans and in other fields for, I suppose, centuries. It is being given
a great deal of attention at the present time both nationally and
internationally.

The works of ICES in the North Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, is
very excellent work but I would point out that the countries who are
members of ICES have come into the IOC, the Intergovernmental
Ocean ographic Commission, and are requesting further study and de-
velopment of standardization of oceanographic equipment on an
international basis. So there is a great deal yet to be learned about
what is the best, on how to standardize various pieces of equipment.
I presume this could go on forever, because the development of new
oceanographic instruments will probably go on forever, and these will
take various forms in different counties for different specific purposes,
and therefore, there will always be a need for further standarization
of these instruments, as they are developed independently by scien-
tists, even within a single country.

Mr. Bauer. It is rather remarkable, because in the hearings in
the last session of this Congress, Dr. Fye testified that standardization
was not necessary.

Mr. McKernan. Well, I am sure you will get many different ideas
about this, almost as many as you have scientists. I believe most of
us in Government believe that there is a great need for standardization,
especially with respect to survey instruments.

Dr. Fye, of course, being an outstanding research scientist, would
see the development of instruments in a very normal fashion as the
development of a special instrument to handle a special problem with

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 69

which he is engaged. Now in this instance, I would agree with him
that the need for standardization is not very great.

On the other hand, if we are going to send survey ships out all over
the world, if we are going to cooperate broadly with other nations, it is
very necessary to take plankton tows, for example, in somewhat the
same manner, and take our temperatures at approximately the same
depth, or at least have some system of connecting these so that we
can understand the ocean currents and the ocean weather very broadly
in the world's oceans.

Mr. Bauer. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that yester-
day in the record, we introduced the organization of ICES in 1899,
and —

the functions of the central bureau should be —

I am quoting —

to control the instruments and assure the uniformity of methods.

It certainly has been in existence a long time.

Mr. Dingell. By the way, Mr. McKernan, you are familiar with
the function that Mr. Bauer has referred to, are you not?

Mr. McKernan. You mean ICES? Yes, Mr. Chairman, our
Bureau has sent an observer to ICES for, I think, about 15 years or
so. We are very familiar with the organization. We work very
closely with it in connection with the International Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Commission. That is the Commission in the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean and of some 15 or so members of ICES, I think 12 of
them are members of what we call ICNAF, the International Commis-
sion for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

Mr. Dingell. Incidentally, the United States does not belong to
this.

Mr. McKernan. No.

Mr. Dingell. I wonder why.

Mr. McKernan. Because we don't have any direct interests in the
Northeast Atlantic, and it has always seemed to us that to send some-
one over as an observer, we can cooperate with their scientists without
spending an exorbitant amount of time in these places where we don't
have a direct interest. Perhaps we might have an interest in defense
at the present time, but that would be something that I would not be
quite so familiar with, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Do we have a direct interest in the Indian Ocean,
for example, where we are doing significant exploratory work?

Mr. McKernan. Well, in the Indian Ocean, of course, our scien-
tists have found or believe that there are some unusual circumstances
in this ocean, and in a sense, what they have done is to launch a rather
large international expedition to this particular area of the world,
where not too much is known. I think it is quite an experiment in
international cooperation, but I believe it would certainly be said to
be true that we don't have — our Government doesn't have — -much
in the way of direct interest here.

I would add, however, that even our own Bureau is very much
interested in the fisheries resources of any nation in the world, since
some of our fishing fleets are developing great capacity for going large
distances. We have fleets that have fished in the central Pacific, in
the Society Islands, and are now fishing off the west coast of Africa.

70 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

We have interest in knowing whether or not there are resources in the
Indian Ocean which might be harvested.

Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. McKernan.

Any more questions?

Mr. Pelly?

Mr. Pelly. Mr. Chairman, I might comment, it is an awful
comedown — now this is a pun — to come from the Space Committee
yesterday and come down back to earth. There we are being offered
a proposed budget of, I think, $3.7 billion, and here I am worrying
about how we are going to have some housing for people that want to
do a little research work down in Friday Harbor, and the one question
I have in connection with facilities, is there any possible way that the
Federal Government could assist a university in stimulating some
housing for a research station such as we have there at Puget Sound?

Mr. McKernan. I am not going to offer money from other Gov-
ernment agencies, but I would expect that there is consideration of
research needs in facilities by agencies, various agencies of Govern-
ment, and the university probably is pretty familiar with this, Mr.
Pelly, because they deal very directly with the Office of Naval Research
and with the National Science Foundation as well as with ourselves.

Mr. Pelly. I wondered if your panel would ever consider it would
be helpful on matters like that which I understand are vital. As I
understand, we have some 60 positions that aren't filled in the Federal
Government today because we haven't trained enough people in
oceanographic research. And it is only through the facilities such as
we have there that you can ever hope to fill the need.

Mr. McKernan. Well, we are very much interested in the training
of oceanographers. You are going to hear from the chairman of that
panel of ICO later in this session. Perhaps he can discuss this matter
more fully than I, but with respect to facilities, we are always willing
to discuss anything along these lines, although I couldn't

Mr. Pelly. Well, for space, you can get hundreds of millions of
dollars for facilities, and nobody would ever question it; you need
a dock to house an oceanographic vessel and the universities are hard
put to it to know where to go to get the funds.

Mr. McKernan. Yes. Of course, this committee has been ex-
tremely important in helping us, we in the Federal Government who
are budgeting for oceanography. This committee has been very
important in bringing before the Congress as well as the public the
importance of expanding the Nation's oceanographic program. I
can't emphasize that too much.

Mr. Pelly. The chairman is very much interested, I know, in
legislation to try to formalize some of the informal committees and
panels that have been carrying on the work in order to try to facilitate
getting adequate interest and funds to carry on the necassary work.
We are told that it isn't needed, and the administration is against it.
Well, I am just wondering that if the Science and Astronautics Com-
mittee can talk in terms of billions of dollars, where I can't see that
there is nearly the resources for man that maybe there will be down in
our oceans, and, as I say, it is very difficult sometimes to realize, for
me not to want to support the Miller bill, for example, and see it
reported to the floor, because the only thing I would fear in that con-
nection is that it would not be enacted into law, and it might actually
hurt, rather than help.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 71

Certainly, I may say, this idea of consolidating appeals to me a
great deal, because I know the chairman is interested in economy,
but certainly no questions like that would be raised when you came to
facilities for measuring the orbit of Colonel Glenn, or something like
that, when this may be much more important that we are doing.

I may say that I am very sympathetic to the chairman's position
here, when I listen to the differences that come up as between two
committees.

I got the impression, however, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the
academic facilities as far as those that are engaged in the places like
the schools and colleges of our country, they don't feel that they can
join together with some of the agencies of Government and have joint
facilities because it just isn't going to be practical from their stand-
point, and I hope that that will be fully looked into. I am for economy
as much as we can possibly do so, but not at the expense of scientific
freedom to carry on this research work.

Mr. Chairman, I talked too much.

Mr. Dingell. Not at all. You have been very helpful.

Mr. McKernan. Well, commenting on that just briefly, Mr.
Chairman, if you don't mind, I tend to agree that there is a danger in
too much coordination, that is, trying to pull facilities together too
much at the disadvantage of some of these people and yet, I am sure
you will agree that we ought to examine these things, whatever we
decide to do, it ought to be in an area of complete understanding of
the problems and this is what I think the panels of the ICO are
attempting to do, to examine these things and see what is best. Then
we have the advantage of, in a sense, a feed in from the academic
institutions through the National Academy of Sciences Committee on
Oceanography and, for example, in our own panel, a member of the
faculty of the University of Washington, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, has been
active and this has helped, you see.

Air. Pelly. I am told that it is almost impossible to schedule
scientific research, and tie it in, maybe with a particular voyage that
is scheduled ahead of time for the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and
that altogether, it is just very difficult to coordinate the various
programs.

Mr. McKernan. Of course, it really depends upon the scientific
project underway. Sometimes this is difficult, and sometimes it is
not. Many times, when it is not, it has not been done in the past.
We are trying to, in effect, correct this, so that when it is possible,
it is done, and recognize it when it is not possible that it doesn't have
to be done.

You don't have to cram some scientist aboard a boat that is going
to be out for 4 months taking surveys when what he wants is perhaps
a 1-day trip to examine some special phenomenon in the ocean.

Mr. Pelly. Does the panel keep minutes, and are those minutes
available to the committee, for example, as to the discussions on these
various projects?

Mr. McKernan. We have not kept formal minutes of the panel's
sessions in ICO, but we have kept informal minutes for the information
of our own people.

Mr. Pelly. It would seem to me that maybe if we did formalize
the panels, then there wouldn't be a necessity to keep minutes. It
might be easier for someone to go back and find out why there had

72 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

been three different stations established when maybe one could have
done the same job, as the chairman seems to have found.

That is all.

Mr. Dingell. Thank you very much, Mr. Pelly.

Mr. Lennon?

Mr. Lennon. Mr. McKernan, are the chairmen of the several panels
members of the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. No; they are not.

Mr. Lennon. In other words, the chairmen of these panels that are
set up to make the study of the problems, then, do not go back and
sit as members of the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. I am a member of the ICO, and I am a member
of this particular panel.

Mr. Lennon. You are the chairman of this particular panel?

Mr. McKernan. I am chairman of this panel.

Mr. Lennon. You are also a member representing the Department
of the Interior in the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. Now, the chairmen of the other various panels rep-
resent their various departments and agencies on the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes; they are to a considerable extent staff mem-
bers of the ICO. For example, Admiral Karo, from the Coast and
Geodetic Survey, his head staff member is the chief oceanographer of
the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Dr. Harris Stuart is a chairman.

Mr. Lennon. What I am trying to find out is, do these panel chair-
men attend the ICO meetings?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. But not the members of the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Right.

Mr. Lennon. They are subordinate to members of the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. Do you know the members of the other five panels
set up under the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes. Now, I may not know every single member
personally, Mr. Lennon, but in general, the answer to your question
is "Yes."

Mr. Lennon. In general, you do, because you are on the ICO?

Mr. McKernan. Yes; and I see these men and talk to them and
listen to them.

Mr. Lennon. Well, now, the representative of the Navy, Mr.
Jennings, on your panel, is he a member of any one of the other panels?

Mr. McKernan. No; I don't believe so.

Mr. Lennon. Do you know that?

Mr. McKernan. We can ask him. He is here.

Mr. Jennings, are you a member of any other panel?

Mr. Jennings. Yes, sir; I am a member of the Research Ship
Panel.

Mr. McKernan. The Research Ship Panel. I am sorry, Mr.
Lennon, I shouldn't have answered quite so quickly.

Mr. Lennon. Well, now, Mr. G. Jaffe on our panel, is he a member
of any other panel?

Mr. Jaffe. No, sir; I am not.

Mr. Lennon. Your alternate, Commander Treadwell, is he a
member of any other panel?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 73

Mr. McKernan. Do you know, Mr. Jaffe?

Mr. Jaffe. No, sir; I don't believe he is.

Mr. Lennon. You don't know that. He is the alternate, I believe,
Mr. Jennings?

Mr. McKernan. We just hear authoritatively that he is not.

Mr. Lennon. That he is not, for the record.

Now, is Mr. A. J. Goodheart?

Mr. Goodheart. I am not.

Mr. Lennon. Not a member of another panel. How about your
alternate, Mr. Theodore Ryan?

Mr. McKernan. No; I don't believe he is. Is he a member of
another panel? L<k j

Dr. Stuart. Yes; Mr. Ryan is a member of the Research Panel.

Mr. Lennon. Mr. Ryan is a member of the Research Panel and the
alternate to another on this panel?

Dr. Stuart. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lennon. How about Mr. Dinsmore of the Coast Guard?

Mr. Dinsmore. Sir, I am an alternate member of the panel, and I
work very closely with the panel. I am a member of the Ships
Panel.

Mr. Lennon. You are a member, then, of two panels?

Mr. Dinsmore. I am a member of two panels, and an alternate
member of the third panel.

Mr. Lennon. Dr. Bader represents the National Science Founda-
tion on your panel?

Dr. Ray. Dr. Richard Bader is the representative of the facilities
panel, and I am his alternate.

Mr. Lennon. Is he a member of any one of the other five panels?

Dr. Ray. I believe he is alternate on the Ships Panel. Is that
right? He is not a member of any other panel. He may serve as
alternate on one of the others.

Mr. Lennon. But he, of course, is a member of that panel there
and you are his alternate. Are you on any other panel?

Dr. Ray. I am a member of the NASCO Committee on the Re-
search Panel. I do not represent the Science Foundation and Dr.
Bader is the Science Foundation representative on the Research Panel.

Mr. Lennon. Then you people wear different hats when you at-
tend different panels, and there are not enough people in Government
from these various agencies who are competent — to have a person
competent in their field — to have one separate person for each panel?

Mr. McKernan. Well, Mr. Lennon, the answer to your question
is "No."

Mr. Lennon. There are?

Mr. McKernan. There are adequate people. There are some
advantages.

Mr. Lennon. Why do you use the same people on the same panels
so often?

Mr. McKernan. Because the responsibilities of these panels some-
times overlap, and there is a great advantage in having sometimes
the same people on these different panels.

Mr. Lennon. You must have a reason for it. It is obvious that
that is what is being done, that on all panels, the majority of them
serve on at least two, and sometimes on three.

74 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. McKernan. The reason for this is that there is an advantage
in having in a sense, kind of an interlocking directorate. I suppose
one might look at it that way, if he were in business. There is also
the fact that some of these people that you have met and are talking
to here spend a great deal of their time on ICO matters. They are
staff people in the various departments, and yet some of them spend
half, two-thirds, maybe up to three-fourths of their time on ICO
matters. They are well informed about the meetings of the ICO
itself, and the transition from ICO directives to action in these panels
is very easy.

Mr. Lennon. Well, Mr. McKernan, who is the person that is
designated as the recording secretary of your panel?

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Eckles, my alternate. I don't believe I
introduced him before, and I wish to apologize for that.

Mr. Lennon. Well, just to identify him, he is the person who
keeps the notes and records, and the Alternate Chairman in your
absence.

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. And he attends all the meetings of your panel?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, unless he happens to be out of town, or
something, in which case, another staff member is asked.

Mr. Lennon. Somebody else's secretaiy?

Mr. McKernan. Right.

Mr. Lennon. And that secretary has the minutes of all the pro-
ceedings and all of the things that take place at these panel meetings?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. Would you supply those for the record?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

(The information requested follows :)

Interagency Committee on Oceanography,
of the Federal Council for Science and Technology,

Washington, D.C., April 6, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com-
mittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Dingell: While testifying before your Subcommittee on Oceanog-
raphy on March 1, 1962, I was requested to furnish two items of information for
the record which were not then available. Since I was appearing in my capacity
as chairman of the facilities, equipment, and instrumentation panel of the inter-
agency committee on oceanography, it has been necessary to obtain review and
clearance of the material from the parent Federal Council for Science and Tech-
nology and from its chairman, the special assistant to the President for science
and technology.

It has been determined, as a matter of policy, that both the council and its
constituent committees should be fully responsive to detailed and specific sub-
stantive questions. I should thus be pleased to extract from the minutes and
from other relevant ICO staff materials any particular information which your
committee requests.

In reference to questions regarding membership of the ad hoc panel that re-
viewed the proposed 1963 oceanographic program, it should be noted that this
panel is one of a large number of such groups that were appointed by the Special
Assistant to advise him and the President on the balance, scope, and scientific
justification of important research programs in a wide variety of fields. Such
consultation must be developed on a confidential basis so as to assure a compre-
hensive and candid evaluation. While it has been the policy of the Office of
Special Assistant not to release names of panel members, I am advised that in
this case an exception will be made; the names of scientists on the Oceanography
Panel are listed as follows:

Dr. Maurice Ewing, director, LaMont Geological Observatory, Columbia
University, Palisades, N.Y.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 75

Dr. Clifford A. Barnes, department of oceanography, University of Wash-
ington, Seattle, Wash.
Dr. Dayton E. Carritt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Mass.
Dr. John Knauss, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Cali-
fornia, La Jolla, Calif.
Dr. Gordon Lill, Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Burbank, Calif.
Dr. John E. Nafe, LaMont Geological Observatory, Columbia University,

Palisades, N.Y.
Dr. Donald Pritchard, Chesapeake Bay Institute, the Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, Baltimore, Md.
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Special Assistant to the Assistant Director, Biological

and Medical Sciences, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Karl M. Wilbur, department of zoology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
There is one further item which we would appreciate the opportunity of clari-
fying. In the course of the hearings, a question arose concerning the need for
the Federal Government to solicit advice from outside consultants and the poten-
tial problem on conflict of interest. Because from time to time such solicitation
of assistance is in the national interest and because of the concern that has de-
veloped over interpretation of current legislation in this regard, the President has
issued a policy memorandum of February 9, 1962 (31FR1341) and Executive
Order 11007 of February 26, 1961, on the subject of "Preventing Conflicts of
Interest on the Part of Advisers and Consultants to the Government." A copy
of the President's memorandum is attached.

I have been informed by the Office of the Special Assistant that the use of out-
side consultants has been in conformity with this memorandum.
Sincerely yours,

Donald L. McKernan,
Chairman, Panel on Equipment, Facilities, and Instrumentation.

Mr. Lennon. In writing? According to dates?

And how many meetings have }^ou had since you all have been
in existence since January 1961?

Mr. McKernan. We have had 17 meetings.

Mr. Lennon. Of your panel?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, of the Facilities and Instrumentation Panel —
our panel, I should say.

Mr. Lennon. Now the ICO meets approximately how often,
Doctor?

Mr. McKernan. I was under the impression that we met more
often than Assistant Secretary Wakelin said yesterday.

Mr. Lennon. I was, too. How often do they meet?

Mr. McKernan. It seems to me we meet almost every month.
Now, apparently, Assistant Secretary Wakelin indicated that we were
meeting about every other month, and since I haven't examined this
exactly, I wouldn't know which is correct, whether we met only six
times in the last year or more.

Commander Anastasion, who is here, might be able to tell us ex-
actly how many times we met this last year.

Mr. Lennon. But your panel, I think you said, met about once
every 2 weeks.

Mr. McKernan. We happen to have met 17 times. We got started
late, you see, Mr. Lennon. We had some special problems and we
have attempted to meet these problems by perhaps more frequent
meetings.

Mr. Lennon. Now, Doctor, as the head of the Bureau of Commer-
cial Fisheries, is it likely that your Department would be notified if
it developed in certain coastal areas of our country that certain shell-
fish were causing sickness among human beings?

76 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. McKernan. Yes; it is very likely we would be notified of this
by local health authorities and others, because our scientists are for
the most part the leading shellfish scientists in the Nation.

Mr. Lennon. When did you receive your first notice of the poten-
tiality of disease being carried by shellfish in the Providence, R.I.,
area?

Mr. McKernan. I can't give you that information. I would be
glad to supply it for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lennon. Do you have any recollection at all about it?

Mr. McKernan. No, I don't; but we learned about it very quickly.

Mr. Lennon. To what extent was this illness present within this
area that was attributable to the disease of shellfish, particularly
oysters?

Mr. McKernan. Well, if you will permit me to recollect, and it
has been some time ago, and events have passed

Mr. Lennon. Yes.

Mr. McKernan (continuing). But as I remember, we were in
direct consultation with local health authorities and there was some
question as to whether shellfish were even involved.

Mr. Lennon. What type of disease was it?

Mr. McKernan. I believe it was infectious hepatitis, and you
know the transmission of this disease is not well understood, and as I
recollect, Mr. Lennon, the final outcome of this was that it was very
likely due, or most likely due to the poaching of shellfish from con-
demned grounds.

Mr. Dingell. Would you yield to me at that point?

Mr. Lennon. For a couple of questions.

Mr. Dingell. I had better wait, because I want to question on that.

Mr. McKernan. I would like to repeat that I could be wrong
about that, because I am answering from my memory.

Mr. Lennon. The records in your office will reflect any information
that came to you from the public health authorities of that area that
there was a possibility that this disease that you described or defined,
probably, or could possibly, have come from diseased shellfish.

Mr. McKernan. Yes, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. Lennon. And it was your conclusion, I believe you said it was
your conclusion — ■ — ■

Mr. McKernan. My "recollection"; could we put it that way?

Mr. Lennon. Your recollection that perhaps this was not so, that
it was not attributable to diseased shellfish. Is that right?

Mr. McKernan. No, it is my recollection that there was some
question about the origin of the disease, and then it seems to me, if
my recollection serves me properly, that it was finally decided that
there had been some lack of enforcement of condemned oyster
grounds, polluted grounds.

Mr. Lennon. Who was responsible

Mr. McKernan. I shouldn't say oyster, because I believe it was
clams.

Mr. Lennon. Clams. Whose responsibility was it to prohibit and
to enforce the law against poaching on this contaminated area?

Mr. McKernan. The State's.

Mr. Lennon. The State. The State of Rhode Island?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. If the gentleman would yield, I believe — am I right
on this — that it was Raritan Bay, N.J.?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 77

Mr. McKernan. We have had a number of them, and I believe
that there was one in Rhode Island, also.

Mr. Dingell. The most recent one, the worst, was an outbreak
of infectious hepatitis that occurred in Raritan Bay, N.J.; am I right?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. Now, subsequent to that, about the same time, did
you receive some information from the public health authorities
that this same condition had been brought about in the Mobile,
Ala., area?

Mr. McKernan. Yes. We were aware that the Public Health
Service was studying this in Mobile Bay, Ala., and again, if my
recollection serves me correctly, without any records before me,
our shellfish specialists cooperated with the Public Health Service
at that time.

Mr. Lennon. Does the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries have any
laboratory facilities in the Rhode Island area coast?

Mr. McKernan. Well, we have a laboratory at Milford, Conn.,
Mr. Lennon.

Mr. Lennon. Which serves that area?

Mr. McKernan. Which serves this general Atlantic area; yes.

Mr. Lennon. The New England coast area?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. When did you first learn that HEW intended to
establish this laboratory in Rhode Island to study the deleterious
effect on human beings that may be attributed to shellfish?

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Lennon, I wish to apologize for not having
these records here. Had I realized these questions were coming up,
I would have brought them. I will be glad to supply this, but I am
afraid if I try to remember this, I will give you incorrect information.

Mr. Lennon. Would it have been a year ago?

Mr. McKernan. Something of this order; yes. It was quite a
long time ago; so long I can't remember.

Mr. Lennon. And I assume they conferred with you about this
matter, that is, HEW?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. And was any suggestion made that perhaps the
expansion of your laboratory there in Milford, Conn., could turn its
attention to the problem that the health authorities were finding, in
particular, HEW, in this field?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, as I recollect, there was discussion of this.

Mr. Lennon. And it was decided that it couldn't be done, and the
best approach was to establish a new, million dollar facility in Provi-
dence, R.I., to study this question of the effects on human beings of
diseased shellfish?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Lennon. And you do not think it could be done under the
same building with your laboratory in Milford?

Mr. McKernan. With the present

Mr. Lennon. Even on a cooperative basis with HEW?

Mr. McKernan. With the present information that has been
supplied me by my staff people who examined this critically with
other staff people, no, I do not think it can be done.

80597—62-

78 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Lennon. Where is your shellfish laboratory in the gulf coast?

Mr. McKernan. It is at Pensacola — at Gulf Breeze, near Pensa-
cola.

Mr. Lennon. And serves that area?

Mr. McKernan. And this is carrying out research in estuarine
problems and oyster studies in this area.

Mr. Lennon. And the same determination was made between your
Department and HEW that your facilities there could not be enlarged
and new scientists brought in to study there that the decision was
made up in Rhode Island?

Mr. McKernan. Yes. I would like to be responsive to your
question.

Mr. Lennon. You spent another half a million dollars up there?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, and the reasons for this were the require-
ments laid down by HEW that they needed an area that was, as I
remember, entirely free of pollution.

I was in no position then, nor am I in a position now, to question
these criteria.

Now, because I am a biologist, and I can realize that carrying out
certain experiments they well might need pollution-free water, and
then they said they did need pollution-free water to carry these on,
they discussed the various kinds of work they were going to do, this
seemed logical to us.

Mr. Lennon. These two shellfish research centers, one in Provi-
dence and one in Mobile, that the design contract has already been let
or the contract for the design, are they authorized, of course, by the
Congress?

Mr. McKernan. This is HEW's budget, and I don't know.

Mr. Lennon. They are just so big. I think when we started
it was about 30,000 employees in 1953, and now it is 63 thousand.

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the
record at this point GSA news release of January 3, 1962, pertaining
to the construction of a shellfish research center by HEW at Provi-
dence, R.I., and ask unanimous consent to have placed in the hearing
record at this time a GSA release of January 2, 1962, for plans per-
taining again to the construction of a shellfish research center at
Mobile, Ala.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The information referred to follows :)

[GSA No. 1597, for immediate release, Jan. 3, 1962]

The General Services Administration has announced the selection of two
Providence, R.I., architectural firms to design a shellfish research center to be built
in Providence.

Plans and specifications for the project are expected to be completed by early-
spring by Kiely-Fletcher & Associates and Fenton G. Keyes Associates.

The facility, which has a limit of cost of $1,065,000, is to be built for the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. It will provide 20,300 gross square feet
of space for research activities involving sanitation aspects of the harvesting and
marketing of shellfish.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 79

[OSA No. 1595, for immediate release, Jan. 2, 1062]

The design contract for a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare facility
in Mobile, Ala., has been awarded to two Mobile firms, the General Services Ad-
ministration has announced.

The Shellfish Sanitation Research Center will conduct research into sanitation
aspects of the harvesting and marketing of shellfish.

Plans and specifications for the complex of laboratories and offices that will
provide approximately 10,300 gross square feet of space are to be prepared by
J. B. Converse & Co., Inc., and Harry Inge Johnstone by early spring. A limit
of cost of $508,000 has been set for the project.

Mr. Lennon. Now I will yield to you.

Mr. Dingell. Well, the chairman will recognize that you have
been very patient. Mr. Morse.

Mr. Morse. I have no questions.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Pelly?

Counsel?

Now, I want to get away from this shellfish situation, but before
I do, I want to read a section I received from the letter directed to
me by Secretary Udall on this point. It says here:

We have many years experience at Milford, and know the water conditions
there are favorable for culture of oyster and clam larvae. We do not know
whether the sea water at Kingston, R.I., is equally satisfactory.

Now that sounds to me like you didn't look at Kingston, R.I., to
see whether it was satisfactory in determining whether or not you
were going to combine the facilities. Am I correct, on the face of
the Secretary's letter?

Mr. McKernan. Now, if you would allow me to explain, I am
very familiar with this particular letter. Our point here is that at
Milford, Conn., we have carried out years of research work. We
have been working on oysters in this particular location for years. It
is in the center, or was in the center of a thriving oyster industry.

Now, we know, for example, that this particular water is very
favorable to the culturing, artificial culturing of clam and oyster
larvae, and we have successfully done this within this laboratory. We
have accomplished some very wonderful things, I think, in the case
of handling shellfish.

We don't know, in this Kingston area, that we could culture oysters
with the same degree of success that we are having here; furthermore,
it would take quite a lot of tune, and a lot of facilities, if we were to
find out whether we can successfully spawn oysters at any time of
the year, whether we could raise the larvae successfully in Kingston.

Mr. Dingell. Doesn't that indicate to you that you have not made
a proper scrutiny, when it says, "We do not know what the water
conditions are"? Doesn't that indicate that there hasn't been a
proper scrutiny of the water conditions to determine whether or not
we could save the taxpayers some money?

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that it would
probably take us 2 or 3 years to find this out. We would have to set
up some sort of a field installation at this location to find out whether
it would accomplish the same thing that we are accomplishing at
Millford. This is what we intended to convey in this particular letter.
We intended to convey this as directly as we could, but I don't think
it means that we were not willing to cooperate with another agency.
Quite the contrary; we are.

80 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. I want to direct your attention a little bit. The
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries requested how much from the
Bureau of the Budget for the conduct of general oceanographic
research?

Mr. McKernan. In 1963?

Mr. Dingell. Yes.

Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, I have considered a question of
this kind to be one that is within the executive department, and I
would rather a question of this nature be submitted to my Secretary.
You know, our requests to the Executive, to the Bureau of the Budget,
are released in a sense — the President's budget comes before you early
in January. The departments submit their budget before this time.

Mr. Dingell. Then, let me make it a little simpler. Let me ask
you this: Did you receive for general oceanographic research within
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries the same amount that was re-
quested of the Bureau of the Budget in your initial request directed
to the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. McKernan. Again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to be
responsive to you, but I wonder if I am accomplishing my job and
carrying out my responsibilities by directly revealing that informa-
tion. I would suspect that the Secretary might well — the fact is that
we didn't get much of an increase.

Mr. Dingell. The fact of the matter is you received a cut, did you
not, for fiscal 1962?

Mr. McKernan. For fiscal 1963?

Mr. Dingell. For fiscal 1962, you received a cut, in calendar 1963
you also received a cut, did you not?

Mr. McKernan. No.

Mr. Dingell. Did you receive any substantial increase?

Mr. McKernan. No; we did not receive a substantial increase, but
we did not receive a cut.

Mr. Dingell. But the increase was small?

Mr. McKernan. Over the preceding fiscal year, we did not re-
ceive a cut.

Mr. Dingell. Your increase was very slight?

Mr. McKernan. Yes.

Mr. Dingell. Now, the next question I wonder is, do you have a
permanent staff assigned to your committee of ICO?

Mr. McKernan. In a sense, yes, we have organized within the
Bureau a group who are handling much of this. We have one par-
ticular Branch of Marine Fisheries, headed by Mr. Howard Eckles,
who is coordinating the staff work for ICO, and then we brought in
Mr. Vernon Brock, a well-known oceanographer, who is heading a
group here in Washington. He has several staff members who are
attempting to coordinate our efforts in the field of oceanography with
those of other Government agencies.

In other words, we are attempting to staff up to handle this problem
as best we can within the funds available.

Mr. Dingell. Are you telling us, then, that the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries is furnishing the staff for this agency?

Mr. McKernan. Yes, with respect to our responsibilities, the
Department's responsibilities in oceanography, we are furnishing the
staff.

Mr. Dingell. How about with regard to the whole responsibility
of your subcommittee? Is this all being furnished? Are the staff all

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 81

being furnished for coordination purposes by the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries for the whole operation?

Mr. McKernan. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. We are sharing that.
We have an excellent group and these men are competent profes-
sionals, and what we do is assign tasks to some others. For example,
at our next-to-the-last meeting, we assigned Mr. Goodheart of Coast
and Geodetic Survey the job of bringing together all information on
buoy systems. This will provide us with more precise information on
this subject. So we tend to share these tasks. And I think what you
are getting at, these people, some of them, anyway, have other tasks
as well.

Mr. Dingell. I am very much concerned how you can have a man
doing a full-time job in the Bureau, and have him do another full-time
job in coordinating the use of facilities, and so forth, in the Federal
Government.

Mr. McKernan. In other words, I like what I am doing, and I
enjoy the work with the ICO. It is one of the real satisfactions I get
out of my work here. I enjoy associating with these very dedicated
and very hard working people and I get a sense of accomplishment,
Mr. Chairman, because I believe that the ICO has been successful,
although not perfect, by any means.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. McKernan, we appreciate your kindness in
being here. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Comdr. R. J. Alexander, chairman of Ocean-
ographic Ships Panel.

Commander, you are certainly welcome, and we appreciate your
courtesy and kindness in coming.

STATEMENT OF COMDR. ROBERT J. ALEXANDER, U.S. NAVY,
CHAIRMAN, SHIPS PANEL, INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON
OCEANOGRAPHY

Commander Alexander. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before
proceeding with my testimony I would first like to express my ap-
preciation for this opportunity to appear before your committee to
discuss the organization, operations, and accomplishments of the
Ships Panel of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. It is
not usual for one in my circumstances to testify before a congressional
committee and I consider it a very great honor and a privilege to be
here.

I have a written statement which, with your permission, I would
like to submit for the record.

Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Commander. We appreciate that.

Commander Alexander. On June 14, 1960, the chairman of the
Interagency Committee on Oceanography, the Honorable James H.
Wakelin, Jr., requested me to establish a panel to review critically for
the ICO the oceanographic research and survey ship requirements of
the various Federal agencies. The panel, when formed, was im-
mediately to undertake the following tasks:

(a) Review individual agency ship construction and conversion
programs to determine what ships would be required through fiscal
year 1963. This has since been expanded to include ship requirements
through fiscal year 1971.

82 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

(b) Comment on the characteristics of ships currently planned smd
means for funding the construction or conversion.

(c) Recommend types of ships which may be standardized to reduce
cost of construction.

id) Recommend standardization of equipage and scientific instru-
mentation where feasible.

(e) Recommend the sizes of ships for appropriate assignment to
certain laboratories and for specific types of programs.

(J) Determine reasonable estimates of cost of construction based on
latest information available to agency representatives including an
estimate of cost of operations of new ships under various types of
operation, that is, manning by civilian laboratories, MSTS, and
Navy crews.

In addition to the above charter delineated in Dr. Wakelin's letter
of June 14, 1960, the ships panel was subsequently asked to obtain
background information on how Government agencies design, contract
for, build, inspect, and accept oceanographic ships.

Before discussing the accomplishments of the ships panel, I would
like to say a few words on the general composition of the panel and
give a brief summary of our methods of operating. The panel is
composed of 16 members, alternates, and observers from the various
agencies concerned with oceanographic ship construction or operation.

The following agencies are represented: Office of Chief of Naval
Operations, National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research,
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office,
Maritime Administration, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Bureau of
Ships, U.S. Coast Guard, and National Academy of Sciences Com-
mittee on Oceanography.

Membership of the Ships Panel consists of the following: Myself as
chairman for the Office of Chief of Naval Operations; Dr. J. Lyman,
National Science Foundation; Mr. F. Jennings, Office of Naval Re-
search; Capt. J. C. Mathison, USCGS, Coast Survey; Comdr. R. C.
Darling, USCGS (alternate), Coast Survey, who is the alternate to
Captain Mathison; Comdr. F. L. Slattery, U.S. Navy Hydrographic
Office; Mr. B. Byrnes (alternate), Hydrographic Office, who is the
alternate to Commander Slattery; Mr. L. C. Hoffman, Maritime
Administration ; Mr. V. L. Russo (alternate), Maritime Administration,
who is the alternate to Mr. Hoffman; Mr. J. King, Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries; Mr. H. Eckles (alternate), Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, who is the alternate to Mr. King; Lt. Comdr. E. Venning,
U.S. Navy, Bureau of Ships; Mr. B. K. Couper, Bureau of Ships; Lt.
Comdr. R. P. Dinsmore, USCG, Coast Guard; Dr. P. Fye (observer),
NASCO; Air. R. Vetter (alternate), NASCO; Mr. R. Wilson of Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries has recently relieved Mr. J. King.

It should be noted that 5 of the above members are ship design
personnel and 11 are experienced operators of oceanographic ships.
This membership has accumulated a total of over 240 years of operating
and/or design experience with oceanographic ships and represents an
excellent cross section of specialized technical oceanographic knowl-
edge.

Meetings are called by me as chairman when needed in order to
complete the various tasks currently assigned to the panel. Mem-
bers, alternates, and observers have equal voice in our meetings and
a serious effort is made to achieve unanimity. I am proud to say

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 83

that through spirited discussion, debate, and mutual respect with
which all members hold one another, we have always achieved the
unanimous approval of panel members for all recommendations sub-
mitted to the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. Considering
the heterogeneous background of the membership, this unanimity
speaks highly of the spirit of cooperation that all members bring to
panel meetings.

A series of meetings are called to discuss specific problems. When
the problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of the panel, a
letter is sent to the chairman of the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography submitting the comments and/or recommendations of
the panel. Since its inception in June 1960, the panel has convened
to discuss four major problem areas. Each problem area has involved
four or five meetings so I would estimate that the ships panel has
convened 16 to 20 times for official gatherings. In addition, individual
subgroups of panel members have met to prepare details for con-
sideration by the entire panel. I mention this to show that the
ships panel is active and, I believe, effective.

The first series of meetings was held to undertake the tasks assigned
by Dr. Wakelin's letter of June 14, 1960. This resulted in the first
preliminary report of August 2, 1960, which recommended: Fiscal year
1962 and fiscal year 1963 shipbuilding requirements; that except
under special circumstances, ships of the future oceanographic ship
program be restricted to neMr construction ships; and that the panel
continue to study long-range requirements, standardization of equi-
page, and sizes of ships.

The second series of meetings was designed to complete the work of
the first series and culminated in the Ships Panel Report of March 24,
1961. This report submitted recommendations on fiscal year 1963
ship requirements and operating schedules for fiscal year 1962, includ-
ing a cnartlet showing general areas of operation for research and
survey ships.

The subject of standardization of research and survey ships was held
in abeyance until the modern ships now under construction become
operational. There is a danger in standardizing too soon and putting
things "in concrete," so to speak, which would inhibit normal, healthy
development.

Therefore, until we have gained operational experience with modern
ships, the panel recommends that agencies continue their own indi-
vidual developments, keeping all other activities informed of their work.
This has worked out very well and has brought about a great measure
of standardization merely through exchange of information.

The third series of meetings was held at the request of the chairman,
Federal Council of Science and Technology, to obtain background
information on how agencies process their ship-construction programs
from initial design stages through final acceptance.

As a result of these meetings, the panel on October 2, 1961, sub-
mitted to the ICO a summary of agency shipbuilding procedures.
The panel's recommendations were designed to protect fully the
interests of the Government while at the same time giving a certain
amount of freedom to the individual user laboratories to insure that
the final ship meets the needs of the laboratory concerned.

84 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

These recommendations were favorably endorsed by the Inter-
agency Committee on Oceanography and are now being studied by
the Federal Council for Science and Technology.

The fourth series of meetings is currently in progress and will
result, in a few days, in submitting the proposed operating schedules
for U.S. oceanographic ships for fiscal year 1963 similar to the schedule
published in March 1961 as ICO Pub No. 1. If the committee
desires, this document will be submitted for the record as soon as it
is published.

In conclusion, I would like to list those areas where the Ships
Panel has contributed to bringing about a more effective national
oceanographic program:

1. The published yearly operating schedules serve to acquaint all
agencies with the work of others. This in itself eliminates duplica-
tion which might otherwise have occurred were it not for this exchange
of information. It also invites joint participation in oceanographic
expeditions. Preliminary review of the fiscal year 1963 operation
areas shows that all agencies gave serious consideration to where
others were operating. This year shows a much better distribution of
ships than did last year.

2. The Coast Guard is investigating the feasibility of establishing
an oceanographic ship category as recommended by the Ships Panel.
Establishment of an oceanographic ship category would remove con-
fusion among designers as to whether cargo or passenger ship stand-
ards should prevail.

3. Ship construction procedures have been recommended by the
panel and endorsed by the ICO. These procedures are currently
under study by the Federal Council for Science and Technology.

4. The Ship and Survey Panels held a joint meeting at the request
of the Coast and Geodetic Survey to discuss and comment on the
proposed design of the Coast Survey's world ocean survey ship. As
a result of these comments, the Coast Survey is incorporating design
features in this important class of ship which are truly unique and will
give it a greatly increased capability over the original design.

5. Review and exchange of agency shipbuilding programs has re-
sulted in three specific reassignments of ships to prevent duplication
or to give a better distribution of ships. In fiscal year 1960, the Navy
reassigned a ship destined for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
to the use of east coast Government laboratories because the National
Science Foundation was already providing a ship for Woods Hole.
In fiscal year 1962, the Coast Survey reassigned a proposed ship from
being a replacement for an overage coastal survey ship to the Nation's
first world ocean survey ship. This is the first ship planned for world
ocean surveys and gave great impetus to the world survey program.
And lastly, in fiscal year 1962, the National Science Foundation
approved assignment of a ship to Texas Agriculture and Mechanical
College because the Navy's long-range plan could not provide a ship
to Texas A. & M. before fiscal year 1965. This in turn will be followed
by a revision of the Navy's long-range plan to take into consideration
the planned programs of other agencies. This mutual give and take
is very beneficial and will go far in giving a proper balance to the
number, size, and assignment of ships needed to meet our country's
oceanographic requirements.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 85

This terminates my written statement, but before trying to answer
the questions which the committee may have, I would again like to
thank you for permitting me to appear before you today.

This concludes my written statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Morse. Thank you very much., Commander Alexander. I
think it would be very helpful if you would submit for the record the
proposed operating schedule which you referred to on page 5 of your
testimony.

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Morse. Let me ask one question, if I may. Back on page 4,
you were talking about the first series of meetings, and you said that
among your recommendations was that the future oceanographic
program would be restricted to new construction of ships. What
did you mean by that?

Commander Alexander. This was in reference to conversions,
Mr. Chairman. Before 1960, I think almost entirely all ships were
conversions. The Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Bureau of
Ships made a detailed investigation separately, and both arrived at
the same conclusion, that conversions, except for special purposes,
were not economical.

Mr. Morse. I see. Thank you.

Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. Commander, following our chairman's question,
do you consider that the U.S. naval ship Eltanin is not an efficient
oceanographic ship?

Commander Alexander. No, sir; the Eltanin was a special-purpose
ship within the meaning of the panel.

Mr. Bauer. What do you mean by special purpose? Doesn't it
have the capabilities of going to any ocean in the world, and conducting
oceanographic research in many and various disciplines?

Commander Alexander. No, sir; in the case of the Eltanin, we
had to have a ship that would be capable of operating freely in the
Antarctic ice.

Mr. Bauer. Aside from that, let's talk about the oceanographic
capability. Can it operate without going into the ice in a perfectly
satisfactory manner?

Commander Alexander. The Eltanin?

Mr. Bauer. Yes.

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; it can operate almost anywhere.

Mr. Bauer. What is the matter with the conversion, then?

Commander Alexander. The Eltanin — and I would like to modify
my last answer a little — the Eltanin would be perfectly capable of
doing classical oceanographic work, but there are some types of
oceanographic work that would be beyond its capability.

Mr. Bauer. Will you tell the committee what they are?

Commander Alexander. Well, there would be certain types of
acoustic or seismic work, where we would need an absolutely quiet
ship. We would like to have a ship that would be fairly stable, so
that we could take gravity observations.

Mr. Bauer. Do you have any oceanographic ship in our oceano-
graphic fleet that is any more stable than the Eltanin?

Commander Alexander. I am not familiar with the stability of
the Eltanin, but icebreakers in general are extremely instable in the

86 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

sense that they roll a lot and this would be not satisfactory for
gravity work.

Mr/ Bauer. Is the Eltanin an icebreaker? Is it constructed as an
icebreaker?

Commander Alexander. It has the same general configuration
and I was under the impression that the Eltanin, when not in ice,
would probably roll too much for gravity work.

Mr. Bauer. Are you familiar with the roll tanks that are installed?

Commander Alexander. We have no experience with roll tanks
except as they are on the Vema. They are extremely successful on
the Vema. I presume that they would be equally successful on the
Eltanin.

Mr. Bauer. Except to the rolling, the only objection that you
have to the Eltanin is the acoustic noise that the ship would produce
with relation to seismic work; is that correct?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir, and in general, a ship that is
designed for cargo or other purposes is not conveniently compart-
mented for scientific work.

Mr. Bauer. Have you been aboard the Eltanin?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; I was very impressed with it.

Mr. Bauer. Do we have a better compartmented ship in our
oceanographic fleet?

Commander Alexander. We have now the Coast Survey ship
Surveyor, which has been designed for hydrographic work.

We have the new Coast Survey ship for world ocean surveys and
three 1,375-ton Navy ships that are under construction. Except for
the Surveyor, we have no better-constructed ship; no, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Let's look at it from a biological ship point of view:
Is there a necessity in the national program of having a national
biological ship?

Commander Alexander. A specially constructed ship, Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. For biological purposes, or one that will permit scien-
tists to indulge in the study of the biota of the seas?

Commander Alexander. The panel has not had any requests from
any of the agencies for specially constructed biological ships. We
have discussed in our panel meetings only ships that could be used
for all types of oceanography.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, the National Science Foundation has
not indicated that they have any desire or plans for a national oceano-
graphic ship for the Indian Ocean in the field of marine biology; is
that correct?

Commander Alexander. I have the National Science Foundation's
shipbuilding program, and I do not have any ship in this that is for
the biological research.

Mr. Bauer. Let's talk about the conversion possibilities. The
biologists are not necessarily interested in seismic work; are they?

Commander Alexander. No, sir. And I imagine that for bio-
logical work, it might be possible to use a conversion.

Mr. Baxter. Do you think that biology is of sufficient importance
in the world of oceans for us to have a national biological ship? That
is the question.

Commander Alexander. I am not a biologist, Mr. Bauer, but I
would say yes.

Mr. Bauer. You are the ship coordinator for ICO?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 87

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; but, as I pointed out, we have
no agencies that have indicated that they have a requirement for a
purely biological ship.

Mr. Bauer. That is rather strange, because I have a copy of the
requirements of the National Science Foundation which set up the
necessity of a biological ship for the Indian Ocean. I thought that
that was certainly under your cognizance.

Commander Alexander. We have not considered it, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Very well. Now, let me ask you a few things here.

You mentioned in the organization of your panel that you have five
members that are ship design personnel. How many naval architects
do you have on the panel?

Commander Alexander. I am not completely familiar with
whether they are naval architects. They are design personnel. We
have Capt. J. A. Mathison and Comdr. R. C. Darling, who work very
closely with the design features of ships for the Coast and Geodetic
Survey, Mr. L. C. Hoffman, and Mr. Vito Russo of the Maritime Ad-
ministration are both, I believe, design people, and Lt. Comdr. E.
Venning of the Bureau of Ships is a naval engineer, and I would pre-
sume that he is a naval architect.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, when you say you have design per-
sonnel, that could be someone that sets up a requirement for what
they expect to get out of the ship; is that correct?

Commander Alexander. No, sir. The people I listed as design
people are those that can give us specific technical information on
regular design features that you would expect to get from a naval
architect.

Mr. Bauer. Now, you made a report, did you not, to the Chairman
of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography with respect to the
capabilities of the various Government agencies that are concerned
with the design, the supervision of design, and qualification of the
ship in its trials, and so on, did you not?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. And in that report, did you show that the Coast and
Geodetic Survey had anything larger than a small staff to develop
preliminary design plans?

Commander Alexander. I don't have a copy of the report with
me, Mr. Bauer. That report was sent to the Interagency Committee
and has since been forwarded to the Federal Council, but as I recall,
the Coast Survey does have a small staff, and we have two of their
members on the panel.

Mr. Bauer. Are they capable of supervising the construction, the
trials, going into the details of design structure, or do they give it to
the Maritime Administration?

Commander Alexander. The preliminary design and requirements
would be generated with the Coast Survey and the Maritime Admin-
istration mutually, and then the Maritime Administration would
handle the complete procedures thereafter.

Mr. Bauer. What was the reaction of the U.S. Coast Guard to
your report? Do you happen to remember?

Commander Alexander. No, sir; I don't recall that we received a
report from the Coast Guard.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to introduce
this into the record.

88 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. So ordered.

(The information referred to follows:)

U.S. Coast Guard,

November 13, 1961.
From: Rear Adm. Donald McG. Morrison, U.S. Coast Guard, member.
To: Chairman, Interagency Committee on Oceanography.
Subject: Contracting procedures for ship construction.
Reference: (a) Chairman, Ship's Panel ltr 2, October 1961, same subject.

1. Commander Anastasion has asked for comments on the recommendations
set forth in reference (a).

2. These recommendations have been reviewed by Coast Guard staff officers
and the following comments are made.

(a) The recommendation concerning review of contract designs and procedures
for Government-funded oceanographic vessels is concurred with. It is pointed
out that compliance with applicable Federal laws and Coast Guard regulations
require that vessel plans and specifications be submitted to the Coast Guard for
approval. It is for this reason that the Coast Guard does not wish to become
involved with the preparation of vessel designs other than for Coast Guard
vessels. It further should be pointed out that certain of the vessels coming
under the applicability of this recommendation will be destined as public vessels
which are not subject to Coast Guard inspection regulations. The Coast Guard
is willing to make available its inspection facilities to public vessels at the request
of the agency concerned. This presently is being done in the case of the Navy's
MSTS and certain AGOR vessels. The Coast Guard holds that privately oper-
ated vessels whether federally funded or not are subject to the inspection laws.

(6) The Coast Guard concurs strongly with the recommendation that Govern-
ment-funded oceanographic vessels be constructed or converted in U.S. shipyards.

(c) Recommendation (c) requests the Coast Guard and American Bureau of
Shipping to investigate the feasibility of establishing an oceanographic ship
category. The Coast Guard feels that such an investigation would be useful,
and in fact has already made considerable progress in this direction. Instructions
have been issued to our marine inspection offices indicating how the present regu-
lations should be applied to this special category of vessels. Should it develop
that further modification is justified without detracting from the basic safety of
the operation, these instructions can be modified or special legislation can be
sought to provide authority for departure from normal requirements to the
extent justified by this special type of operation.

D. McG. Morrison.

Department of the Navy,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,

Washington, D.C., October 2, 1961.
From: Chairman, Ships Panel.

To: Chairman, Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

Subject: Background information on agency procedures for contracting for ship
construction.

1. In accordance with a request of Commander Anastasion, a series of Ships
Panel meetings were held to obtain background information on how Government
agencies design, contract for, build, inspect, and accept oceanographic ships.

2. A brief summary of the various agency procedures is submitted below:

(a) Navy (Bureau of Ships) : The Bureau of Ships has an experienced and
effective organization established to process shipbuilding procurements. The
ship characteristics are prepared jointly by the Ship Characteristics Board within
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the user laboratory. Upon
approval of the characteristics by the Ship Characteristics Board, preliminary
and contract designs are prepared by engineers in the Bureau of Ships. A very
small percentage are prepared under contract by private design agents. When
funds are appropriated to build a certain class ship, proposals are solicited from
qualified bidders. The Bureau maintains lists of qualified bidders which are
based upon capability data submitted to the Bureau yearly by interested ship-
yards throughout the country. The Bureau notifies each shipbuilder as to the
type ships for which invitations will be extended during the ensuing year. Periods
of 45 to 90 days are allowed for preparation of bid proposals. Awards to other
than the low bidder are the exception and must be thoroughly justified in accord-

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 89

ance with Armed Services Procurement Regulation. The Bureau through its
field agents inspects the ship at different stages of its construction to insure
compliance with the contract plans and specifications. Prior to delivery and
again prior to expiration of the guarantee period the ship is inspected by a naval
board of inspection and survey. Contractor-responsible deficiencies are deter-
mined and charged to him as adjustments of the contract price.

(6) Maritime Administration. In general, the Maritime Administration's
procedures are similar to those of the Bureau of Ships but are more simplified.
These procedures are followed but are not available as written directives. Ship
characteristics are prepared by the user in conjunction with the Maritime Ad-
ministration. Preliminary and contract plans and specifications are prepared
either by MARAD or by private naval architects, but they are reviewed by the
Maritime Administration.

The Maritime Administration does not keep a complete bidder's list as does
the Bureau of Ships; however, MARAD keeps current records of shipbuilding
facilities existing in all U.S. shipyards capable of building seagoing vessels and
has a detailed knowledge of the capabilities of most of these yards.

The bids are invited on the basis of contract plans and specifications, perform-
ance conditions, time limits, etc., specified in the invitation. Invitations to bids
are nationally advertised. A shipyard having the facilities required to construct
the ship may submit a bid.

There is no bidder's conference as such, but a prospective bidder may request
clarification of any part of the invitation, in writing. Written replies to such
inquiries are simultaneously distributed to all prospective bidders.

The lowest responsive bidder gets the contract, unless statutory provisions
require different allocation of the contract in the national interest. If the Mari-
time Administration has no current and detailed knowledge of the capabilities
of the responsive bidder, a specific survey to establish the ability of the bidder
to perform all the requirements of the contract is carried out by the technical,
legal, and financial personnel of the Maritime Administration. Final determina-
tion of the responsiveness of the bidder, in such cases, is made on the basis of
this survey.

MARAD personnel carry out plan approval and inspection throughout the
construction of the ship and witness tests and trials. Upon completion, the ship
is inspected by the Trial and Guarantee Survey Board before delivery is accepted.

(c) Coast and Geodetic Survey: The Coast and Geodetic Survey has a small
staff to develop preliminary design plans, determine ship characteristics and
approve key plans. Design of the ship is usually given to the Maritime Admin-
istration, but on occasion a private naval architect may design the ship under
contract by MARAD. All other details of contracting and inspection are handled
by MARAD, but Coast and Geodetic Survey personnel are assigned to the
shipyard as a part of the shipyard construction inspection staff.

(d) Bureau of Commercial Fisheries: The Bureau has a decentralized system
for new vessel construction. Preliminary operational requirements are defined
by the staff of the laboratory or field station having need for the vessel. This
statement is reviewed and approved by the region and central office. A qualified
naval architect is selected by negotiation. Depending on the amount of the
contract, it is approved at either the regional office or central office level. The
plans may also be submitted to the Bureau of Ships for their review. After
approval of final plans and specifications, bid invitations for the vessel construc-
tion are prepared and issued to as large a list as possible of prospective bidders.
Award is made to the lowest responsible bidder in accordance with requirements
of Federal procurement regulations. Performance bond and payment bond are
required. The architect usually performs inspection, conducts dock and sea
trials, and certifies as to completion of contract.

(e) Coast Guard: The Coast Guard has small in-house construction caoabilities
but a large competent staff of naval architects to prepare ship designs, process
contracts, and inspect ships. With minor exceptions the Coast Guard system
closely parallels the system of the Bureau of Ships.

(/) National Science Foundation: Grants are made to research institutions to
cover acquisition costs of various items of equipment for basic research, including
research vessels. In the case of vessels, appropriate controls are provided in the
grant letter whereby all critical stages in design and procurement are subject to
Foundation concurrence. An advisory committee, with representation from
Bureau of Ships, Maritime Administration, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
has been established to advise in the technical administration of these procurement
procedures. The Foundation has also acquired an antarctic research vessel,
which is being converted by and will be operated by MSTS. The Foundation

90 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

also makes grants for charter of special-purpose vessels, as in the case of the
Mohole project and the Indian Ocean expedition.

(</) The Office of Naval Research procures small research ships for its oceanog-
raphic program through the following procedures. After a need for the ship has
been determined, a prime contract for the design and construction of the ship
is let to the research activity that will eventually use the ship. This contract
will give the contractor authorization to let subcontracts for the design and
construction to be handled in accordance with the approved procedures. Included
in this prime contract are stipulations that after the design is completed, the
plans will be submitted to the Office of Naval Research, who in turn will request
the Bureau of Ships to review them. After approval by the Bureau of Ships, the
plans are returned to the contractor for the purpose of obtaining competitive
bids. When the various bids have been received, a contractor will be selected
with the mutual approval of the prime contractor and the Office of Naval Research.
The acceptance of the delivery of the ship must be approved by personnel desig-
nated by the Office of Naval Research. These ships, because of their small
size, are usually handled as Government-furnished equipment to the institution's
research contracts.

3. In view of the above, the following recommendations are submitted in behalf
of the Panel for consideration by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

(a) The Maritime Administration, Bureau of Ships, and Coast Guard are the
only agencies within the Government capable of designing, bidding out, contract-
ing, approving, inspecting, and accepting delivery of a ship within their own
organization. These agencies are uniquely qualified to handle all aspects of ship-
building including the reviews and/or justifications associated with Government
appropriations.

Recommendation: In order fully to protect the Government's interest, it is
recommended that all agencies providing funds for the construction of oceanogra-
phic ships in excess of 300 gross tons be urged to adopt the following procedures:

(1) Ship characteristics, preliminary design, and contract design may be pre-
pared by private contractor or Government agency at the option of the funding
agency. These characteristics and designs should meet the requirements of the
user laboratory.

(2) The final contract design should be reviewed for technical feasibility by the
Maritime Administration or the Bureau of Ships. In this review, the responsibil-
ity of these agencies shall extend only to determining that the proposed design of
the private contractor is sound from a naval architectural and marine engineering
standpoint and to checking that the contract plans and specifications form a
satisfactory basis for competent bidding. The efficiency and the economics of the
proposed design shall remain the responsibility of the funding agency and user
laboratory in the case of designs prepared by private contractors. In order to
prevent conflict between their Inspection and Design Sections, the Coast Guard
Design Section should not be concerned with the design or construction of ships
other than those specifically destined for Coast Guard usage. All vessels delivered
shall, however, comply with all the applicable laws of the United States and the
requirements of the various regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and
Public Health Service.

(3) After approval of the final design, and with the concurrence of the funding
agency; the Maritime Administration, Bureau of Ships, the funding agency, or
the user laboratory will handle all of the remaining details (except for Coast
Guard ships which will be handled within the Coast Guard). These details
include but are not limited to the bidding out, contracting, and inspection of the
ship during the construction stages.

(4) The acceptance trials of ships built with Government funds will be con-
ducted either by the Trial and Guarantee Survey Board of the Maritime Admin-
istration or by the Board of Inspection and Survey of the the Navy. These
Boards will be augmented to include representatives from the user laboratory or
agency and will act as a representative of the funding agency to insure that the
finished ship meets the contract specifications. The funding agency will follow
the recommendations of the Board prior to acceptance of the ship.

(b) On occasion various agencies have used Government funds to have ships
for U.S. purposes built in foreign shipyards. Although theoretically legal, this
policy is in conflict with the spirit of a series of Executive orders and legislative
acts dating back to 1936. "Buy American" is so much a part of U.S. policy that
deviations for expediency or economy should only be approved at the Cabinet
level or, in the case of independent agencies, by the head of that agency.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the construction or conversion of all
oceanographic ships funded by the Government for U.S. oceanographic use should

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 91

be carried out in U.S. shipyards. Deviations from this policy may be approved
only by the head of the agency receiving the appropriation.

(c) There are no formal Coast Guard or American Bureau of Shipping require-
ments established specifically for oceanographic ships. This causes a certain
amount of confusion among designers as to whether cargo or passenger ship
standards should prevail. The establishment of a category of oceanographic ship
would remove this confusion.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Coast Guard and American
Bureau of Shipping be requested to investigate the feasibility of establishing an
oceanographic ship category. In the event it is feasible to establish such a cate-
gory it is further recommended that all U.S. oceanographic ships in excess of 300
gross tons be constructed in accordance with the requirements to be established
by the Coast Guard and/or American Bureau of Shipping.

R. J. Alexander.

Mr. Bauer. Now, what do you mean by operating experience?

Commander Alexander. These men have been to sea on oceano-
graphic ships for a very long time.

Mr. Bauer. Has Mr. Couper ever been at sea in an oceanographic
ship?

Commander Alexander. Mr. Couper has been at sea; yes.

Mr. Bauer. On an oceanographic ship?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; Mr. Couper, before he worked
in the Bureau of Ships, was employed at the Navy Hydrographic
Office, and is an experienced oceanographer.

Mr. Bauer. I see. In other words, the operation comes from the
fact that you go to sea on an oceanographic ship; is that correct?

Commander Alexander. As an oceanographer.

Mr. Bauer. How about Mr. Eckels?

Commander Alexander. Mr. Eckels is a biologist, and he has been
to sea on Bureau of Commercial Fisheries ships.

Mr. Bauer. Now not as an oceanographer?

Commander Alexander. I presume that a fisheries expert would
be an oceanographer.

Mr. Bauer. How about Mr. Hoffman?

Commander Alexander. Mr. Hoffman is one of the men I listed
as being in design personnel.

Mr. Bauer. He is in design?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; he is in Maritime Administra-
tion design.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, operations, to be an operator you must
have gone to sea as an oceanographer. Is that correct?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Now, on page 4 of your statement, one of the functions
seems to be of your working group that you publish charts showing-
areas for operations of research and surve}7 ships.

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Why doesn't that come logically under the survey
panel?

Commander Alexander. We were

Mr. Bauer. You make the decision, in other words, as to where the
ships go, or do you just take the information from the survey panel
and put it on a chart?

Commander Alexander. Well, this was just developed by the
panel as a part of its report. In our original report, we listed the
characteristics of all of the oceanographic ships within the United
States and we thought it would be a good idea, while we had this

92 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

information, to also include the operating schedule. This was favor-
ably received by the ICO, so we just developed it.

Mr. Bauer. Now, on page 6 you have mentioned the National
Science Foundation approved the assignment of a ship to Texas
Agricultural and Mechanical College because the Navy's long-range
plan could not provide a ship to Texas A. & M. before fiscal 1965.
Who owns the ship?

Commander Alexander. Sir?

Mr. Bauer. Who owns that ship?

Commander Alexander. The National Science Foundation ship
is under construction.

Mr. Bauer. The National Science Foundation?

Commander Alexander. That is part of their shipbuilding pro-
gram; yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. I thought they had stopped at Woods Hole.

Commander Alexander. No, sir. When I say that they are pro-
viding the ship, I mean they are providing the funds. The ship has
not actually been built yet.

Mr. Bauer. Who will own the ship? The Navy or the National
Science Foundation or Texas A. & M. ?

Commander Alexander. Texas A. & M. will retain title.

Mr. Bauer. I see. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Morse. Thank you, Mr. Bauer.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Drewry?

Mr. Drewry. Right along that line, Commander Alexander, the
Texas A. & M. and the Navy's long-range plan would not provide a
ship for Texas A. & M. before fiscal 1965. We are now dealing with
fiscal 1963. When will this National Science Foundation ship be
available? How much sooner?

Commander Alexander. What I meant by that, sir, was that
funds would not be provided by the Navy for the Texas A. & M. ship
before fiscal year 1965, which meant the ship would be available in
fiscal year 1967 from the Navy's plan. Texas A. & M., according to
my records, will have a ship built, funded with fiscal year 1962 money;
keel will be laid down in fiscal year 1963 and should be available some-
time in fiscal year 1964, or the beginning of 1965. We gain 2 years.

Mr. Drewry. You gain 2 years?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Drewry. Now, this is a new ship that you are talking about.
Now, back to the point about your position on new ships. I don't
think anybody can quarrel too much with the concept that something
that is built specifically for a particular purpose might in general be
better than something — and possibly cheaper — than something that
has to be extensively converted, because conversion involves tearing
out as well as putting in.

But I don't quite understand how firm that position is as a matter
of policy when I think we can expect that the construction of new
survey ships is not going to be a huge program every year. In fact,
as the general oceanographic program is getting off the ground, there
will be other things, perhaps, making earlier demands on funds than
much shipbuilding, at least. In fact, you haven't got, really, the
people to serve on the overall program that is in concept for TENOC
or NASCO or whatever.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 93

You do not preclude the use of conversions of existing vessels or
ships of opportunity to gain basic data of a survey nature while you
are waiting to get the money for new ships, do you?

Commander Alexander. No, sir; the Navy has an extensive
program for using ships of opportunity. We wouldn't gain very
much, really, in time, by using conversion, because we will start to
work shortly on fiscal year 1964 programs. That would mean that
if we wanted a conversion, we would now have to enter it into fiscal
year 1964 programs and it wouldn't be available for 2 years.

Mr. Drewry. Well, that was basically my point. Can you bring
new ships into being fast enough to allow the program to proceed at
a maximum available speed?

Commander Alexander. Well, we have a number of ships coming
in now, sir. I don't think we would gain anything by bringing addi-
tional ships in that were conversions, right at this point.

Mr. Drewry. Now, on page 6, you refer to the resulting reassign-
ment of ships to prevent duplication or give better distribution. I
just want to see if I understand correctly, your statement that in fiscal
1962 the Coast Survey reassigned a proposed ship from being a replace-
ment for an overage coastal survey ship to the Nation's first world
ocean survey ship. Does that mean that an authorized ship for the
Coast Survey, which was contemplated to replace an overage coastal
ship, is now going to be redesigned to serve as a world ocean survey
ship, rather than coastal survey ship? Is that the point?

Commander Alexander. No, sir. At the time we were dealing
with dollars and with numbers. A ship was allowed in the Coast
Survey program but it was designated initially as a replacement ship.
As a result of the ICO's studies, we realized that the world ocean
survey program needed a ship as soon as possible so the Coast Survey
decided to delay the replacement, and utilize this ship as a world
ocean survey ship.

Mr. Drewry. This had not yet gotten to the point of congressional
authorization?

Commander Alexander. Not to the congressional authorization
or to the design stage.

Mr. Drewry. That is all, Commander. Thank you.

Mr. Dingell. Commander, I was unfortunately called away to
vote on another committee in another matter, and I apologize for
being away.

I was concerned by a couple of things in your statement that I
would like to perhaps explore with you very briefly.

The first point is, you indicated that the panel has recommended
that, except in special circumstances, the oceanographic ship program
be restricted to new construction ships in the future. Am I correct
on that?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Does this mean that there is an inadequate supply of
existing vessels which could be acquired more cheaply for this purpose?

Commander Alexander. This is one of the points that was 'Drought
out in the Bureau of Ships study in the Coast Survey ship, Mr. Chair-
man. The Bureau of Ships made a rather detailed study, and one of
the ground rules was to determine how many ships would be available
that would give us the same capability of AGOR 1,375-ton ship, and
what would it cost.

80597—62 7

94 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

The cost was approximately the same, and if I recall correctly, there
were only four ships available in the reserve fleet to do this. These
ships would have a life expectancy of about 10 years, as opposed to 30
years for a new construction ship, and running a cost estimate through-
out, it was about four or five times more expensive to build the con-
version than to build a new ship.

Mr. Dingell. Would you submit a copy of that to this committee,
please?

Commander Alexander. I will try to get one, sir, yes.

Mr. Dingell. If you would, please.

(The requested information follows :)

Department of Commerce,
Coast and Geodetic Survey,

Washington, June 20, 1958.
To: Director.

Subject: Study of conversion of existing naval vessels to hydrographic surveying
ships for Coast and Geodetic Survey.

1. Pursuant to your instructions, a study of the feasibility of conversion of
existing naval vessels to ships suitable for the hydrographic survey operations of
the Bureau was initiated on December 2, 1957. The dimensions and character-
istics of naval vessels in the size range suitable for hydrographic surveying were
reviewed and all classes of ships within this range listed for study.

2. On December 5, 1957, Rear Adm. Charles Pierce and Capt. S. B. Grenell
visited the Office of Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics, and conferred
with staff members. Plans, characteristics, and photographs of the selected types
were studied and capabilities of the ships discussed. As a result of this study the
following classes were selected for detailed examination.

Class

Length

Beam

Draft

Light dis-
placement

Speed

MSF type B
MSF type D

ATA

ATF

Feet

221
185
143

206

Feet

Tons

720

610

1,240

Knots

3. All ships in these classes were constructed during the period 1942-45.
None of the ships in these classes have been reported as excess to the needs of the
Navy. No inquiries have been made concerning the availability for transfer of
ships of the type listed since it was not desired that the study be restricted to
only those available.

4. During the detailed examination, ships of the selected classes were visited
and all compartments inspected. Machinery, hull structure, and arrangement
were studied and excerpts made from the ship's characteristics cards for further
study and analysis. Operational features and behavior at sea were discussed
with the ship's officers. General plans and structural data were obtained from
Bureau of Ships in order that changes in arrangement and other details of
conversion might be studied.

b. results
1. MSF type B

(a) TJ.S.S. Requisite was examined at Seattle, Wash., on December 13, 1957,
by Capt. F. G. Johnson, Comdr. F. J. Bryant, and Chief Engineer J. E. Baker.
On December 17, Captain Johnson, Chief Engineer Baker, and Chief Engineer
James Piner made a further examination. Requisite, although now designated
AGS IS was formerly AM 109 of the fleet minesweeper class now redesignated
MSF (B). This ship has been converted to a surveying ship by the Navy and
is now in active service for hydrographic operations. The conversion has not
been successful. The hull structure and shell plating is extremely light, con-
sisting principally of light bulb angles and 10.2-pound plate. Although strength-
ened by intermediate frames and doubler plates during conversion, the hull

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 95

was extensively damaged during a recent cruise in the northern Bering Sea and
the ship is now awaiting major repairs. Operational qualities are poor. The
narrow beam, comparatively shoal draft, and shape of the hull section cause the
ship to be unstable under ordinary weather conditions and boat handling is
always difficult and often impossible. The main deck is awash even in moderate
seas. Steering is poor; the ship has twin screws and a single rudder which is
ineffective at low speeds. Below 6 knots the rudder is useless for steering and
reliance must be had on steering with the engines. Quarters are inadequate and
no satisfactory rearrangement is possible.

(b) It is concluded that ships of this class cannot be successfully converted to
hydrographic surveying ships of even moderate efficiency. Because of the
unsatisfactory operating qualities, no detailed estimate of the cost of an attempted
conversion have been made. Further details are contained in a report from
Captain Johnson attached hereto as appendix D.

2. MSF type D

(a) No ships of this class are in active service. U.S.S. Cruise (MSF 215), in
reserve status at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, was examined on January 21,
1958 by Rear Adm. H. A. Karo and Comdr. F. J. Bryant. Ships of this class
have a raised focsle deck extending about two-thirds the length of the hull and
an armored superstructure. Propulsion is principally twin-screw geared diesel
although some have other types of diesel drive. Constructed as antimagnetic
minesweepers, this class is fitted with special service generators and heavy
magnetic coils which would require extensive removals. The propulsion machin-
ery is divided between two engine rooms. Steering is manual, electric assisted,
by cables. The anchor windlass has a single wildcat and capstan so that only
one anchor can be handled. Crew quarters are on the second deck and could be
made reasonably adequate by extensive rearrangement at considerable expense,
officers quarters are poor and cannot be much improved. Heating and ventilation
systems and evaporator and fresh water tankage are inadequate. Insulation of
the shell plating throughout will be required for habitability. The hull structure
and shell plating are excessively light and will require extensive strengthening.
Shell plating is principally 10.2-pound plate and frames are light bulb angles.

(6) It is concluded that ships of this class can be converted to moderately
successful hydrographic surveying ships though at excessive cost. The efficiency
of the converted ship would be approximately 60 percent of that of a similar
ship designed and constructed specifically for hydrographic surveying. The
minimum cost of conversion is estimated as $2,078,000. Detailed estimates of
conversion costs are contained in appendix A.

(c) Major features of the conversion required are as follows:

(1) Strengthen hull by installation of intermediate frames, web frames,
and doubler plating in way of shell.

(2) Extend main deckhouse aft by 12 feet 6 inches to provide CPO
quarters.

(3) Extend deckhouse on superstructure deck forward by 7 feet to provide
space for commanding officer quarters and plotting room and to permit
extension of bridge deck area.

(4) Cut away armored superstructure and rebuild, preferably in aluminum,
to compensate for increased topside weight of launches and davits.

(5) Extend bridge deck area forward and aft to provide a radioroom,
chartroom, and adequate working space on bridge. The existing bridge is
a steering station only.

(6) Install davits on superstructure deck to handle 4 launches, 26 to 30
feet in length.

(7) Revise officers quarters to provide accommodations for seven officers.

(8) Revise crew accommodations to provide quarters and sanitary facili-
ties for a crew of 68 men, the minimum required for continuous operation.

(9) Revise heating, ventilation, lighting, and sanitary systems to suit
the new arrangements.

(10) Renew propulsion engines, ships service generators, heating boiler,
supply and exhaust fans, evaporator, and auxiliary machinery.

(11) Insulate shell plating in way of accommodations.

(12) Provide complete outfit and equipment.

8. A TA class

(a) U.S.S. Accokeek, ATA-181, was examined at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
on January 22, 1958 by Rear Adm. H. A. Karo and Comdr. F. J. Bryant. Ships
of this class are auxiliary ocean tugs with single screw diesel electric propulsion.

96 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

There are two main propulsion generator sets driving two motors geared to a
single shaft. All propulsion machinery is housed in one compartment. There is
a raised focsle deck extending off about one-fourth of the length; the main deck-
house extends off about two-thirds of the length. The towing machinery is in the
after part of the deckhouse and the aft one-third of the length is open deck over a
large salvage hold with restricted 'tween deck height. Steering is manual, by
means of cable. The pilot house is small, amounting to hardly more than a steer-
ing station; there is a small chartroom and a radioroom on the foscle deck. Offi-
cers quarters and crew mess facilities are on the main deck; crew quarters are on
the second deck. The ship has difficulty in making headway against head seas
and yaws considerably in normal weather. Because of the deep draft, steering is
good at low speed. General operating characteristics are good. Reasonably
adequate accommodations for 5 officers and 30 crew members can be provided by
rearrangement of main and second deck compartments and by extension of the
superstructure deck and main deckhouse. Heating and ventilation and evapo-
rator capacity are inadequate. Generator capacity is inadequate. The shell
plating and house sides require insulation in way of accommodations for habit-
ability.

(b) It is concluded that ships of this class can be converted to hydrographic
surveying ships of restricted utility though at considerable cost. The capabilities
of the converted craft would approximate those required for class III surveying ship
but operating efficiency would be limited by the excessive draft (15-foot) which
cannot be changed. The operational area would be restricted to certain areas of
southeast Alaska and even there the deep draft would be a handicap to successful
operation. In addition to this restriction on operations, the efficiency of the
converted ship would be approximately 80 percent of that of a ship designed and
constructed specifically for hydrographic surveying. The minimum cost of
conversion is estimated at $1,072,000. Detailed estimates of conversion costs are
contained in appendix B.

(c) Major features of the conversion required are as follows:

(1) Extend focsle deck and shell plating above main deck aft approximately
8 feet.

(2) Extend main deckhouse aft approximately 20 feet to provide space
for shops and additional crew quarters.

(3) Extend deckhouse on superstructure deck aft approximately 8 feet to
provide office and plotting room space.

(4) Extend bridge deck and pilothouse aft approximately 8 feet to provide
enlarged bridge area and space for chartroom. Restep foremast on flying
bridge deck to eliminate obstruction in working space on bridge deck.

(5) Install davits on main deck to handle two launches, 24 to 26 feet in
length.

(6) Revise crew accommodations to provide quarters and adequate
sanitary facilities for a crew of 30 men.

(7) Rearrange officers quarters to provide accommodations for five officers.

(8) Revise heating, ventilation, lighting, and sanitary facilities to suit the
new arrangement.

(9) Insulate shell plating and exterior sides of deckhouse in way of accom-
modations.

(10) Renew main propulsion generators, ships service generators, heating
boiler, supply and exhaust fans, evaporator, and auxiliary machinery.

(11) Provide complete outfit and equipment.

4. AFT class

(a) TJ.S.S. Seneca, ATF 91, was examined at Naval Operating Base, Norfolk,
Va., on February 14, 1958, by Capt. W. N. Chovan and Comdr. F. j. Bryant-
Ships of this class are fleet ocean tugs with single screw diesel electric propulsion.
There are four main propulsion generator sets in one compartment driving four
motors in a separate compartment. The four motors drive the single shaft
through a common reduction gear. The ship is flush deck with considerable
sheer; bulwarks extend the full length of the main deck. The towing machinery
in installed on the main deck aft of the deckhouse. There is a tripod mast aft
with a 10-ton boom. Operation characteristics except steering are good. Steer-
ing is by means of an electrohydraulic steering engine; the poor steering qualities
are the result of the hull form rather than defects in the steering system. Sta-
bility is good and decks are reasonably dry in rough weather. For operation of
the main propulsion machinery the control station is in the motor room but an
engineer watch must also be maintained in the generator room. This requires a
minimum of four engine room personnel per watch. Officer's quarters are in the

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 97

superstructure deckhouse and main deckhouse. The crew nicssrooin and sanitary
facilities are in the main deckhouse; crew quarters are on the second deck. The
pilothouse is reasonably adequate in size hut the chartroom is extremely small
There is a small radioroom on the superstructure deck.

Accommodations for a complement of 9 officers and 70 crew members can be
provided by rearrangement of existing compartments and extension of the main
deckhouse and superstructure. This is the minimum complement needed for
continuous operation and provides for eight additional engineroom personnel
required for duplicate watch in the two propulsion machinery compartments.

The main propulsion switchboard is a live front installation and as located it
creates an extremely dangerous situation as to safety of personnel. Conversion
and operation replacement of this hazardous installation with a modern deadfront
switchboard to meet minimum safety standards.

(b) It is concluded that the ATF class provides the best possibilities of any
of the classes examined for conversion to a satisfactory hydrograpluc surveying
ship. Operational efficiency will be restricted by the excessive (17-foot) draft
and operational costs will be increased by the necessary 15-percent increase in
complement over that required for a ship of the same or greater capabilities de-
signed specifically for hydrographic surveying. Operating costs will be further
increased by the fact that converted ships of this class will only have the capa-
bilities of class II surveying ships but will be almost 50 percent larger (1,240 tons
light displacement as against 860). The estimated cost of conversion is $1,856,000.
Detailed estimates of conversion costs are attached as appendix C.

(c) Major features of the conversion required are as follows:

(1) Remove towing machinery and extend main deckhouse aft approx-
imately 40 feet to provide additional crew quarters and workshop space.

(2) Extend superstructure deckhouse forward for approximately 15 feet
and aft for approximately 8 feet to provide plotting room and office space.

(3) Extend pilothouse and bridge deckhouse forward for approximately
12 feet and aft for approximately 10 feet to provide chartroom and radio
room space.

(4) Extend height of stack casing by approximately 8 feet to clear new
superstructure.

(5) Revise crew accommodations to provide quarters and sanitary facilities
for a crew of 70 men.

(6) Revise officers accommodations to provide quarters for nine officers.

(7) Insulate shell plating and deckhouse sides in way of accommodations.

(8) Revise heating, ventilation, lighting, and sanitary systems to suit new
arrangement of accommodations.

(9) Renew propulsion engines, ship's service generators, heating boiler,
supply and exhaust fans, evaporator, and auxiliary machinery.

(10) Install davits on superstructure deck to' handle four 26- to 30-foot
motor launches.

(11) Replace existing main propulsion switchboard.

(12) Provide complete outfit and equipment.

C. ANALYSIS

1. In assessing the results of the examination of the four classes of existing
naval vessels it is apparent that three of the four classes can be converted ot
hydrographic surveying vessels of varying degrees of efficiency at costs totaling
from one-half to two-thirds of the costs of new construction. In addition to
these initial amounts there will be certain increased operating and maintenance
costs. The increased operating costs may be ascribed to the following factors:

(1) Ten- to fifteen- percent increase in complement due to arrangement of
machinery spaces.

(2) Greater consumption of fuel and other consumable supplies due
to the fact that these shins are approximately 50-percent larger than ships
of equivalent capabilities specifically designed for hydrographic surveys
would be.

(3) Increased maintenance costs due to age. general obsolescence, and
light construction.

(4) Intangible costs due to poor operating characteristics, inefficient
arrangement, and restriction on possible operating areas.

2. The three classes of ships which it is believed possible to convert for hydro-
graphic surveys will require extensive alteration and rearrangement of substantial
cost. All of these ships are 14 to 16 years old and the majority have had hard

98 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

service. A considerable part of the auxiliary machinery will require replacement
since it will have reached the end of its normal operating life. While the condition
of the main propulsion machinery cannot be evaluated except for particular
ships, it would not be realistic to assume that it would not require replacement,
if not immediately then within a very few years.

3. Regardless of the extent of alteration and conversion which may be under-
taken, these ships will remain 15-year-old hulls whose remaining service life cannot
be substantially extended. In no case can this remaining service life exceed
15 years and an average not exceeding 10 years can be expected. A substantial
part of the cost of a hydrographic surveying ship is in the provision of its outfit
and specialized equipment necessary for performance of its mission. The cost of
this equipment approximates 10 percent of the cost of construction. This cost
is not reduced for converted ships as against new construction since the equipment
to be provided is identical.

_ 4. On the basis of the elements discussed in 2 and 3 above the following estima-
tions have been made:

(a) MSF type D (class II).

(1) Increased operating costs based on the 10-percent increase in per-
sonnel required: $30,000 per year.

(2) Increased operating costs due to propulsive inefficiency: $10,000 per
year.

(3) Increased cost of repair and maintenance due to age and obsolescence
of hull and machinery: $20,000 per year.

(4) Loss of productive work due to inefficient operations and additional
time required for repair and maintenance: 50 days per year at $1,500 per
day, $75,000 per year.

(6) ATA class (class III).

(1) Increased operating cost due to propulsive inefficiency: $5,000 per year.

(2) Increased cost of maintenance due to age and obsolescence of hull and
machinery: $10,000 per year.

(3) Loss of productive work due to inefficient operations and additional
time required for repair and maintenance: 15 days per year at $800 per day,
$12,000 per vear.

(c) ATF class "(class II).

(1) Additional operating cost based^on the] 15-percent increase in personnel
required: $50,000 per year.

(2) Increased operating cost due to excess displacement and propulsive
inefficiency: $35,000 per year.

(3) Increased cost of repair and maintenance due to age and obsolescence
of hull and machinery: $30,000 per year.

(4) Loss of productive work due to inefficient operations and additional
time required for repair and maintenance: 15 days per year at $1,600 per
day, $24,000 per year.

(5) Considering the costs of conversion, the increased operating costs,
and cost of inefficient operation, the following estimate forms the basis for
comparison of the final cost of converted ships and new construction over a
10-year period.

(a) MSF type D (class II) :

(1) Conversion cost $2,078,000

(2) Increased operating costs 600,000

(3) Inefficient operations 750,000

Total 3,428,000

(b) ATA class (class III) :

(1) Conversion cost $1,072,000

(2) Increased operating cost 150,000

(3) Inefficient operations 120,000

Total ----- 1, 342, 000

(c) ATF class (class II) :

(1) Conversion cost $1,856,000

(2) Increased operating cost 1,150,000

(3) Inefficient operations 240,000

Total 3, 246,000

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 99

D. CONCLUSIONS

1. The MSF type B class is basically unsuitable for conversion to a hydro-
graphic surveying ship.

2. The MSF type D class can be converted to a hydrographic surveying ship
of low efficiency. The cost of conversion plus increased operational costs over a
10-year period will approximate 90 percent of the cost of new construction. The
expected service life of this type of ship will not exceed 10 years.

3. The ATA class can be converted to a hydrographic surveying ship of reduced
efficiency restricted to selected areas of operation. The cost of conversion plus
increased operational costs over a 10-year period will approximate 80 percent of
the cost of new construction.

4. The ATF class can be converted to a hydrographic surveying ship of reduced
efficiency. Conversion costs plus increased operating costs over a 10-year period
will approximate 80 percent of the cost of new construction. Converted ships
of this class will be restricted to selected areas of operation because of excessive
draft.

5. The service life of the converted ships will probably not exceed 10 years.

6. The limited utility and restricted operational areas of the converted ships
will require an increase in the overall number of ships required for performance of
the Bureau's hydrographic surveying functions.

7. Conversion of existing naval vessels to hydrographic surveying ships is not
economically justifiable. At a cost of 80 to 90 percent of the cost of new construc-
tion this would be a stopgap measure and would only postpone meeting our funda-
mental needs for a period of 10 years.

F. J. Bryant,
Commander, Cost and Geodetic Survey,

Chief, Vessels and Equipment Branch.

Study op Conversion op Existing Naval Vessels to Hydrographic
Surveying Ships for Coast and Geodetic Survey

Appendix A. — Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the MSF type D class

(a) Structural changes and accommodations:

1. Strengthen structural hull (100 tons, at $2,000) $200, 000

2. Enlargement of deckhouse, main deck aft (15 tons, at

$2,000) 30,000

3. Alteration and enlargement of deckhouse, superstructure,

and bridge decks (substitute aluminum for steel — 50

tons, at $3,000) 150, 000

4. Insulation of shell and house sides in way of accommoda-

tions (4,000 square feet, at $15) 60,000

5. Deck covering in accommodations (10,000 square feet, at

$2) 20,000

6. Furniture and furnishings 60,000

7. Subdivision of accommodations 24,000

8. Galley and mess equipment 16, 000

9. Revision of lighting to suit new arrangement 12,000

10. Revision and improvement of ventilation and heating to

suit new arrangement 64, 000

11. Provision of sanitary facilities, including piping and

flushing system 38, 000

Subtotal 1 674, 000

(6) Removals and alterations of equipment:

1. Provision of new anchor windlass, including installation

costs 20,000

2. Removal of magnetic minesweeping system 15,000

3. Installed cost of boat davits and winches 120,000

Subtotal 155, 000

100 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Appendix A.- — -Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the MSF type D class —

Continued

(c) Replacement, overhaul, and alteration of auxiliary machinery and

outfit:

1. Installed cost of 8,000-g.p.d. evaporator $16,000

2. Installed cost of new heating boiler 30, 000

3. Installed cost of 2 200-kw. ship's service generators 80, 000

4. Installed cost of steering engine to replace existing manual

installation 32, 000

5. Overhaul of machinery not replaced 20, 000

6. Alterations to main switchboard and electrical system. _ 28, 000

7. Machine tools 18,000

8. Special tools and equipment 8,000

Subtotal 232, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery:

1. Overhaul of main engines and reduction gears 60, 000

2. Additional for main engine replacement if required 345,000

Subtotal 405, 000

(e) Provision of navigation, electronic, and surveying equipment:

1. Launches and boats 80,000

2. Installed cost of automatic steering system (gyropilot) __ 24, 000

3. Communications radios 28,000

4. Radar, Loran, and RDF (installed cost) 27, 000

5. Fathometers 24,000

6. Electronic positioning systems 132, 000

7. Oceanographic winch and equipment 18, 000

8. Miscellaneous navigation equipment 7,000

9. Underwater log system (installed) 10,000

10. Surveying equipment and instruments 12, 000

11. Electronic test equipment 4,000

Subtotal 366,000

(/) General costs:

1. Design and engineering costs 80,000

2. Berthing equipment 12,000

3. General repairs and overhaul 154, 000

Subtotal 246, 000

SUMMARY

(a) Structural changes and accomodations 674, 000

(b) Removals and alterations of equipment 155, 000

(c) Replacement, etc., auxiliary machinery 232, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery 405, 000

(e) Navigation, electronic, and surveying equipment 366, 000

(/) General costs 246, 000

Total _. 2, 078, 000

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 101

Appendix B. — Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the A TA class

(a) Structural changes and accommodations:

1. Removals (towing winch, fittings, monitor, etc.) SI 8, 000

2. Extension of deckhouse, main deck aft (12 tons at

$2,000) 24, 000

3. Alteration and enlargement of deckhouse, bridgedeck (12

ton at $2,000) 24, 000

4. Insulation of shell and house sides in way of accommoda-

tions (2,000 square feet at $15) _' 30, 000

5. Deck covering in accommodations (4,000 square feel a1

$2) 8,000

6. Furniture and furnishings 40, 000

7. Subdivision of accommodations 12, 000

8. Galley and mess equipment 10, 000

9. Revision of lighting to suit new arrangement 8, 000

10. Revision and improvement of ventilation and heating to

suit new arrangement 36, 000

11. Provision of sanitary facilities, including piping and

flushing system 22, 000

Subtotal 232, 000

(b)\ Removals and alterations of equipment:

1 . Installed cost of boat davits and winches 45, 000

2. Provision of additional refrigeration space 24, 000

Subtotal 69, 000

(c) Replacement, overhaul, and alteration of auxiliary machinery

and outfit:

1. Installed cost of 4,000-g.p.d. evaporator 12, 000

2. Installed cost of new heating boiler 18, 000

3. Installed cost of 2 100-kw. ships service generators 50, 000

4. Installed cost of steering engine to replace existing man-

ual installation 26, 000

5. Overhaul of machinery not replaced 18, 000

6. Alterations to switchboard and electrical system 16, 000

7. Installed cost of new refrigeration machinery 17, 000

8. Alterations to fresh and salt water systems 8,000

9. Machine tools 6,000

10. Special tools and equipment 4,000

Subtotal 175, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery:

1. Overhaul of main generator sets 40, 000

2. Replacement of main propulsion switchboard 36, 000

3. Additional for main generator sets replacement 225, 000

Subtotal 301,000

(e) Provision of navigating, electronic, and surveying equipment:

1. Launches and boats 2 40,000

2. Installed cost of automatic steering system (gyro pilot). 22, 000

3. Communications radios 15,000

4. Radar, loran, and RDF 15,000

5. Fathometers 18,000

6. Electronic positioning systems 60, 000

7. Miscellaneous navigation equipment 3,000

8. Underwater log system (installed) 8, 000

9. Surveying equipment and instruments 6, 000

10. Oceanographic equipment 12,000

11. Electronic test equipment 3,000

Subtotal 202, 000

102 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Appendix B. — Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the ATA class — Con.

(/) General costs:

1 . Design and engineering costs $30, 000

2. Berthing equipment 6, 000

3. Replacement of propeller 3, 000

4. General repairs and overhaul 54, 000

Subtotal 93,000

SUMMARY

(a) Structural changes and accomodations 232, 000

(b) Removals and alterations of equipment 69, 000

(c) Replacement, etc., auxiliary machinery 175, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery 301, 000

(e) Navigation, electronic, and surveying equipment 202, 000

(f) General costs 93, 000

Total 1,072,000

Appendix C. — Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the ATF class

(a) Structural changes and accommodations:

1. Removals (towing equipment, monitor, etc.) $34,000

2. Extension of deckhouse, main deck aft (18 tons, at

$2,000) 36, 000

3. Extension of deckhouse, main deck, and bridge deck

forward (25 tons, at $2,000) 50,000

4. Insulation of shell and house sides in way of accommo-

dations (6,000 square feet, at $15) 90, 000

5. Deck covering in accommodations (10,000 square feet,

at $2) 20,000

6. Deck covering, weather deck (8,000 square feet, at $2)__ 16, 000

7. Furniture and furnishings 60,000

8. Subdivision of accommodations 26,000

9. Revision of galley and messroom spaces 34, 000

10. Galley and mess equipment 16,000

11. Revision of lighting to suit new arrangement 10, 000

12. Revision of ventilation and heating systems 80, 000

13. Provision of sanitary facilities 40, 000

Subtotal 512, 000

(6) Removals and alterations of equipment:

1. Installed cost of boat davits and winches 120,000

2. Provision of additional refrigeration space 28, 000

Subtotal 148, 000

(c) Replacement, overhaul, and alteration of auxiliary machinery and
outfit :

1. Installed cost of 8,000-g.p.d. evaporator 16, 000

2. Installed cost of new heating boiler 34, 000

3. Installed cost of 2 200-kw. ships service generators 80, 000

4. Replacement of main propulsion switchboard 60,000

5. Overhaul of machinery not replaced 24, 000

6. Machine tools 18,000

7. Special tools and equipment 8,000

Subtotal 240, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery:

1. Overhaul of main propulsion generator sets 40,000

2. Additional for replacement of main propulsion generator

sets 410, 000

Subtotal 450, 000

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 103

Appendix C- — Detailed estimates for cost of conversion of the ATF class — Con.

(e)2Provision of navigation, electronic, and surveying equipment:

1. Launches and boats $80,000

2. Installed cost of automatic steering system (gyropilot) . _ 24, 000

3. Communications radios 28,000

4. Radar, Loran, and RDF (installed cost) 27, 000

5. Fathometers 24,000

6. Electronic positioning systems 132,000

7. Oceanographic winch and equipment 26,000

8. Miscellaneous navigation equipment 7, 000

9. Underwater log system (installed) 10, 000

10. Surveying equipment and instruments 12, 000

11. Electronic test equipment 4,000

Subtotal 374, 000

(/) General costs:

1. Design and engineering costs 60, 000

2. Berthing equipment 12,000

3. General repairs and overhaul 60,000

Subtotal 132, 000

SUMMARY

(a) Structural changes and accommodations 512, 000

(6) Removals and alterations of equipment 148, 000

(c) Replacement, etc., auxiliary machinery 240, 000

(d) Main propulsion machinery 450, 000

(e) Navigation, electronic, and surveying equipment 374,000

(/) General costs 132, 000

Total 1,856,000

Department of the Navy,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,

Washington, D.C., August 18, 1960.

memorandum for the assistant secretary of the navy (research and

development;

Subject: New construction versus conversion of ships for surveys and oceano-
graphic research.
Reference: (a) Assistant SECNAV (R. & D.) memorandum of March 11, 1960.
Enclosure: (1) BUSHIPS letter ser 440-108 of July 29, 1960.

1. As requested by reference (a), the Bureau of Ships, assisted by representa-
tives from the Offices of the Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Naval Research,
Hydrographer of the Navy, and Commander, Military Sea Transportation Serv-
ice, has conducted a study to determine the most feasible approach to provide
the Navy with oceanographic research and survey ships required during the
forthcoming years. The results of this study are forwarded as enclosure (1).

2. Conversion of old ships may be expected to require more frequent and
expensive repairs than new construction and, hence, converted ships may be less
available for extended operations. It is the policy of the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions to examine very closely expensive conversions of ships as compared to new
construction ships in view of the limitations inherent in any conversion, short
remaining life, and overall economy. In general, if the cost of a new ship is less
than l}i times the cost of a conversion, the new ship is probably more economical.

3. (a) From a study of the "usefulness factor," it appears that only ship types
AVP-54, AK-270, Cl-M-AVl and ARS-33 should be considered for conversion,
and of these only Cl-M-AVl are available in the number required to contribute
significantly to the planned 28-ship oceanographic research and survey program.

(6) The small number of AVP-54, AK-270 and ARS-33 available, four, three
and one, respectively, will require throe designs at considerable cost for the eight
ships. In addition, the AVP, of which four are available, is the most expensive

104 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

in both conversion and operating costs. The C1-M-AV1 hulls are of World
War II construction and have the potential implication of costly repairs and
limited life.

4. The reduced scope conversion of AK-270 and Cl-M-AVl or new construc-
tion AGS as survey ships only may be an economical means of providing a single
purpose survey ship. However, it has been the strong position of the representa-
tive of DCNO (development) at working level meetings of the Ship Characteristics
Board considering the 1,200-ton surveying ship (AGS) in the fiscal year 1962
shipbuilding program that this ship should have those features eliminated in
paragraph 4 of enclosure (1) to permit flexibility of assignment to either research
or survey work to meet the changing requirements for such work.

5. In view of the above, it is recommended that new construction ships be
built to perform oceanographic research and survey. Further, it is suggested that
AGOR and AGS types be built to the same hull and machinery design with only
the actual scientific working spaces adapted to perform the research or survey
functions, thereby achieving the economies accruing from elimination of design
and "lead ship" costs, as well as providing for flexibility of assignment to either
research or survey tasks with minimum cost for alteration.

John Sylvestek,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) .

Department op the Navy,

Bureau of Ships,
Washington, D.C., July 29, 1960.
To: Chief of Naval Operations (Chairman, Ship Characteristics Board).
From: Chief, Bureau of Ships.
Subject: New construction versus conversion of ships for ocean surveys and

oceanographic research.
References: (a) Chairman, SCB ltr Ser 181P42 of April 29, 1960.

(b) SCB Memorandum 72-60 Ser 0170P42 of April 25, 1960.
Enclosures: (1) Comparison of conversions to oceanographic research and survey
ships.

(2) Comparison of new construction oceanographic research and sur-

vey ships.

(3) BUSHIPS member SCB ltr Ser 420-172 of July 13, 1960

1. Reference (a) requested this Bureau to conduct a study to determine the
most feasible approach to providing the Navy with the oceanographic research
and survey ships required during the forthcoming years. As stated in reference
(a), an ad hoc meeting, with representatives from the Offices of the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (R. & D.), Chief of Naval Operations, Bureau of Ships,
Office of Naval Research, Hydrographic Office, and MSTS attending, was held
to define the parameters of the study. The following guidelines were developed.

(a) Four new construction types would be considered: SCB project 185 plus
the three types for which general characteristics were promulgated in reference

(&).

(b) Bureau of Ships would determine those reserve fleet ships considered most
suitable for conversion and would study those types. New construction require-
ments would be used for guidance in determining the extent of modifications
included in the conversions.

(c) All ships would be MSTS civil service manned.

(d) All armament and associated magazines would be removed.

2. In investigating the conversions, the first effort by this Bureau entailed de-
termining the type ships to be considered. Ten types were chosen and studied of
which three, ATA-211, ATF-155 and APD-127 were discarded as unsuitable be-
cause of stability requirements. The remaining seven are listed in enclosure (1)
with pertinent information. Because of the widely varying sizes (from 785 tons
to 5,850 tons full load displacement) the actual capabilities to be built into the
conversions exhibit considerable variation. However, each conversion incor-
porates the following, in differeing degree:

(a) Survey control center.

(b) Library, drafting and office space.

(c) Wet and dry laboratory space.

(d) Photo laboratory.

(e) Gravity meter room.
(/) Antirolling tank.

(g) Storage batteries for ultraquiet operation.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 105

(70 Gas turbine generator for quiet operation.

(i) Air conditioning of the living, messing, laboratory, and office spaces.

(J) Bow propulsion unit.

(k) Winches for research and survey.

(I) Explosive and scientific storage.

(m) Electronics based on new construction requirements.

3. In order to provide some measure of operational usefulness of these seven
conversions, the design studies were submitted to the Office of Naval Research
and the Hydrographic Office for review and evaluation. Both offices indepen-
dently assigned a usefulness factor to these conversions as research and survey
ships. In both cases the AVP-54 conversion was rated first choice and considered
equal in usefulness to the SCB project 185 AGOR. The assigned factors are in-
dicated in enclosure (1).

4. After development of the conversion cost estimates, the Hydrographic Office
recommended that consideration be given to a conversion to an ocean survey ship
that would be capable of conducting ocean surveys under the direction of the
Hydrographer, but would be able to collect only limited oceanographic and
meteorological data. The proposal recommended that the AK270 and the
Cl-M-AVl types be investigated. Eliminated under this reduced scope con-
version would be the following:

(a) Storage batteries for ultraquiet operation.

(b) Gas turbine generator for quiet operation.

(c) All air-conditioning except for the laboratories, survey control center, and
gravity meter room.

(d) Bow propulsion unit.

(e) All winches except the BT and hydrographic winches. Added under this
limited conversion would be the following:

(a) Accommodations for 4 additional scientific personnel bringing the total
to 20.

(6) One additional echo sounder, deep, AN/UQN-1B, bringing the total to two.

(c) One additional precision depth recorder, bringing the total to two.

(d) One streaming winch, T-MK six double drum, on the fantail for magnetic
tail.

Information on these reduced scope conversions is also included in enclosure (1;.

5. In accordance with the guidelines, four new construction types received
original consideration. Early in the study it became apparent that some depar-
ture from these guidelines was appropriate. A first draft of preliminary charac-
teristics was developed for a 500-ton AGOR from the general characteristics.
These preliminary characteristics were used in this study, were reported on in
enclosure (3) and were priced at $3.2 million for the lead ship. It should be noted
parenthetically that consideration of a 500-ton AGOR has been recently dropped
by the Ship Characteristics Board because the sponsors within OPNAV did not
consider that this ship offered sufficient oceanographic capability for the cost.
In studying the 1,200-ton AGS it became apparent that it differed in only minor
fashion from the project No. 185 AGOR, these differences entailing elimination
of some installed equipment for research and the addition of some for survey.
Depending upon final selection of equipments, it appeared that the AGS would be
about $1.1 million (exclusive of future characteristics changes) more than the
$4.9 million AGOR. The 2,000-ton AGS was studied to meet the general charac-
teristics provided. Pertinent characteristics of new construction ships are shown
in enclosure (2).

6. The following comments are considered appropriate when using the informa-
tion in this study. All nine conversions summarized in enclosure (1) and the
1,200 ton and 2,000 ton new constructions are feasible. Except for the AK270,
the conversion ships are of World War II construction. These ships are already
old and carry with them an implication of frequent repairs, especially of auxiliary
machinery. Estimation of useful life after conversion is difficult at best and
subject to many variables. For use in further analysis a figure of 10 years addi-
tional useful life is a reasonable approximation. The new construction and
conversion costs are engineering estimates of end costs covering the basic contract
with design work, spare parts, Government-furnished material, post trial correc-
tions and including 13% percent escalation. The costs are not based on definitive
characteristics; they assume inclusion in the fiscal year 1962 shipbuilding and
conversion program; and they are not keyed to a specific ship within a class in
the case of a conversion. They thus reflect for conversions, to a great extent,
statistical averages of expected conditions; and considerable variation from these
estimates would not be unexpected in an actual program.

R. B. Bradley, Jr. (By direction.)

106 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

a.
<3

gi?>

o

121

> aS
a~ i

Cv

oo

"H o

« §s

o oS
S 2^"

'-I ... -to

CO ONOC-1CO

co »0 uT

CO C» COCM«»<«-

03

CO '

I 1 1 1 1 1

a

. o '

CN ! I | I

2.9 !
^ 2*»

* i i i§8

o ! ; ;oo

8 i ! ils

S"^28..

'°e.'

'O^

»o onocNN

Pn

(M lOCO

>>-< CO

rH C7i •»* CN CO CO

i i i i ; i

OS

. O 1

CO

$.5 !

»' i is :

! d I

O '0.f

CO MOO

O.^h

1 - »OXlO«iO

^h eo r-

oNh

lO COCNrt«>«*

CN

co

CO

03 I i

a i ! id i

n i : :§s

fe

**^ ! ;

OQ

** § IS '

a 08

s

<* co**""' »o

! d !

° i 1 i^oS

00 CO CD

05 ■S-'

°i ioco-*'*^

i-h COOl

IOCS -^

>0 ^-=»-H»€»

CO !

Tf

..fl I

CN ! ' 1 ' '

w o I

CO

*.a :

10 -u ' ' ' o '

fc

+j «cn '

*j * ! ! ISO

CO

&3? ;

mO -o
ra CO oo

s

^2£°

! d !

= ,S<d

Of O.'

05 co" ! ! ! .fra
"^ *o oo co ^r"co

cn co i-h

cdNio

— ^J* ^ rHCOCfl

CO

CO

© i ■

d i i id i

0Q

«.a i '

♦» : i :So

w

SaS ■

55 08

<J

S i i ,;2§

2*£«

CO iO I

°i >o co co co r-

CN CO -^

0>t~r*

00 Tl<COrt«-6l»

■* I ! ! 1 I

>

o | ] | ; ;

<

1
1

CO i '

0J 1 I

*»« I !

„, ^- t£ o

u ! ] |d |

03 : i ; 8s

o | ; 'oo

8. • i ;8g

3

e8 ©°S.

co'do

co" OSCO -^"co

CO § tfs

acoio

CO Ol CO »H «^«»8-

o> !

! ! ! ! ! !

A i

o

CN i i I ; I

CN

£3 I

« 1 ! |Sg

<

as

cn vi"

o ] ! ;o"o

8 i i ilgr

CN «OCO

OS coco

^ O «* H««0

<n t ! ! ! !

Jlj

Ph

CO 1 <

CD t t

>

* 2W !

1> fl cj '
"-"3 cdJ2

SS i

*g 08

o o o _-

- Ot-CNCOOO
lO CO "C"CN6^^

co 51 ef

PH ^h ■*

! ! I

i i o»

! ! ! I ! j. ■

I 1 >

,** Qj

! ! a

i i ! 0 bj>

i I o

i . I i ,•- 0!

i i i i i C3 «

a

o
en

! i 03
i i o

.5

! I!!.! S ?

; i+2 ; a w

, i eg i o3 03

5

H

' '3

S ! '^

a

o

§ !o'3

<
M

B

! 3fe K « 2«

S SooSfiS
a g^-so"

.03 .5 a. 4H.-J J

■3 ' c3

a^^s

U fiaSOSgcvS "Peg £25
o cu— • w a*3 a 1.33 o a c
h3 BflP £ W Ah^^O-^

•3W

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 107
Comparison of new construction, oceanographic research and survey ships

Ship type

AG OR 500-ton

AG0R(SCB#1S5)
1,200-ton

AGS 2,000-ton

CHARACTERISTICS

Length

Beam

Displacement (full load, tons)

Endurance... -..

Provisions (days)

Number of crew

Number of scientists

Bow propeller

Antirolling tank

Construction cost (millions)

Annual operating and maintenance cost
(5-year average).

152 feet...

28 feet

500

14,500 at 12
\4,000 at 12

30

17 or 15 »..

5

No (yes) i

Yes

$3.2

$488,000...

204 feet....

37 feet

1,370

[l2,000 at 12

60

22

15

Yes

Yes

$4.9

$560,000...

250 feet.
43 feet.
2,000.

12,000 at 15.

60.
32.

18.

Yes.

Yes.

$9.7.

$684,000.

1 Indicates reductions if bow propeller is included.

Mr. Dingell. Now, are you indicating to the committee today
that the most efficient type of vessel for oceanographic research is
the AGOB, type which you have mentioned?

Commander Alexander. No, sir, we have several different types.
I am more familiar with the AGOR which is a Navy ship, but the
Coast Survey has a very remarkable ship under construction, and has
a whole series in future years. The National Science Foundation
also is providing funds for a ship to be built by Woods Hole.

Mr. Dingell. That is the next point I wanted to treat. Has there
been any effort to standardize the vessels for oceanographic purposes
by the Government agencies which are constructing these vessels?

Commander Alexander. We haven't been able to come up with
firm standardization, for instance, we will have a certain class of
ships. But just by mutual exchange of information, the Navy has
a — I will call it a medium-sized ship — 1,375 tons; the Coast Survey
is 1,200 tons. The Coast Survey has a ship between 3,300 and 3,800
tons for world ocean survey. The Navy ship is approximately 2,600
tons.

Mr. Dingell. Then we have two different classes for medium
vessels and for world oceanographic surveys.

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir, but they are so close in charac-
teristics and capabilities that for all intents and purposes, they are
standardized. The prices are almost alike.

Mr. Dingell. They are standardized between the two ships, or
between the ships in the same class?

Commander Alexander. Well, there is standardization between
ships in the same class.

Mr. Dingell. But there is no standardization between the two
competing types which we have established, am I correct?

Commander Alexander. You mean between Coast Survey and
the Navy?

Mr. Dingell. Coast Survey and the Navy, and also as between
the Navy and the Coast Survey in Woods Hole, or the National
Science Foundation. Am I correct on this point?

Commander Alexander. Well, we have three basic classes of ships,
Mr. Chairman. We have a small class, which would be between 500
and 800 tons. We have a medium class, which is now between 1,000
and 1,375 tons, and we have what we would call a large class ship

108 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

between 2,600 and 3,800 tons. Within those limits, there has been
no standardization. We haven't established just one tonnage that
will be good for each class.

Mr. Dingell. Now, Commander, I am concerned here, because as
I read it, we are constructing at least three different classes of ships
in the case of the ships that are being constructed by NSF, by the
Coast and Geodetic Survey, and by the Navy. What I am going
to ask you first is, is there any reason why there has to be so many
different kinds and types of vessels for oceanographic survey work?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. I am not talking about as between the small, the
medium, and the large vessel. I am talking about is there any
reason why we couldn't have a standard hull, let's say, for small ves-
sels, for large vessels, and for medium-sized vessels, and then change
the compartmentation to suit the needs of the agencies which are
going to use the vessel.

Commander Alexander. Well, each agency has slightly dif-
ferent requirements than any of the others, and except in the case
of the National Science Foundation, the Coast Survey, and the Navy
research ships, there just was no way we could standardize on it.
The Maritime Administration uses different techniques than does the
Bureau of Ships.

Mr. Dingell. Are you telling me that there is a sufficient differ-
ence in the requirements of the vessels that they could not use a stand-
ard hull design for the different classes of ships that they are going to
utilize within the respective agencies?

Commander Alexander. Well, there are no major differences,
Mr. Chairman. There are minor requirement differences, but there
are major differences in ship design and shipbuilding techniques
among the different agencies.

Mr. Dingell. Now, as a matter of fact, though, Commander,
isn't it true that it is possible to achieve substantial economies by
building classes of vessels as opposed to competing and different and
divergent classes of vessels?

Commander Alexander. I am not so sure that this would be
so, sir. If we standardized on a class that was uneconomical, we
would have a turkey with us for the 30 years.

Mr. Dingell. Of course, if you standardized on a turkey, it would
be true whether you were standardizing on a turkey in one instance,
or in a number of instances, and this is true in ship construction
generally. This is why you have architects and engineers; am I
right?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; but right now we have three
basically different approaches to a medium-sized ship, one by a pri-
vate naval architect through the National Science Foundation, one
through a Maritime Administration architect for the Coast Survey,
and one through a Bureau of Ships architect, and they are all fairly
close.

Mr. Dingell. Yes; but now substantial economies would be effected
in the taxpayers' interest by having these vessels for all three be stand-
ardized insofar as hull is concerned; right?

Commander Alexander. I don't agree with that; no, sir.

Mr. Dingell. You don't agree with that?

Commander Alexander. No, sir.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 109

Mr. Dingell. Will you tell me why?

Commander Alexander. Well, the Navy's ship is $4.2 million to
build, and the Coast Survey's ship, approximately the same tonnage,
is between $4.5 and $4.9 million. I don't see that if we tried to cram
the Navy's type of ship down the Coast Survey's throat, or vice versa,
that we would necessarily achieve the same type of economy.

We might be able to establish a standardization of ships in a few
years after we have enough ships operating so that we can have a
basis for standardization. I don't think we can do that now.

Mr. Dingell. The Navy very frequently standardizes vessels and
has a class before they have launched the first ship or laid the first
keel; am I correct?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir, but in a general class of, say,
destroyers, the Navy has had extensive experience with destroyer
operating capabilities. We have no experience at all with a modern
oceanographic ship of any type.

Mr. Dingell. Well, an oceanographic ship we haven't experienced
yet, we have had oceanographic vessels at sea now for how long?

Commander Alexander. Well, they have been at sea for years.

Mr. Dingell. We have had substantial numbers, too?

Commander Alexander. Yes; but they are all conversions.

Mr. Dingell. Except for the Atlantis?

Commander Alexander. That is correct.

Mr. Dingell. Do the Russians have standardized classes of
oceanographic vessels?

Commander Alexander. Not that I am able to determine. The
type of ships that they have all seem to be of different tonnages and
capabilities.

Mr. Dingell. Now, let me ask you, the Navy is going to stand-
ardize on the AGOR ; are they not?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. All right. Now, is there any reason why if the
Navy is going to standardize on the AGOR for their widely divergent
types of oceanographic research that these other agencies would not
standardize on it?

Commander Alexander. Well, the Navy will make the ship plans
available to the other agencies. I don't know that we could really
require the other agencies to follow the Bureau of Ships' design plan.

Mr. Dingell. I am aware of that. But Congress can.

Now, the thing that concerns me is, has the question of standardiz-
ing of vessels ever been explored in your committee meetings and
deliberations?

Commander Alexander. Yes, shv; we explored this extensively.

Mr. Dingell. And what was the result?

Commander Alexander. Well, we agreed that we shouldn't stand-
ardize, at least until we have enough operating experience with new
ships to find out what types of equipment, what special design features
are worthwhile for using in the standardized hull.

Mr. Dingell. Now, are there any of these features, outside of hull
design, so compelling in production of different hull designs for the
vessel, itself, that we could not standardize just on the bare hull?

Commander Alexander. I am not in my own mind at all sure,
Mr. Chairman, that a 1,300-ton ship will be adequate. We are liable

80597—62 8

110 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

to find in a few years that we need larger ships. Standardization of
this type right now for a whole class of ships might be harmful.

Mr. Dingell. How many times was the subject of ship standardi-
zation discussed within your committee?

Commander Alexander. This was one of the main problems that
we discussed through one whole series of meetings before we submitted
the recommendations to the CIO. I would estimate that we had
four or five meetings concerned with standardization and similar
problems.

Mr. Dingell. And the result of these was that you agreed to
disagree in regard to basic ship construction; am I correct?

Commander Alexander. Only for the present, Mr. Chairman.
We did agree that the problem should be deferred until we could have
enough operating experience with modern ships.

Mr. Dingell. Now, just one more brief series of questions, here.

You indicate that you are going to establish programs for operating
scheduling of oceanographic vessels, for fiscal year 1963. Have you
ever done this before?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; we did it in fiscal year 1962.

Mr. Dingell. Are you going to add emphasis to that, or do you
contemplate adding emphasis to that kind of a program in future?

Commander Alexander. I don't understand your question, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Well, in other words, are you going to increase your
emphasis on coordinating your schedules on publishing advanced
schedules for oceanographic vessels?

Commander Alexander. We hope every March to come up with
another pamphlet that will list all of the oceanographic ships that the
United States has and the areas in which they operate.

This year we have added a new feature over what we had last year.
We are carrying a column on how many visiting scientists can be
accommodated aboard each ship.

Mr. Dingell. Is this information made generally available through
the appropriate channels to the people who are in the oceanographic
field?

Commander Alexander. Yes, sir; we ran off enough copies of
ICO pamphlet No. 1 to give rather thorough distribution to Govern-
ment laboratories and private institutions. We have since had a
number of requests from industry. This year, we hope to be able to
print enough copies so that everyone who wants a copy can have one.

Mr. Dingell. Now, with regard to the Woods Hole vessel that you
discussed earlier, has there been any coordination on the design and
the letting of the contract with you with the Bureau of Ships and with
other Government agencies?

Commander Alexander. I am speaking from memory now, Mr.
Chairman. I wouldn't like to be held to what I say, but I seem to
recall that in our meetings, the National Science Foundation had
checked out the design with a committee composed of representatives
of the Bureau of Ships, Maritime Administration, and Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries. The contract arrangements, of course, were
handled with the National Science Foundation, itself.

Mr. Dingell. Within the National Science Foundation?

Commander Alexander. That is my impression ; }res, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Were bids let on that, do you remember?

Commander Alexander. I presume they were; yes, sir.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY HI

Mr. Ding ell. Was the question of bids ever discussed with you,
sir, or within the framework of your committee?

Commander Alexander. No, sir.

Mr. Dingell. They were not?

Commander Alexander. No, sir.

Mr. Dingell. As to the relative capabilities or acceptance, and so
forth, of bids and the abilities of different shipbuilders to provide a
seaworthy and sound vessel according to the terms of the contract
to meet the needs of the Government?

Commander Alexander. Not with specific reference to the Woods
Hole ship. We did make an extensive study of how each agency
allocated bids once the design was established.

Mr. Dingell. Woods Hole has the first vessel being built by the
Government for a private concern, is it not, or a private agency?

Commander Alexander. Well, no, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Of this type?

Commander Alexander. I think the very first one that will be
made available for private institutions will be the first fiscal year
1960 Navy AGOR that will be made available for Lamont.

Mr. Dingell. I see. The AGOR is good enough for Lamont, but
the AGOR is not good enough for Woods Hole, is that it?

Commander Alexander. No, sir. We had two ships planned in
fiscal year 1960 for the Navy. One was to go to Lamont, and one
was to go to Woods Hole. During one of our initial panel meetings,
we found that the National Science Foundation was making plans
to provide a ship for Woods Hole. At that time, we thought that
the ship would be available before the Navy ship was, so the Navy
diverted that ship to Government laboratories.

Mr. Dingell. Do you know the difference in cost between the
two vessels?

Commander Alexander. The Navy's ship costs $4.2 million and
this will be a ship that is ready for sea. My records show $3.5 million
in 1962 and $1.5 million in 1961 for NSF. The National Science
Foundation has spread their costs over a number of years. I think
the costs for both ships are on the same order.

Mr. Dingell. So it is nearer $5 million instead of $3.2?

Commander Alexander. $4.2 million for the Navy, sir.

Mr. Dingell. And an even $5 million for the NSF?

Commander Alexander. I presume so, Mr. Chairman. I would
have to check.

Mr. Dingell. That is $800,000 difference, because they are

Commander Alexander. If you will permit me, sir, I would like
to check the figures and then submit them for the record.

(The requested information follows:)

Department of the Navt,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,

Washington, D.C., March 7, 1962.
Mr. John Drewry,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography,
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Drewry, The attached material, requested by the subcommittee is
submitted for inclusion in the record of the subcommittee's hearings on the na-
tional oceanosraphic program.

I have also been informed by Dr. John Lyman of the National Science Founda-
tion that my testimony on March 1, 1962, concerning the Foundation's shipbuilding

112 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

program should be modified somewhat. It is therefore requested that the follow-
ing statement be entered in the record as a modification of my original testimony:
"The National Science Foundation provides funds to private institutions to
build or convert ships for oceanographic purposes. In the case of the Woods Hole
ship, Foundation funds were provided Woods Hole to build a new ship. The de-
sign of this ship was reviewed by a committee composed of the Maritime Admin-
istration, Bureau of Ships, and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Funds are
being provided to Texas A & M to convert a surplus Army ship to an oceano-
graphic ship. In both instances, title to the ships will remain with the institu-
tions concerned and not with the National Science Foundation or any other
branch of the Government."

I regret the necessity for the above corrections and trust that the changes will
meet with the committee's approval.
Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Alexander,

Commander, U.S. Navy,
Chairman, Ship's Panel of Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

Comparison of medium-sized oceanographic ships sponsored by various Government

agencies

National

Science

Foundation

Coast
Survey

Navy

.... _.do-.-

tons.-

knots_.

miles..

195
16

2,110
13

8,000
28
25

190
14

1,350
14

6,000
46
23

204

15

1,350

12

12, 000

23

15

$300, 000

3, 876. 000

656, 400

$300, 000

3, 890, 000

500, 000

$408, 000

2, 469, 000

790, 000

4, 832, 400

4, 690, 000

3, 667, 000

Although generally similar in size and mission, a comparison of the above
ships based primarily on cost may be open to misinterpretation because of the
variations in personnel accommodations and range among the three ships. The
above figures apply to the first ship in a class. Follow-on ships will be less costly
because design costs are absorbed in the first ship. In addition to the above
funds the Navy has budgeted an additional $600,000 to cover potential growth and
unexpected contingencies. If this money is not needed before delivery of the
ship, the total cost of the Navy ship will'be $3,667,000 as indicated.

Mr. Dingell. I would like to know that. I think it would also
be useful to us to have information as to the cost of instrumentation
that is going to be furnished by the Navy and by the NSF.

Commander Alexander. You mean extra instrumentation, Mr.
Chairman, above the $4.2 million?

Mr. Dingell. Yes, so that we can get a fair comparison
want to compare bare bones.

Commander Alexander. I understand; yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Commander, you have been very helpful. .
to commend you on your excellent testimony this morning
committee is grateful to you.

Commander Alexander. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dingell. And I know that you work very hard and I hope
you will take the good wishes and the commendations of the committee
with you.

Commander Alexander. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to introduce
for the record the information about the Eltanin.

I don't

want
The

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 113

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The information referred to follows :)

USNS "ELTANIN" ON WASHINGTON, D.C., VISIT TO JOIN U.S. RESEARCH FLEET

The USNS Eltanin, recently converted to serve as a floating laboratory for
research in antarctic waters, joins the research fleet of the United States with
this week's official visit to Washington to mark the event. She will begin her
first antarctic cruise in early April, following her postconversion shakedown
cruises, the National Science Foundation announced today.

"Eltanin is really a full antarctic research station, but afloat instead of land
based," said Dr. Alan T. Waterman, NSF Director, in making the announcement.
"She will be equipped not only for physical oceanography and marine biology
studies, but also for atmospheric physics research, submarine geology, and meteor-
ology. She will enable U.S. scientists to do research in areas of the world that
have scarcely been explored, let alone studied scientifically.

"We are proud," he said, "to make her available to the scientific community,
and delighted with the excellent arrangements being made by the Military Sea
Transportation Service, which operates Eltanin for us."

Dr. Albert P. Crary, Chief Scientist of the Foundation's Office of Antarctic
Programs has been named Chief Scientist for NSF aboard the Eltanin for her
first cruise.

With a length of 266 feet and full load displacement of 3,886 tons, Eltanin
will accommodate about 32 scientists and technicians from 12 university and
Government scientific organizations. She will be operated by a 47-man civilian
crew of the U.S. Navy's Military Sea Transportation Service.

Eltanin is named after a navigational star of the constellation Draco in the far
northern sky. Completed in 1957, her original purpose was resupply of arctic
radar stations. Her bow is cut back to enable her to ride onto ice instead of
hitting it, to help her break through, but she is not designed to penetrate heavy
pack ice.

Master of the ship is Capt. Sven Rydberg of MSTS.

Conversion of Eltanin consisted of substantial rearrangement of both interior
and deck spaces, to provide scientists with the laboratories and facilities they
require. Cargo holds were replaced by a meteorology laboratory, marine biology
laboratory, electronics laboratory, hydrographic laboratory, and scientists' state-
rooms. A large cosmic ray scintillation counter was installed.

Aft, a hangar for inflating weather balloons and a platform for launching them
was provided. A helicopter deck was also added.

Large antiroll tanks have also been provided, which will make the ship more
stable. Equipment added includes a deep-sea coring winch, bathythermograph
winches, and antenna for measuring low-frequency and high-frequency radio
noise.

The National Science Foundation budgeted $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1961 for
conversion of the Eltanin, and $700,000 in fiscal 1962 for maintenance and oper-
ations.

The course of the Eltanin in antarctic waters will be a series of north-south
lines, each leg about 125 miles apart, crossing and recrossing the antarctic con-
vergence, where the cold waters from Antarctica sink under the warmer waters
of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. This is an area of especial interest
to scientists because it is exceptionally rich in marine life, the action of the cur-
rents is very important to Southern Hemisphere oceanic movements, and the
climate of the Southern Hemisphere is belieyed to be vitally affected by the action
of waters at the convergence.

Eltanin will steam south to the antarctic pack ice, steam westward, parallel the
ice front, then northward to 55° S. latitude (at about the tip of South America),
move further westward again and repeat the process. Each cruise will be about
6 weeks long, with a rest and resupply period in Valparaiso, Chile, or other south-
ern ports following each cruise.

The first cruise will take place in the Drake Passage and Scotia Sea areas, the
famous stormy waters off Cape Horn between South America and Antarctica.
Succeeding cruises will take place in the southernmost areas of the Pacific Ocean.

Scientific work to be undertaken on Eltanin's first cruise will consist of the
following:

A study of the fundamental biological characteristics of the southern
oceans, particularly in the area of the antarctic convergence, will be made
by University of Southern California scientists. In an area abundant in

114 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

many forms of sea life, they will study the kinds and distribution of the
fish, with the aid of a $108,450 NSF grant.

Studies of the plankton (miniscule marine life that serve as basic food
source for most other sea creatures) and nutritional factors of the southern
oceans will be undertaken by Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia
University with the aid of a $34,585 NSF grant.

Gravity and magnetic studies will be made by the Polar Research Center
of the University of Wisconsin, to gain a better understanding of geophysical
characteristics of the Antarctic and its surrounding regions. A Foundation
grant of $23,032 supports this work.

Studies of large-scale circulation of the atmosphere in the Southern Hemi-
sphere will be aided by U.S. Weather Bureau meteorology studies aboard
the Eltanin, to provide data in areas never before reported on systematically.
An NSF grant of $93,390 supports this phase of the Weather Bureau's
extensive antarctic research efforts.

The area distribution of calcium carbonate saturation at various ocean
depths will be studied by the Texas A. & M. Research Foundation under an
NSF grant of $36,670. Purpose of these studies is to understand carbonate
sedimentation and the mechanism of equilibrium of carbon dioxide between
the air and the sea.

Collection of airborne insects — part of a Pacific-wide study that has been
carried on for several years — will be undertaken by the Bernice P. Bishop
Museum of Honolulu with the aid of a $9,180 grant from the Foundation.
Low-frequency radio noise signals will be studied by Stanford University
scientists. These "whistlers" are known to bounce from points near the
earth's surface out into space, then back again, following the earth's magnetic
lines of force. Eltanin's track will lie along these magnetic force lines.
Stanford's work is assisted by a $186,010 NSF grant.

Geology of the Antarctic Continent and the southern parts of South
America, to find out about structural connections between the two, will be
studied by Florida State University workers under a $33,420 grant from the
Foundation.

Bartol Research Foundation, Swarthmore, Pa., will continue its cosmic
ray meson studies aboard the Eltanin. Bartol has participated in such
studies on the Antarctic Continent for several years and will be supported
in this phase of the work by an NSF grant of $37,950.

The Boulder Laboratories of the National Bureau of Standards will carry
out a program to determine the range and variability of radio noise of the
ocean areas in high southern latitudes, under an NSF grant of $71,850.

The University of Alaska, which has vast experience in the study of
northern aurora, will have a special photometer aboard the Eltanin to ob-
serve the southern aurora. The photometer will continuously record specific
wave lengths of the auroral light, including atomic oxygen radiation, nitrogen
groups, and high latitude sodium twilight. This work is supported by a
$38,612 NSF grant.

The Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia will conduct ocean
current studies with special current meters attached to anchored buoys,
so that over a period of several days or weeks, absolute current values will
be obtained at intervals from the surface to the bottom of the oceans. An
NSF grant of $104,061 supports this project.

Texas Instruments, Inc., of Dallas, has contracted with the foundation
to provide a team of six men to operate the deep-sea winch, run the elec-
tronics and machine ships, and do routine collecting for the oceanographic
scientists aboard. The contract amount is $139,775.
Dr. A. P. Crary, chief scientist for NSF on Eltanin's first cruise, is a veteran
of several years research in both the Arctic and Antarctic. About 1 year ago,
February 12, 1961, he became probably the first man ever to have set foot on
both the North and South Poles when he arrived at the South Pole with an
eight-man scientific party he had led overland 1,200 miles from McMurdo
Sound. He had been at the North Pole in 1952 doing scientific work on ice
island T-l. During the International Geophysical Year he was deputy chief
scientist of the Antarctic program of the U.S. National Committee for the IGY,
station scientific leader of the Little America Station, and leader of two major
traverses from that station. He now resides in Washington, D.C.

Capt. Sven Rydberg, master of the Eltanin, has had 27 years' sea service.
He is an MSTS veteran and has served as first officer on many ships. His last
assignment before coming to the Eltanin was as master of the USNS AKL-17,

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 115

involved in resupplying Texas towers off the east coast. He lives at 2 Ridgewood
Drive, Rye, N.Y. The Rydbergs have three children.

Mr. Dingell. The Chair and the committee apologize to those
who were present again with us today for having taken so long.
This is a very important subject and I know our witnesses have been
very patient and understanding and, as I have indicated, the Chair
is particularly appreciative of that attitude.

We still have remaining on the witness list Dr. Stewart, Dr. Max-
well, Mr. Abel, and Dr. Dees.

Gentlemen, would it be convenient for you to be with us tomorrow?

As I say, I do apologize. I am aware of your concern and the
fact that you are busy, and appreciate your interest.

If there is no objection on your part, then, gentlemen, we will ask
you to be present with us tomorrow. The subcommittee will stand
adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled
matter was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a.m. on the following
day.)

STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE
ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FRIDAY, MARO % 1962

House of Representatives,
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

Subcommittee on Oceanography,

Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 219,
House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (acting chairman)
presiding.

Mr. Dingell. The Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries Committee will come to order.

We are honored to have as our first witness this morning Mr. Robert
B. Abel, Assistant Research Coordinator of the Office of Naval
Research.

Mr. Abel, you are most welcome, and we are happy to have you.
Mr. Abel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY ROBERT B. ABEL, SECRETARY, INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Abel. Gentlemen, I am most grateful for the privilege of
appearing before you as Secretary of the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography. The working group of the Interagency Committee
on Oceanography might be considered the staff arm of the ICO. Its
present membership includes :

Chairman, Research Panel, Dr. A. E. Maxwell (Office of Naval
Research), and Dr. I. E. Wallen (Atomic Energy Commission).

Chairman, Surveys Panel, Dr. H. B. Stewart, Jr. (Coast and
Geodetic Survey).

Chairman, Ships Panel, Comdr. R. J. Alexander, of the Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations.

Chairman, Manpower and Training Panel, Dr. B. C. Dees
(National Science Foundation).

Assistant Chairman, Instrumentation and Facilities Panel,
Mr. H. H. Eckles (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries).

Comdr. S. N. Anastasion, assistant to Dr. Wakelin, the Chair-
man of the Interagency Committee.

Dr. John Lvman, National Science Foundation.
Mr. Robert B. Abel, ICO Secretary.
In beginning, I should emphasize that this group is not a formally
constituted body as are the advisory panels. As has been noted in

117

118 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

previous testimony, advisory panels address themselves to inter-
agency problems pertaining to individual oceanographic subject areas:
Research, survey, instrumentation and facilities, ship construction,
and manpower and training. Problems involving more than one of
these areas are normally handled by joint meetings of panels.

Occasionally problems arise which cut across many individual panel
structures. On these few occasions the panel chairmen are called
together with such other representatives of Government agencies as
would be directly interested in the subject at hand. This usually
occurs with respect to preparation of the national oceanographic pro-
gram document, both as a recommendation to the Federal Council
for Science and Technology, and later in published form as the Presi-
dent's program for the particular fiscal year.

Normal procedure in preparing the program begins with compiling
the various panel contributions, and forwarding them with drafts of
introductory, concluding, and other such statements as apply to all
panel chairmen. They are then convened as a working group to
review and modify the program as necessary in preparation for printing.

Pursuant to the request of the Special Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, the working group will shortly be preparing
a 10-year national oceanographic plan. This plan is designed to spell
out what we are trying to achieve in the marine sciences during the
next 10 years.

Once the objectives and problems have been denned, the ICO can
more effectively achieve cooperative effort among participating
agencies. The annual national oceanographic program will be more
meaningful if developed in the context of future goals and future
agency missions. In addition we will be in far better position to
develop our programs in phase, taking into account that all facets of
oceanographic activity are closely interrelated and increase in em-
phasis on one facet must be achieved by correspondingly stimulating
others.

For example, an increase in research requires an increase in man-
power; increased manpower requires expansion of training; facilities
and faculties. None of these is developed overnight. The long-range
plan may be somewhat similar to the Navy's TENOC plan, but it will
be more general in nature, owing to the heterogenous nature of par-
ticipating agencies.

Now if you will permit me to run down some of the miscellaneous
activities. The Coordinating Committee on Oceanography is an
informally constituted body tenuously affiliated with the ICO. It is
composed of middle-management representatives of all of the Wash-
ington agencies sponsoring or carrying out oceanographic programs.
The purpose of its forum-type meetings is essentially that of com-
munications. Each member describes the progress of his programs
for the edification of others.

The meetings are held successively in each of the Government
agencies participating in the national oceanographic program. The
chairman of the day, selected from the host agency, runs the meeting
and carries out any recommendations originated therein.

The working group has served as a convenient mechanism for
extending the boundaries of the ICO to allied programs of nonmember
agencies. For instance, the Smithsonian Institution is now repre-
sented on the ICO's Panel on Research. This brings into the pro-

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY H9

gram an excellent project concerning taxonomic research on marine
organisms.

We are currently exploring, with representatives of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, areas of profit common to
research in the ocean and in space. It is too early to predict the out-
come of these meetings, hut the potential of communications satellites
with respect to monitoring remote chains of unmanned oceanographic
stations cannot be ignored.

Other activities with which we are or will shortly be in communica-
tion for like purposes includes the National Security Industrial Asso-
ciation (as described by Dr. Wakelin), the Science Information Ex-
change Service, the National Institutes of Health, and, of course,
allied committees and panels of the Federal Council for Science and
Technology.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to
answer any questions within my capacity.

Mr. Dixgell. Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. Would you give us for the record, Mr. Abel, the sta-
tistical picture of the various members of the various working groups,
and how many various committees and memberships in the ICO there
are, for the record?

Mr. Abel. Yes. Will you permit me, then, to exclude the working
group itself, since it is an informal association of the panel chairmen,
and called together almost by definition? And also excluding the, I
should say, out-of-town representatives; that is, the representatives
of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography,
who are affiliated with each of the ICO panels, as observers.

There are 45 professional scientists in the Government agencies
holding memberships in 72 Panel positions. Of these, 30 members
hold 1 panel membership, 7 people hold 2 panel memberships, 6
people hold 3 panel memberships, and 2 people hold 5 panel member-
ships; including an alternate membership on the ICO itself.

Now I should emphasize that in an agency which directs its effort
elsewhere, not within-house programs, such as the Office of Naval
Research, for instance, vou simply do not have any number of scientists
who can be placed on Commit tee. and panel memberships. When you
are limited to a staff of two or three, and that is all you have to draw
from, it is definitively necessary for them to accept these positions.

What it comes out to, in brief, is that the average member of ICO
panel structures holds down about 1 % — if you will permit this sort of
statistic — -panel memberships.

Mr. Bauer. On the other hand, is it not true, Mr. Abel, that there
be certain Panels that — -well, let us mention specifically the Panel of
Research, about which we will hear from Dr. Maxwell later— took a
month off and worked continuously on the problems of their panel.
Is that correct?

Mr. Abel. I am afraid that Dr. Maxwell would be in a much better
position to answer that than myself. I do not recollect any such
occasion, although there was a period of 3 days, if I remember cor-
rectly— and I cannot state for sure — that they had occasion to visit
research activities out of town.

Undoubtedly, Dr. Maxwell can expound on this. This is entirely
an educational maneuver that is quite profitable.

Mr. Bauer. How about the Survey Panel?

120 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Abel. No, sir; I do not believe so.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, the Survey Panel, was that the one
that took the month to get the show on the road?

Mr. Abel. I am afraid I do not understand the question. What
I was referring to was a 3-day trip out of town to review certain activi-
ties within their area of cognizance.

Mr. Bauer. I was referring to amount of time away from their
Government positions. In other words, what I am driving at is the
question of when there are two people, for example, who are on five
panels, and an alternate member of ICO, how much time can he
devote to his official position? I think one of these is Mr. Eckles, is it
not?

Mr. Abel. Well, Mr. Eckles does serve on more than one panel,
it is true, but in a great many cases, as I understand it, Mr. Bauer,
the positions that these men hold down both nominally and actually
or completely are very closely identified with ICO work; and in some
cases the very nature of the jobs that they hold nominally in the
Departments are so bound up with ICO work as to be almost un«.
recognizably different.

Mr. Bauer. Do you have any budgetary information you can
supply this committee?

Mr. Abel. Yes, I have the comparisons of the actual 1961 budget,
the 1962 budget and the 1963 President's budget for submission for
the record, sir.

(Previously submitted for the record. See p. 32.)

Mr. Bauer. In these budget splitups that you have, is there any
question of the budget moneys there being associated with the re-
naming of an already existing job as an oceanographic position?

Mr. Abel. You mean a — • — ■

Mr. Bauer. In other words, after the National Academy's report,
is it not true that suddenly we had people that were formerly, we will
say, good fisheries biologists who became oceanographers?

Mr. Abel. The semantic problem associated with defining an
oceanographer has proved, possibly, the toughest single job facing
any of us. It has been described by so many people, by so many
committees, so differently that it would be impossible for me — or, I
suspect, almost anyone — to say to any given person in any given
job "You are" or "are not an oceanographer."

Mr. Bauer. Did the money suddenly appear in the oceanographic
splitup that previously was in, say, the Bureau of Commercial Fish-
eries for marine biology, fisheries biology, and so on?

Mr. Abel. Not to my knowledge, sir. There was one hydrographic
survey where it was decided after examination of the work that it
should be included properly as part of the national oceanographic
program. Accordingly, in all of our fiscal submissions, we have extrapo-
lated these figures back so that the figures are comparable and in
harmony.

Mr. Bauer. Is that the same situation that you have in the Coast
and Geodetic Survey? I think there was some $9 million?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; it is about $9.3 million, as I remember it, and
the situation in the Coast and Geodetic Survey is it was the same kind
of activity, but had been reported right along.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, there was no transfer of funds into
the oceanographic splitup that you have, budgetwise, that went with

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 121

the reassignment of the jobs as oceanographers to those people who
were formerly fisheries biologists, or surveyors, or something of that
nature?

Mr. Abel. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Bauer. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. Pelly. Well, just for my information, Mr. Abel, are you a
full-time secretary? Are all your efforts directed in connection with
your work for the Interagency Committee?
Mr. Abel. Yes.

Mr. Pelly. Or do you have another hat or two?
Air. Abel. I suppose we all do, really, Mr. Pelly. My nominal
position is, as I was introduced — an assistant research coordinator in
the Office of Naval Research. I devote about full time to the affairs
of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. It is true that
there is a portion of the ICO identified work that is naturally bound
up with ONR activities, and in that sense, I do associate with the
Office of Naval Research, and carry our functions of that office.

Mr. Pelly. Dr. Wakelin assigned you to this particular respon-
sibility, I take it?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; I report to Dr. Wakelin.

Mr. Pelly. And as such, though, your actual position is in the
Navy's own budget, though, not under any other?
Mr. Abel. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Pelly. That is all.

Mr. Dingell. If Dr. Wakelin had not assigned you to practically
full time, there would be no full time staff with regard to the ICO;
am I correct, Mr. Abel?

Mr. Abel. Commander Anastasion, who is Mr. Wakelin 's assistant,
devotes a great part of his schedule to the ICO affairs, and in addition,
I have an assistant full time for ICO, and a secretary, also full time
for ICO.

Mr. Dingell. I see. But if ONR were not furnishing the staff, as
you indicated — by the way, it is a very excellent staff.
Mr. Abel. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dingell. ICO would have no full-time staff; am I correct?
Mr. Abel. That is literally true, sir. I wonder if I might point out
something? The great part of the ICO staff activity comes from
without the nominal ICO staff. It is performed by a great deal of
very excellent panel work on the part of the members in other agencies,
whose jobs are so closely identified with ICO work that they really
contribute, and sizably.

Mr. Dingell. Right. Now I am concerned with a couple of items
which appeared in your statement on page 3.

You indicated "the purpose of its forum-type meetings"— referring
to the Coordinating Committee on Oceanography— "is essentially
that of communications."

Is that the only purpose of the Coordinating Committee's meetings?

Mr. Abel. No, sir; I should have clarified that, admittedly. To

me personally, the Coordinating Committee on Oceanography has a

responsibility for— and carries it out in excellent fashion — exactly one

product, and that is education.

As we go to these CCO meetings, we are addressed by members,
consecutively, of one agency after another, who describe in some

122 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

detail the programs which they are carrying out. This is a marvelous
mechanism for associating the people of other agencies with these
projects, and acquainting them with the work done.

Mr. Dingell. Well, concededly, it is very good, but the point I
am getting at is this: Are you directing, or does the Coordinating
Committee of ICO direct its attention to any supervisory scrutiny,
to assure that coordination takes place?

Mr. Abel. Very informally, sir, the panel chairmen, and most
of the panel members, commonly attend all of the CCO meetings,
and by a process of absorption are thereby acquainted with the value
of these meetings, and the information that is disseminated therein.

Mr. Dingell. Well, I will concede there is value in these meetings,
but that still does not resolve the question. Are we better having a
mere interchange of information, or should we direct ourselves at
having a more forceful coordination program? That is what this
committee is interested in, and apparently these are excellent forums,
excellent insofar as interchange of information, but the point I am
leading to is: Are they adequate, in view of the fact that it appears
to me, at least on first blush, that there is need for actual and quite
forceful coordination in some instances?

Now, how we work this, I do not know. I would like to have your
comments.

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; the ICO does not exercise a command authority
over the Coordinating Committee on Oceanography. The Coordi-
nating Committee on Oceanography is an informal structure. It
exists simply because there is value received from it, and it is neces-
sary to the ICO members and their staff men, and the Panel Chair-
men, to know what is going on.

This is the essence of the work they do, and this is one mechanism
by which they obtain this information.

Mr. Dingell. Now let us take a case in point. Let us take the
instance where we have all of these shellfish research organizations
being conducted by at least two agencies of the Government, up and
down the east and west coast: some dealing with the impact of shell-
fish on human beings; some dealing with the impact of pollution on
shellfish; and one thing and another.

How do we utilize an instrumentality which exists solely for the
interchange of information to determine priorities necessary to assure
that we will have one facility where one facility will do the job; or
two, rather than three or six or nine?

Mr. Abel. I am insufficiently acquainted with that particular
situation, Mr. Chairman, but I can answer in the broad sense, that
in order to achieve coordination, you first must have knowledge.
And whether you obtain the knowledge from systematic perusal of
reports or from listening to people telling you what is going on is
immaterial ; but you have to have the input of knowledge.

This seems to me to be one excellent mechanism for doing this;
for instance, taking this case without going into the details of it,
there are Federal agencies who exercise sponsorship of some of these
projects you are speaking of.

Now within the course of the coordinating committee meetings,
it is probable that someone associated with these projects will be
describing them, and this is the instance for pickup on the part of the
panel members, and the panel chairmen, whose responsibilities lie
therein.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 123

Mr. Dingell. All right, now conceding that that is true, would
you say that if we have the series of different instrumentalities, of
different divisions of the Government, performing substantially
similar or identical work, that we have a situation where this com-
mittee and perhaps the Congress can infer that the ICO is not as
perfect in its functions as we would like to have it be, with regard to
coordinating activities of the Government; and its serving only as
an interchange is not a sufficient carrying out of the functions that
we would like to have it carry out?

That is an awful question.

Mr. Abel. I agree, sir. As staff secretary to the organization, it
is a little bit difficult for me to comment on a possible situation like that.

I think it is fairly well acknowledged, though, and it has been
brought out from previous testimony, the ICO is not perfect. Its
members are trying to make it perfect, and there is, we hope, con-
siderable progress in this field.

Mr. Dingell. Well, I think this committee seeks to assist. We
are not holding public criticism; nor are we trying to embarrass any
person who comes before us. But, at the same time, we want to
help the ICO, perhaps to scrutinize the changes you can make for
yourself or perhaps help this committee determine if there is not
legislative change that we can make to assist you to perfect the ICO.

Now, let me ask you this : I know that generally the various repre-
sentatives of the agencies to this are sub-Cabinet in stature. Now,
assuming that this is an informational interchange, without any
higher authority, how is someone who is sub-Cabinet, and not neces-
sarily policy level, going back and on the basis of an informational
interchange only going to compel policy changes within the agency
of which he is a representative in order to effect a more perfect co-
ordination by that agency with other agencies doing the same or
similar or competing work? ,

Mr. Abel. Are you speaking now of the relationship of the Coor-
dinating Committee to the ICO? m '

Mr. Dingell. I am speaking in terms of the relationship of the
Coordinating Committee to the ICO, and in terms of the individual
membership of the representative delegations, if you want to use
the term, of the representative Government agencies with regard to
their own duties in ICO to their duties and their responsibilities in
effecting a coordination.

In other words, how is, let us say, a person under policy level going
to come in, get information, and then go back and compel the whole
vast bureaucracy that he represents in his particular agency, to effect
changes which will perfect the coordination of that agency with another
agency which is doing similar, or competing, or complementing work
with another agency?

Mr. Abel. Well, there again, sir, I think that is policy opinion,
which I am not well qualified to comment on; but it seems to me that
anyone who is in any line position is entitled to use any information
at his disposal to conduct affairs at levels of organizational structure
subservient to himself.

Mr. Dingell. I do not challenge this. This is true. But how
does somebody out of a policymaking level, without extraordinary
backing by those on policymaking level, effect a change of position

124 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

of the Department he represents to more perfectly coordinate the
organizations of that Department with other Departments?

Mr. Abel. Let me see if I understand this. You are asking how a
person who does not have a certain authority

Mr. Dingell. A nonpolicy person; and as I read the list of officers
and members and delegates of ICO and also the Coordinating Commit-
tee, there is not a man there, with the possible exception of Secretary
Wakelin, who is of policy level.

Mr. Abel. Well, the degree of policymaking ability consistent
with each of the ICO member's position, is something that he would
be far more qualified to comment on than myself. I think that most
of them are bureau chiefs.

Mr. Dingell. I am not trying to embarrass you, I assure you, and
I am not trying to create problems with the organizations which you
represent, and on which you serve, but will j^ou concede that as a mat-
ter of policy within the Government, effective coordination can only
be achieved between persons on the policy level; as opposed to persons
who are subpolicy level?

Mr. Abel. Yes, at that actual point of policy determination and
effectuation, but previous to that point, there must be a feed-in of
information and education which has to be carried out at a level
whereby the man can physically associate himself with the material
at hand .

Mr. Dingell. Is it not true, though, that the vast majority of the
representation of the various Government agencies on ICO are not
only subpolicy, but substantially subpolicy in dignity and position?

Mr. Abel. I cannot answer concerning policy. They are bureau
chiefs. They are not at the Secretarial level, sir, nor at the Assistant
Secretarial level; except for Dr. Wakelin, that is correct.

Mr. Dingell. As I read the law, policy-level positions are Cabinet
positions, are they not, and under those positions, they are strictly
administrative, and are so viewed in the civil service law : for example,
with regard to changing-of-the-guard when there is a change of the
administration. Am I wrong on that?

Mr. Abel. It sounds right. I would presume that a man in charge
of a bureau dictates policy within his bureau.

It is correct, of course, that these gentlemen are not members of
the Cabinet.

Mr. Dingell. I would like to ask just one more question, and I
am going to yield to Mr. Bauer.

You noted on page 2 of your statement that a recommendation
to the Federal Council for Science and Technology from ICO is later
published as the President's program in oceanography for the fiscal
year. Has there been a publication of the President's program for
oceanography for this year?

Mr. Abel. No, sir. It is in process right now. We expect it

Mr. Dingell. It is in process?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Was there one published for last year?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir, March 19.

Mr. Dingell. There was one published last year. Let me get to
this point, now. Would I be fair in inferring that before we can have
an intelligent appraisal, or an intelligent formulation of our annual
programs for oceanography that we ought to have a long-term program
for oceanography? Am I correct in that?

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 125

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; that would be extremely valuable, and that is
what we hope to effect in a matter of a few months.

Mr. Dingell. And at this moment, we do not have a long-range
program for Government oceanography; am I right?

Mr. Abel. No, sir; not at this very moment.

Mr. Dingell. And yet we are publishing annual programs?

Mr. Abel. Yes. I cannot actually give a clear answer as to why
the chicken came before the egg in this case. I would suspect it is
harder to write a 10-year program, especially in the situation where
the ICO has but recently come into existence.

Mr. Dingell. This is" not intended to be critical, because I under-
stand that ICO is a very new creature in the Government, and has
had only a limited amount of time in which to begin its operations.
We are anxious to see that it gets off on the right foot. Mr. Abel,
you have been most helpful.

Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. I just have one question: Does the Army have any
interest in oceanography?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. Where is that interest?

Mr. Abel. It lies mostly within the Beach Erosion Board of the
Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Bauer. Is that an important function?

Mr. Abel. May I give a personal opinion in this case?

Mr. Bauer. Yes.

Mr. Abel. Yes. I believe myself that they carry out quite an
important function.

Mr. Bauer. Why are they not represented on any panel of the ICO?

Mr. Abel. A representative of the Beach Erosion Board is listed
in the roster of the ICO membership and panel membership you have
there; and he is associated in panel treatments of areas where he has
an affiliation.

Mr. Bauer. As a consultant? That is the situation there?

Mr. Abel. Yes, I believe that is a fair statement.

Mr. Bauer. Is not everyone that works for the Government
able to be a consultant in the ICO?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir, it is a matter of degree.

Mr. Bauer. Do you not think it is of sufficient importance, for
example, to have someone representing the Army's interests in the
Research Panel?

Mr. Abel. This is possibly so, and as I stated before, it would
probably be better expounded upon by Dr. Maxwell, as Research
Panel Chairman.

Mr. Bauer. And also the Survey Panel?

Mr. Abel. It is possible. These panels cut across the structures
of a great many agencies, and I believe myself it is important to
achieve a balance between thoroughness of representation and
mobilitv; and mobility is very important to the operations of a panel.

Mr. Bauer. You are, of course, familiar with the work that the
Beach Erosion Board has done in wave research on the Continental
Shelf of the United States?

Mr. Abel. Somewhat, sir.

Mr. Bauer. And that is of importance in oceanography, is it not?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir.

80597 O— 62 9

126 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Bauer. Thank you. One more question: With respect to the
budget message that is the President's plan for oceanography, are you
referring to the breakdown in this appendix to the budget giving the
breakdown by departments and the agencies concerned with respect
to say, research, and so on and so forth? Is that the plan that you
are talking about?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir. We can submit this for the record.

Mr. Bauer. Thank you.

Mr. Dingell. Counsel?

Mr. Drewry. Mr. Abel, the Coordinating Committee on Oceanog-
raphy has been in existence for quite some time, has it not?

Mr. Abel. In one form or another, it has, sir; and I should em-
phasize in this connection that there is no legal association of the CCO
with the ICO. They are two different bodies.

Mr. Drewry. I will state what my feeling is, and you can tell me
whether I am right or wrong.

At the time that this committee was established, back in early
1959, I think it had been just established, there was then a group of,
as you say, middle-management representatives of a number of agen-
cies that for some time had been meeting periodically together, rotat-
ing chairmanships, and calling in various people or asking various
people if they would like to drop by; and then asking them questions
when they came.

Right after our committee was called into existence, I was invited
to come down and sit with the group, and to explain what I know
about where we were trying to go with the subcommittee.

As I understood it, it was strictly a voluntary group of individuals
in middle-management positions concerned with various aspects of
things which go to make up the broad, general discipline of ocea-
nography.

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Drewry. Is that the nature of it? That it did not exist by
any Executive order or statute; but just as a voluntary association of
people concerned with the problem of dissemination of information
and to do the best that they could to carry out on a coordinated basis,
at least through the exchange of information, a program which they
felt should be coordinated?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. Drewry. Now you say it is tenuously affiliated with ICO, it
is extremely tenuous anyway, and its effectiveness has been the good
will and the desire of the people who are involved in it?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; and these are powerful factors.

Mr. Drewry. I think it is. I always have thought so. But it
does not have any stature; it cannot ask for appropriations for itself,
for instance.

Mr. Abel. No, sir; it cannot.

Mr. Drewry. It does not have any established working staff, that
is, any job positions set up as secretary, or legman, or anything, for
the Coordinating Committee on Oceanography?

Mr. Abel. I am not exactly sure of that, sir. I believe that a
secretary in Dr. Maxwell's office does have some assignment for duties
connected with this. I could not be sure, and this is something I think
Dr. Maxwell may be able to answer better later.

Mr. Drewry. Well, I would be glad if somebody can tell me, but I
mean, does the Secretary of the Interior, for instance, take on official

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 127

recognition of the existence of this? Does he assign functions to
somebody from the Bureau of Mines or the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries to go to meetings?

Mr. Abel. No, sir.

Mr. Drewry. Or does he just accept the fact that someone like
Mr. McKernan, or someone else, is going to be away for an hour or
two, once every month or so; that he is gone to a meeting downtown,
or over at the Navy Department, and that is perfectly acceptable,
because it seems to be for a good purpose? It is no more formal than
that?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. Drewry. All right. Then we come back to another thing.
You axe appearing as secretary of the ICO, but except for your
discussion of the Coordinating Committee, your statement seems to
be concerned with the activities of the working group of the Inter-
agency Committee on Oceanography. Is that correct?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir. I have a letter here establishing the billet in
which I serve as secretary of the ICO, which I can submit for the
record, or I can read it into the record, depending on your preference.

Mr. Drewry. But what is the working group? I notice that is set
up in capitals over here on the third page, or in initial capitals, and
your general discussion seems to be focused on the working group.

Now what is the distinction between the working group and the
ICO?

Mr. Abel. The working group is not formally constituted as is the
ICO itself. When I first acceeded to the position of secretary of
the ICO, my first association with the committee in actuality was
attending a meeting of the so-called informal working group; and this
is nothing more than an assembly of the chairmen of the panels,
convened occasionally to review matters which cut across many panel
structures. It is a convenience, and it really takes the place of having
to convene a great number of panels all together.

Mr. Drewry. Well, how does the working group know when to
form itself into the working group? Does Dr. Wakelin say, "Fellows,
we have got some problems here that cut across a number of different
panels, and some of the panel chairmen think maybe we had better
put some heads together." Does it work out that way, or does the
Panel Chairman of the Survey Panel, for instance, say "Mr. Abel,
we have got a problem, and I think that it concerns other panels.
Let's call the working group together." Does it work like that?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir, the latter supposition is more nearly correct.
I convene the panel chairmen as a problem arises, according to my own
opinion, or perhaps from any of the panel chairmen, or from Com-
mander Anastasion.

Mr. Drewry. And yet it seems to me to be a very potent group.
I notice on page 2 that the Special Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, who is Dr. Wiesner, who is head of the
Federal Council, of which the ICO is a part, that Dr. Wiesner has
directed the working group, not the ICO, to prepare this 10-year
program.

Mr. Abel. That is simply a matter of poor statement on my
part, sir. Dr. Wiesner lias requested the ICO to prepare a 10-year
plan. In actuality, as I tried to describe in the other part of my
testimony, the plan originates within the panels. The panels for-

128 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ward their contributions by functional area to me. My assistant
and I compile these contributions into a first draft of the national
program.

We originate and introduce such other topics as would be relevant
within the structure of the national program as it is finally reported ,
and a conclusion, with added fiscal data; and then, of course, since the
plan must be in form technologically satisfactory to the panels, the
panel chairmen are called together to review this.

I will send out copies of the draft to the panel chairmen, with the
request that they review them, they come together, and in session, put
together in better fashion another draft of the program preliminary
to its being issued to the ICO members themselves for review.

Mr. Drewry. One of the points that I am trying to raise, or just
what has been concerning the chairman and perhaps all of us, is that
there is a tremendous amount of ability and goodwill and conscientious
effort being exerted; and yet the fashion of the exertion seems to be
upon a very loose basis, with no really direct lines of force that could
assure an implementation of some of these things that are thought to
be desirable goals for the programs.

Mr. Abel. Mr. Drewry, I would suggest that there are three well-
established sections. It is a poor way of putting it, but within the
ICO, there is the ICO Committee membership itself, there are the
panel structures, and there is the ICO staff.

There is a fairly well-formulated interchange of administration be-
tween these three branches.

Mr. Drewry. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Abel, appropos of the questions our committee
counsel was asking you, in the event that there is a difference of
opinion — -let me change that. Has there ever been a difference of
opinion in the ICO or the Coordinating Committee that you know
of which was substantial?

Mr. Abel. Between two members?

Mr. Dingell. Between two members or between two agencies?

Mr. Abel. Oh, I suspect there must have been any number of
differences of opinion.

Mr. Dingell. Can you recall any specific one?

Mr.' Abel. Well, that is a little difficult to describe. There are so
many questions which will come up before the ICO in its panels, and
since each one of these organizations consists of at least a half a dozen
to -a dozen members, I do not think you can expect to achieve unanim-
ity on the first go-around; there are going to be differences, yes.

Mr. Dingell. I am sure there are. The question is: How do we
achieve a resolution of these problems? Who enforces, when we
achieve a substantial difference of opinion, a resolution and a coordi-
nation of differences of opinion which exist within ICO and within the
Coordinating Committee?

Mr. Abel. Oh, there are

Mr. Dingell. Who has the responsibility to do it? Does ICO
have the authority to do it? Does the Coordinating Committee have
the authority to do it?

Mr. Abel. Well, at first stage, when there is disagreement as there
is anywhere, it is talked out. Then, of course, one of two things
happens : Either someone is convinced contrary to his original opinion ,
or he is not.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 129

Now, if there remain differences of opinion which cannot be re-
solved by talking it out, or eventually by voting

Mr. Dingell. Excepting you indicated that these were advisory,
and were instruments for communication, as opposed to superintend-
ents and making of policy decisions.

Mr. Abel. The panels are advisory; that is correct.

Mr. Dingell. That is right. So in the event there is a dichotomy
between two Government agencies, how are they resolved within
ICO, or within the Coordinating Committee? Who resolves them'.'

Mr. Abel. Who resolves differences of opinion between two
agencies?

Mr. Dingell. Yes, differences of policy between two agencies.

Mr. Abel. There will be normally an attempt to resolve differences
of opinion at almost any level by discussion. Now I simply do not
consider myself qualified to comment on how authority is, or should
be, leveled at the agency level.

Mr. Dingell. We are not asking you for a policy statement on
this, we are asking you merely to enunciate whatever policy may
have been already set up by this organism. Is there a policy deter-
mination, either by ICO or the Coordinating Committee as to how
disputes and differences between agencies with regard to policy in
the general field of oceanography shall be resolved?

Mr. Abel. No, sir; I honestly do not remember any single event
ever arising that would necessitate it.

Mr. Dingell. I asked you about a policy statement

Mr. Pelly. If the Chairman would yield; Mr. Abel, you indicated
that you either decided one of these differences of opinion one way or
the other?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; I am trying to

Mr. Pelly. Is there not a third alternative where one agency would
just simply back off and not want to tread on the toes of another
agencv; and there would be no resolution or solution of the problem
at all?

Mr. Abel. Yes, sir; I am just trying to think back to such a situa-
tion. I cannot remember any.

Mr. Pelly. It seemed to me yesterday when the Director of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was here, there was every indication
that they just backed away from a problem of duplication when it
existed; they would just not want to oppose some other agency of the
Government, and as a result of that, we have duplication.

Mr. Abel. I am not sufficiently conversant, if you are speaking of
the fisheries problem.

Mr. Pelly. We have in some manner a basis of authority, so that
there would be a definite decision on a policy basis, then you would
not have one agency backing away from another. Either it conies
under the jurisdiction of one agency or another.

We have the same thing between committees in the Congress, and
there is an authority, there is a Speaker to decide which committee
shall have jurisdiction. And I think you do not have that under the
informal setup which you describe.

Mr. Abel. To the extent that you stated, that is true, sir. I am
wondering, just as a personal opinion, what happens when you do
have a difference of opinion between departments.

130 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. That is what we are trying to find out, particularly
with regard to the field of oceanography. What we are trying to
find out : Is there anything in the structure of ICO, or the Coordinating
Committee, which would tend toward, or work toward, a solution of
differences of this sort? I am not asking you to say that this is what
should be done; I am asking you, is there anything there that you
know of? You are the secretary, and this is the reason we are di-
recting these questions to you.

Mr. Abel. No, sir; I do not know of any single jurisdiction which
can look down from above and say it must be done this way. The
ICO, you understand, does report to the Federal Council for Science
and Technology, and ultimately to the President.

Mr. Dingell. Yes, but within the ICO itself, there is no actual
instrumentation for other than dissemination of information. Am I
correct?

Mr. Abel. No, sir; I do not think so. It seems to me that the —

Mr. Dingell. It is really just a clearinghouse now, because it
cannot at this moment effectuate policy determinations and resolu-
tion of policy differences within the agencies involved. Am I correct?

Mr. Abel. That is correct. The ICO cannot determine a policy.

Mr. Dingell. I am not trying to lay snares for you. I just want
you to give us truthful answers, and this committee is not interested
in causing you any personal inconvenience or hurt; I assure you of
that. We are trying to explore this thing carefully to try to determine
how it is working, and whether or not it is subject to change.

Now let me go further. Assuming that there were mechanisms
vested in ICO to resolve these things, how would an individual
member who is of middle-management, as you have indicated, go
back to the agency and enforce a policy change within the agency?

Mr. Abel. You say if a jurisdictional authority were assigned to
the ICO? In the matter of oceanography or in any agency?

Mr. Dingell. Yes, how would any representative who represents
middle-echelon management go back and enforce the policy change
within his Department?

Mr. Abel. There again, I believe it is somewhat over my head
administratively; but it seems to me, personally, he has to reckon
with the basic missions of each of the agencies and departments he
represents; and these go, of course, far beyond oceanography.

Mr. Pelly. Will the Chairman yield?

Mr. Dingell. I will be happy to.

Mr. Pelly. Would it be a normal procedure for the Bureau of the
Budget to settle many of these differences that might arise, as between
agencies, and is there some place or procedure by which such decisions
could be resolved by the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. Abel. Personally, I rather doubt it; but then again, I cannot
remember the situation's ever having arisen.

Mr. Pelly. I think maybe it has not arisen, because everybody
has backed away from every problem that came up. But I am just
trying to explore in my mind, is there some way to formalize a situation
such as we have, so that there can be a resolution of differences of
opinion, and some authoritative basis for making a policy decision
and enforcing it?

Mr. Abel. Well, again, as a personal opinion, I do think that each
of the members must, and certainly does, recognize that each of the

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 131

other members must at all times be considerate of the missions of his
own agency and in this sense oceanography might be thought of as
rather a service input to any individual agency; so that, for instance,
in problems of weather predictions, it is useful, and it is needed by the
Weather Bureau, in problems of antisubmarine warfare, it is required
by the Navy, and so on, throughout the structures of the Government.

Again, although I know I am not qualified to comment intelligently
on this sort of thing, the lack of recognition of the need for oceanog-
raphy to be indelibly bound up within the mission of each agency would
be rather harmful.

Mr. Pelly. Well, if the chairman would yield further, I just want
to say that I have a personal feeling that maybe because of the dedica-
tion of Secretary Wakelin, maybe there have been no occasions,
maybe, at the moment, to have great disputes and as a result of that,
a certain bad situation.

But in the future, in looking to any legislation which might be passed
to formalize it, I would rather imagine that we are not always going to
have a Dr. Wakelin, and there will be stronger views coming up which
have to be settled. Certainly, it does not seem that in every case the
President of the United States should have to resolve those differences.

If there were authority placed a little lower, why then, in turn, we
would have a more efficient and effective organization.

That is all.

Mr. Dingell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Abel, you have been very helpful, and the committee is appre-
ciative of your kindness and your helpful testimony this morning.
Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Abel. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Our next witness is Dr. A. E. Maxwell, Chairman,
Oceanographic Research Panel.

Dr. Maxwell, you are certainly most welcome this morning, we are
honored to have you with us, and we appreciate your courtesy in
being here.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR E. MAXWELL, HEAD, GEOPHYSICS
BRANCH, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH, AND CHAIRMAN OF
THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY'S
RESEARCH PANEL

Dr. Maxwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and with your per-
mission, I would like to proceed and read it.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt a moment? It
might be well to point out for the record that at this particular
moment, Dr. Maxwell is wearing the hat of Chairman of the Oceano-
graphic Research Panel.

In a little while, he will turn his hat around a little bit more, and
talk to us about international cooperation. He is also the chairman
of that committee.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, wearing either hat, or having it turned
front or back, you are welcome to the committee, and if you would
prefer to read your prepared statement, you may certainly do so,
and if you would prefer to speak extemporaneously from it, you may
also do so. The committee will leave that to your wishes.

132 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Dr. Maxwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a great privilege for me to appear before this committee as
Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography Research
Panel and to have this opportunity to provide you with some back-
ground on the Panel's objectives, history, its method of operation,
and a brief account of some of the Panel's accomplishments.

The Panel on Oceanographic Research and Facilities, as it was
originally known, was established in June 1960 at the request of the
Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) . Because the Panel
encompassed both research and facilities at that time, its scope was
considerably broader than at present. To illustrate this scope, ]
would like to read to you the letter of June 14, 1960, which authorized
the formal establishment of the Panel.

From the Chairman, Interagency Committee on Oceanography, to
me via the Chief of Naval Research; subject: Oceanographic Research
and Facilities Panel, establishment of:

1. This is to confirm my request to you at the meeting of the Interagency
Committee on Oceanography on June 10, 1960, to form a panel of representatives
to review critically for the ICO the oceanographic research programs and facilities
required of the various Federal agencies. You are to obtain assistance from each
of the member agencies represented on the ICO, including at least one repre-
sentative each from the National Science Foundation, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and
Navy, both the Bureau of Ships, and the Office of Naval Research, who is
thoroughly familiar with his agency plans and budgets at the task level.

2. The Panel thus formed shall immediately undertake the following tasks:

(a) Review individual agency programs at the task level for technical validity,
for satisfying agency need, for proper balance of the overall agency program.

(b) Determine the soundness of the continuing projects of the agency with
respect to agency as well as national needs. Determine how critical new or
augmented projects are to the agency or national needs. Recommend need for
support in critical areas not now included in the agency programs.

(c) Consider adequacy of existing research facilities including laboratories,
instrumentation, vehicles, docks, and shop facilities. Recommend additional
facilities required to satisfy true requirements for the next several years. Con-
sider adequacy of numbers of personnel including professionals and technicians
for conduct of research programs by agencies at laboratories and aboard ship.
Recommend the number and specialty of additionally needed personnel to satisfy
the true requirements of the agency research programs for the next several years.

(d) Compile and review the national research program for adequacy from the
national viewpoint, for desirable and/or unnecessary duplication and for adequate
balance of current and projected programs. Recommend additional projects to
provide balance or projects which should be eliminated. Consider the need for
increased support of research in critical oceanographic disciplines.

(e) Consider the need for establishing one or more additional major oceano-
graphic centers. If determination is in the affirmative recommend where and
what organizations should be encouraged in the field of oceanography.

(/) Determine current requirements for oceanographic research ships by insti-
tution and geographic areas. Comment on the adequacy of existing hulls at each
major laboratory and the need for additional ships to conduct projected programs.
Determine capability of other institutions to usefully employ oceanographic
ships now. If so, for what purposes and how would they be manned by scientific
personnel. Recommend schedule of priority for assignment of new ships to
laboratories, considering most logical support by geographic areas.

(g) Consider carefully the extension of the agency programs into wider areas
of basic research. For example, see statement by Mr. Robert Paul, executive
secretary, Sport Fishing Institute, before the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee on May 20, 1960. Increase in basic research effort by
BCF is a good example.

(h) Consider the preparation of a report to delineate the oceanographic research
programs of the separate agencies to indicate what areas of research are being
covered, by whom and at what level in the United States.

3. A special panel under the chairmanship of Lt. Comdr. R. J. Alexander has
been established to review the overall oceanographic research and survey ship

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 133

requirements. Your panel should be of considerable assistance to Lieutenant
Commander Alexander in reviewing the research ship requirements.

4. The Federal Council for Science and Technology is anticipating that the
fiscal year 1962 proposed national program and budget for oceanography will be
available for review about August 2, 1960. The research portion of the national
program to be considered by your panel is possibly the most critical element of
the national program. It is requested that I be advised after the first meeting
of your panel when a report to the Interagency Committee on Oceanography
will be available for consideration.

Signed James H. Wakelin, Jr.

I have taken the considerable time to read this letter because I
feel it conveys, concisely, the objectives of the Research Panel as
well as illustrates the interrelationships of the various panels that
have been established by the ICO.

Before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize to you the
importance of the activities of the Research Panel especially in the
development of the national oceanographic program by the ICO.
The research portion of this program represents the nucleus about
which the remainder of the national program is constructed.

For example, research and survey ships are not built just to increase
our research oceanographic fleet, nor are laboratories constructed,
students educated, nor surveys carried out for their own end. All of
these activities are undertaken for the common purpose of more fully
understanding the oceans in order that we might better utilize this
vast resource. It is the function of the Research Panel to coordinate
and guide the various agencies research programs and it is these
programs which provide for this better understanding of the seas.
The coordination and guidance must be sound, and the peripheral
programs, such as surveys, instrumentation, ship construction and
education must be in consonance with the research programs, if we
are to have an effective national oceanographic program.

To carry out the important functions of this Panel, the membership
was carefully selected from the agencies suggested in Secretary
Wakelin 's letter. Particular attention was given to obtaining members
each of whom had an intimate knowledge of his agency's research
program. Since its original formation, the Panel has been modified
to include members from the Smithsonian Institution, the Hydro-
graphic Office and an observer from the Committee on Oceanography
of the National Academy of Sciences.

Present members of the Panel are: myself, as Chairman from the
Office of Naval Research, Mr. B. E. Olson from the U.S. Navy
Hydrographic Office, Mr. V. Brock, from the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Dr. H. B. Stewart, Jr., from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey, Dr. R. G. Bader from the National Science Foundation,
Dr. I. E. Wallen from the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. F. A.
Chace, Jr., from the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray,
observer from the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on
Oceanography.

The Panel carries out its functions by holding meetings at which
past assignments are reviewed and future activities assigned as the
responsibility of individual members. This has proved to be an effec-
tive method whereby the workload can evenly be distributed and the
results collated by the entire Panel. Interactions with other ICO
panels are achieved through an overlapping of memberships, thereby
enabling the Panel to keep abreast with the activities of the others.

134 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

In general, the Panel's efforts have culminated in the form of reports
to the ICO.

In June 1960 when the Panel was created, it met in nearly continu-
ous session for about a month. The product of these meetings was
the first effective coordination of oceanographic research programs
within the Federal Government. A report was issued on July 15,
1960, that contained a description of the fiscal year 1962 oceanographic
research programs and budgets broken down by agencies, along with
an evaluation of the programs and major changes that were antici-
pated. This represented a great stride forward, but the Panel was
not satisfied with its efforts. Although the report had achieved what
had never been done before — namely, to bring together, in one vol-
ume, all of the diverse oceanographic research programs of the
agencies, thus providing good coordination, the Panel still felt that
proper guidance was lacking.

When the ICO established a separate Panel on Facilities, Equipment,
and Instrumentation early in 1961, it relieved the Research and
Facilities Panel of part of its responsibilities. This, in turn, enabled
the now reformed Research Panel to concentrate its efforts on a critical
review of the research programs with an eye toward providing more
positive guidance. The first step was to reorganize the research report
so that the oceanographic programs could be evaluated in terms of the
fundamental problems of the oceans. Accordingly, a new Panel re-
port was composed in which broad objectives were listed along with
the individual agency's research programs that contributed toward
attaining these objectives.

This report, which will be a part of the ICO fiscal year 1963 national
oceanographic program, is still in draft form. I would like, however,
to give to you at this time a list of the research objectives in the report
so that you may have a feeling for its organization and contents.

Objective 1: To describe the distribution of physical and chemical
properties of the ocean and to understand the dynamic processes which
affect this distribution.

Objective 2: To determine the interrelationship of the ocean and
atmosphere.

Objective 3: To determine the distribution, kind, and adaptation
of the living populations of the sea and to understand the interrela-
tionship of the marine organisms to the physical and chemical prop-
erties of the sea.

Objective 4: To describe the sea floor and to understand its evolu-
tion; including the topography, geophysical nature, and subsurface
structure, with particular interest in the sea floor's relation to the
surrounding land masses.

Objective 5: to determine if the oceans have been, or are being
significantly modified, or how they can be exploited to benefit man-
kind.

Objective 6: To determine the impact of radioactivity and other
pollution on the ocean.

I would like to point out to you that objective 6 has only recently
been added to our report, illustrating the document is not static, but
is being revised continually as conditions warrant. The panel be-
lieves that it has come a long way toward the development of an
integrated research program by using this approach of research objec-
tives to review the research programs, instead of the earlier method

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 135

of simply listing together all of the agencies' separate programs. By
organizing the research report in this manner, it is possible to see that
the various agency programs are striving to achieve common goals.
It is also possible to identify areas where research effort needs to be
strengthened, thus enabling the panel to provide a measure of guid-
ance by feedback to the agency programs. Here I want to emphasize
that the panel does not dictate what research should be pursued, it
provides a mechanism whereby each agency can determine how its
own program fits in with others and where the overall program can
be continuously reviewed and monitored.

We, as a panel, are still not satisfied that we are doing the best
possible job. One of our difficulties has been the lack of detailed
knowledge of each other's research programs. In an attempt to al-
leviate this difficulty and also at the same time to get firsthand in-
formation on present and planned oceanographic programs in a re-
stricted geographical area, the panel met as a group at Seattle, Wash.

This meeting was held on October 2 and 3, 1961, in part at the
University of Washington and partly at the Seattle laboratory of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in conjunction with the Seattle office
of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. The first day and a half of
meetings were devoted to educating the panel on the diverse marine
research activities in the Seattle area, while the last half day was spent
in a roundtable discussion where the panel gave its reactions to what
it had seen and learned.

The meeting proved to be highly successful in that the panel came
away well informed, and also because the meeting had stimulated the
interest of the local activities to the point where a series of subsequent
meetings have been held in an attempt to better coordinate their efforts.
This coordination has been particularly effective in the determination
of an integrated plan for expansion of facilities in the area. In ad-
dition, as a result of this meeting, the Coast and Geodetic Survey has
established an annual program planning meeting in Seattle, at which
time any interested research group can provide an input to the Coast
Survey's program in the Pacific.

A similar informative type meeting was held in Washington, D.C.,
on January 24, 1962, when Dr. Gunter Seckel of the Hawaii laboratory
of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries presented a long-range re-
search and survey program for the central Pacific jointly to the Re-
search and Survey Panels.

It is through meetings of the nature of the last two mentioned, that
each member of the Research Panel has been able to obtain a better
grasp of research programs outside his own agency. We hope to have
many more of these meetings.

Future plans of the Research Panel include a thorough review of our
fiscal year 1963 research report with the idea of evolving from it a
long-range research program that can be scrutinized annually. This
would contain, in addition to the broad objectives I have already
mentioned, more detailed specific programs within these objectives
and the relative importance of each. By continually identifying each
year some of the major unsolved problems in the specific programs,
we should be able to provide knowledgeable guidance for the research
program without curtailing the freedom of the scientist or using
unwarranted direction.

136 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

As a start on this, the Research Panel has already established an ad
hoc group to review objective 3 of our fiscal year 1963 report, which
concerns the marine life in the oceans. This is our next step toward
further developing the panel's report into a viable document that will
be the cornerstone of the national oceanographic program.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you
today, and I shall be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, your statement has been most helpful to
the committee.

Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. Dr. Maxwell, on page 8 you mention an ad hoc group
to review objective 3 of our fiscal year 1963 report. Who composes
the group?

Dr. Maxwell. This group is not complete in its membership yet.
The group is chaired by Dr. Sidney Galler, head of the Biology Branch
of the Office of Naval Research. He has, as far as I know, selected
Dr. Fenner Chace and Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, also members of our panel,
as members of this ad hoc group. In addition, I believe he has selected
Mr. Robert Paul of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and a Dr. Joseph
Flynn from New York.

I think this is not a complete list of his membership at this time.

Mr. Bauer. Dr. Maxwell, Secretary Wakelin mentioned this ad
hoc committee in his testimony, as well as your testimony.

Now the Navy has an interest in marine biology, does it not?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir, the Navy does.

Mr. Bauer. Do you happen to know how many projects the Navy
has in marine biology in this country, and how many foreign projects,
just in round figures?

Dr. Maxwell. No, sir; I do not have the exact number. I know
it does have several dozen research projects in marine biology, which
are largely in this country, but some in foreign countries.

Mr. Bauer. As I remember, in the 86th Congress, I think we counted
up over a hundred, because I think we got it in the record at that time.

Dr. Maxwell. Yes; I would not be surprised if it were as many as
a hundred.

Mr. Bauer. Now with respect to this program of the President's
in the budget that is being constantly referred to, are you familiar
with the President's program on research for the Bureau of Commer-
cial Fisheries?

Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Bauer, I am familiar with the portion of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries' research program that is a part of
the Interagency Committee on Oceanography report.

Mr. Bauer. Could I read — and I think you will see why this is
being brought out — could I read for the record then the appendix to
the fiscal 1963 budget, Department of Interior, page 501, section 3,
having to do with the authorization for research in the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries.

3. Research: Research is conducted (a) to learn more about variations in
abundance of important commercial food fishes and other aquatic animals;
(b) to discover declining species and better measures for conserving, developing,
and managing fisheries resources; (c) to improve the cultivation of aquatic ani-
mals, including shellfish; and (d) in the design of fish protective devices.

Funds for this activity are supplemented by moneys appropriated under the
permanent account, "Promote and develop fishery products and research per-
taining to American fisheries." In 1961, these supplementary funds totaled

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 137

$2,805,000. It is estimated they will amount to $2,579,000 in 1962, and $2,719,000
in 1903.

Now would you say that is limited to motivation of commercial
importance of the fish that are concerned with the mission of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries? Or is it in the general sense re-
garded as an oceanographic phase which might he called marine
biology?

Dr. Maxwell. I think it is certainly a combination of both, Mr.
Bauer. It is certainly oriented toward the commercial species of
fish, and a part of this program is also a part of a basic research pro-
gram which is essential to understand more fully the environment
which affects this fishery.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, the motivation is from the point of
view of the commercial fishes.

Dr. Maxwell. I would say that is true.

Mr. Bauer. We have another one in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
research program, of similar nature, with the motivation of sport
fishes.

What 1 am leading up to is, do we have anywhere in our govern-
mental setup an organization that is concerned with basic research
in marine biology, which you know of, as their primary motivation?
Not how many fish you can catch with a rod and reel, or how many
fish you can sell in a fish market.

Dr. Maxwell. If I understand your question correctly, Mr. Bauer,
you arc asking me if there is any organization set up that is concerned
specifically with this problem?

Mr. Bauer. That is correct.

Dr. Maxwell. I know of no such organization within the Federal
Government that is set up for this. There are certainly groups such
as the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which I would guess
has this as their primary objective.

Mr. Bauer. That is true, but as far as the Government is concerned,
then, the Smithsonian would have the only purely scientific approach
to marine biology we have in the Government — is that correct? — out-
side of the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Naval
Research?

Dr. Maxwell. No, I believe it is fair to say that our Panel, as it
looks at this program, looks at it from the point of view which you
have mentioned. A part of the research program is oriented toward
fisheries, a part of the research program is oriented toward Navy
problems concerned with biology, but in addition to this, there is the
part concerned which is under the auspices of the National Science
Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and others of this nature,
and these certainly fall into the category which you have mentioned.
Therefore, I feel that our group does look at this from the broad point
of view.

Mr. Bauer. In other words, you would look at your group as the
coordination means for basic marine biology in the ICO. Is that
correct?

Dr. Maxwell. I would say that is a part of our function, yes, sir.
We look at the other areas as well.

Mr. Bauer. Now with respect to your objectives, which I think
are very admirable, did you have the opportunity of reading the trans-

138 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

lation that I submitted to Dr. Wakelin, the objectives of ICES estab-
lished in 1899?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir, I have read this.

Mr. Bauer. These are very similar to the ICES objectives, are
they not?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, these are somewhat more general, but I think
as objectives they are in nature very similar to the ICES.

Mr. Bauer. And these are the first objectives that we have seen in
this committee, I think, Mr. Chairman, leading toward a national
program of oceanography. I think that Dr. Maxwell, if I may say
so, is to be commended for coming up with some objectives.

Now, Dr. Maxwell, one final question, when you are Chairman of
your working group, Research Panel, rather, and you enter into dis-
cussions, do you think toward the national program, or do you think
as head of the Earth Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research?

Dr. Maxwell. Well, if I might correct your latter statement, I am
not head of the Earth Sciences Division, I am head of the Geophysics
Branch.

Mr. Bauer. Excuse me, Geophysics Branch.

Dr. Maxwell. As we meet as a research panel, we meet with the
idea of considering a national program. I think there as a person
concerned with how my program — and when I refer to "my program,"
I refer to the Office of Naval Research's program in oceanography —
how it best fits into the national program, and how it should be modi-
fied to take into account other programs within the Federal agencies.
I feel my job both as Chairman of this Research Panel and as head of
the Geophysics Branch, which essentially monitors our oceanographic
program, is one and the same and that if there were no ICO at all,
I would still feel it my responsibility to know the programs of these
other agencies.

Mr. Bauer. But what I was getting at, Dr. Maxwell, I think you
understand, and that is, here you have established very admirable
objectives for the establishment of a national oceanographic research
program. Whether or not they have been adopted, I don't know, but
they certainly should be.

Now on the other hand, you have to come up with a recommended
national oceanographic research program, do you not, for con-
sideration?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. You have to produce one?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bauer. And when you produce it, won't you really be wearing
two hats as Chairman of the Production Committee, should we say?

Dr. Maxwell. No, sir, when we meet as a research panel, I would
like to think at least that I would throw away any Navy hat I might
have at this time, and that I would be working toward a national
program. Because I feel that our national program, all the way
through, has gone far beyond the Navy's interest in this. We have
taken into account the interests of all the other agencies', and what wo
feel are the interests of the country as a whole in this regard, and I
think it would be completely fair to say that I was not acting in the
capacity of a Navy person when putting together this report.

Mr. Bauer. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Pelly.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 139

Mr. Pelly. I just have one question. I hate to refer to this matter
that has been gone into considerably, the matter of duplication of
facilities, but I notice in the letter of Dr. Wakelin's to you, as Chair-
man of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, that you were
charged with reviewing the research programs and under (d), to review
any unnecessary duplication.

Now my question is, did you review the duplication as between the
lisli and wildlife laboratories and the new laboratories of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare?

Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Pelly, yes; our Committee did take into
account the programs of the Public Health Service and the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries in our research report under objective 3, and
also under objective 1, which concerns the general physical ocea-
nography.

We did not discuss this matter of duplication in great detail in our
panel, but we were well aware of the situation and what the Public
Health Service was doing.

Mr. Pelly. Well, you are actually charged with the responsibility
of reviewing any possible duplication, and you knew that both these
investigations were going into research for shellfish, and I wondered
actually if you felt that your group was so constituted that you could
in the national interest have enough authority to avoid any possible
duplication, or whether there would be some procedure or change in
formulation of the setup, so that we could in the national interest save
the taxpayers some monev that might go into duplication?

Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Pelly, I do believe that if our group felt that
there was duplication in one of these cases, that our efforts and voice
would be heard in this. Whether it would be critical in making any
decisions on it or not, I cannot say, but certainly we would bring it
to the attention of the ICO. We have done this in some cases, I
might add, in particular a case in Seattle, where there are a number of
different laboratories that would like to build facilities in the same gen-
eral area.

Again, as a research group, we looked into the research program
there, but this included the facilities needed to carry out this research
program. We suggested at our meeting in Seattle that the people get
together out there, instead of building duplicate facilities, look into the
feasibility of building a joint facility, both in terms of laboratories,
pier facilities, or other things of that nature.

I am happy to say that as a result of our meeting in Seattle, the
University of Washington, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and
the Coast and Geodetic Survey have sat down several times since and
have discussed this whole program. We hope — -and I say "we hope"
because I have not heard of the final results of this — -they are proceed-
ing along the lines of at least a coordinated effort. Whether this will
turn out in the final instance to be one single, large pier facility or
laboratory, or two or three of them, brought together, remains to be
seen. But the}* are certainly looking along the lines of a coordinated
effort now, whereas before our group met there, they were thinking
as individuals.

Mr. Pelly. I am aware of the meetings that you had out there in
October, and I realize, though, that there are so many in the area, so
many particular projects and facilities that are being sought by various
agencies of Government, and the area is so vast that it would be very

140 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

difficult for a panel to go into each area and try to resolve all the
problems.

Dr. Maxwell. This is true, Mr. Pelly. I would like to explain
in a few words how we try to get around this situation.

For example, the panel assigns to a particular panel member prob-
lems that come up. In particular as we were trying to put together
the research report, we would assign each objective to a certain person,
and give him the responsibility of running down all the details on this
program. This included getting all the people involved in this to-
gether. We would assign the person the responsibility who was most
familiar with this particular area. And it is in this manner that we
hope not to put the burden on the panel members in areas in which
they are not familiar, but instead to put it on a particular member of
the panel who is well qualified and allow him to choose other capable
people to do the job.

Mr. Pelly. Well, I certainly would agree that you are going about
trying to solve the problem in the best way. Otherwise, you could
not spread yourself very far. But I just wondered if there was any
particular formalization or authority that could be vested in the
Committee or a procedure established to obtain greater authority,
that actually, you would be more effective in trying to do what you
obviously are very diligently trying to accomplish.

Dr. Maxwell. Well, as Mr. Abel so ably said a few moments ago,
that the great success in the ICO has been the ability to get people
together and for these people to agree on things. In this sense, direc-
tion has not been a necessity in the working of the ICO, so far. I think
perhaps some of the success of the ICO is due to the fact that the deci-
sions are not really binding or mandatory on people, but that the people
are willing to accept the feelings of the majority in these cases, and to
abide by them.

Mr. Pelly. I know in the educational field, there have been volun-
tary agreements as to which university would go into forestry and
another university nearby would go into, maybe, law, and another one
medicine, in order to try to avoid duplication, and I think that has
worked quite well, and I certainly am very much concerned that any
legislation that we might from this committee report out, that it
might work in the opposite direction, and get away from that volun-
tary sort of arrangement which you say is very effective.

On the other hand, I am still concerned with information that one
agency will back away from taking a position as against another
agency, because they just don't want to tread on somebody else's toes.

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Pelly. I think you had had that between Services in the past.

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir, I certainly recognize this as being a very
difficult problem.

Mr. Pelly. Well, I think maybe the President is wise in waiting
before recommending some legislation until this thing has had a chance
to work, and I don't think we should rush into any reporting out any
bill now, and rather, probably, we should wait until something comes
up from the executive branch, and by that time, I am sure your
experience will be very helpful.

Dr. Maxwell. Yes; I think one of the good things we can say
about the ICO is that it has evolved considerably over the last 2 years.
It has changed its emphasis and even has changed its structure and

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 141

organization to meet new situations as they come up. I think nearly
everybody concerned with the ICO recognizes it is not a perfect
organization the way it is currently set up, but I think nearly all of
these people also realize that they do not know exactly what the perfect
organization is. They prefer to let things sort of evolve into the best
possible way of handling things.

Mr. Pelly. Well, you know the situation that exists as far as
scholarships and research projects as between the agencies. You
can't even find out, there are so many of them, as to how they dovetail,
and the Committee on Education and Labor now is setting about to
try to come up with some tabulation as to the total number of scholar-
ships and programs that we have, so that the Congress can have some
overall idea of what we are doing, and I think the same would be true,
probably, in oceanography, as between agencies.

Dr. Maxwell. This is very possible.

Mr. Pelly. If it hadn't been for the Navy, I would say, I don't
think there would have been very much of a program at all. But now
I think we are starting about a little bit extended program, and it is
well to get started in the right way.

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Counsel?

Dr. Maxwell, you have been a splendid witness, most frank and
most helpful. The committee is very much appreciative of your
kindness and your helpfulness today.

May I ask you briefly one question: You have set forth in the direc-
tion of Secretary Wakelin to you in his letter a number of things,
starting with 2 at the bottom of 1, and then going (a), (6), (c), (d), (e),
(/), wherein the committee has achieved a direction to assume a very
heavy responsibility. To review individual agencies programs for
technical validity, for satisfying agency need, for a proper balance of
the overall agency program.

To determine the soundness of continuing projects of the agency
with respect to agency as well as national needs. To determine how
critical new or augmented projects are to agency or national needs;
recommend needs for support in critical areas not now included in
agency programs. To consider adequacy of existing research facili-
ties, including laboratories, instrumentation, vehicles, docks and shop
facilities. Recommend additional facilities required to satisfy true
requirements for the next several years. Consider adequacy of num-
bers of personnel, including professional, and so on, and to compile
and review the national research program for adequacy from the
national viewpoint for desirable and/or unnecessary duplication, and
for adequate balance of current and projected programs, recommend
national programs to provide balance and subjects which should be
eliminated.

Then on under (/), determine current requirements for oceano-
graphic research ships by institutional and geographic areas.

Now I assume that your Panel is like all the other ICO Panels, an
instrument for exchange of information. Am I correct?

Dr. Maxwell. No, it is more than that. That is certainly one of
the functions of our Panel, but our Panel also brings together the
diverse Federal agency programs at one point where they are con-
tinuously reviewed and monitored by this group for some of the
several reasons you have just indicated.

80597 0—62 10

142 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Mr. Dingell. You have indicated that they review. Subsequent
to the review, what happens? Recommendations are made?

Dr. Maxwell. If there are areas in which recommendations are
needed, yes, sir, recommendations are made.

Mr. Dingell. Does your Panel have any authority to enforce the
carrying out of its recommendations, or to supervise the conduct of
agencies pursuant to its recommendations?

Dr. Maxwell. Our Panel has no authority to do this, but Mr.
Chairman, I would like to point out that the members on our Panel
are in general the people from these various agencies that have
cognizance of the research programs, and therefore, there is consider-
able feedback from our Panel directly to the various agencies.

If, for example, the Panel were to be critical of my own program
within the Office of Naval Research, I would consider this advice
very heavily in connection with my own program, and perhaps
modify it, to come up to the expectations and criticisms of the Panel.

Mr. Dingell. But assuming that the agency concerned, after it
had its program reviewed, chose not to make compliance with the
recommendations, or not to accord the appropriate dignity to the
recommendations. Then what would happen?

Dr. Maxwell. Should this situation come about, then our Panel
would make a report to the ICO of course we would make a report in
any case on this, and then it would be up to the Interagency Com-
mittee on Oceanography to take further action.

Mr. Dingell. All right, what would the ICO Committee do, since
it is essentially a reviewing, clearing house agency without authority
to do other than to recommend?

Dr. Maxwell. Well, again you have this same feedback mecha-
nism which I mentioned earlier, except at a somewhat higher level
within the Federal agencies, and this is a very effective mechanism
to get a program changed and modified.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, we appreciate your courtesy in being with
us this morning. I was wondering if in view of the time, if you
would object to filing your statement with regard to the international
programs. Would you have any objection to doing that?

Dr. Maxwell. No objection at all.

Mr. Dingell. It would be helpful to us. The committee is rather
pressed for time. And I do apologize to you, and thank you for your
kindness and courtesy in being with us this morning.

Mr. Bauer. Mr Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Maxwell if he
will submit for the record the U.S. Report of IOC. I believe you
have such a copy?

Mr. Dingell. Do you have that?

Dr. Maxwell. Yes, this is for the intergovernmental oceano-
graphic meeting at UNESCO?

Mr. Bauer. Yes, sir.

Dr. Maxwell. I have the summary report, and I would be very
happy to supply this for the record.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, we appreciate your courtesy in being with
us this morning. We thank you for your very helpful testimony.

Dr. Maxwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The additional material to be supplied follows.)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 143

Statement of Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Head, Geophysics Branch, Office
of Naval Research and Chairman of the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography Panel on International Programs

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great pleasure to appear
before you, also, as Chairman of the Panel on International Programs of the
Interagency Committee on Oceanography. Although this Panel has not been in
existence very long, I feel it would be of interest at this time to give you a resume
of why the Panel was formed, what we have done, and what we plan to do in
the future.

Mr. Chairman, through your own personal contacts, I know you are well
aware that the U.S. Government has recently assumed new international respon-
sibilities in the field of oceanography. These responsibilities result primarily,
from a series of international meetings sponsored by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which have culmi-
nated in the formation of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.
This Commission held its first meeting in Paris from October 19 to 27, 1961.
Fortunately, the Chairman of this Committee and members of his staff were able
to attend this meeting and therefore, I need not go into details of the meeting
other than to express the fact that this Commission is enthusiastically supported
by 40 nationsand a number of international organizations. The principal
accomplishment of the meeting was the adoption of a number of resolutions by
the Commission that require actions on the part of member States. Although I
do not intend to read these resolutions in full at this time, I will refer to them
ocassionally throughout my talk and with the chairman's permission, I would
like to leave a copy of the summary report of the first session of the Intergovern-
mental Oceanographic Commission with the committee to be made a part of
the record.

One result of the Commission meeting was to stimulate the Interagency Com-
mittee on Oceanography (ICO) into taking a more aggressive course of action
with respect to international oceanographic programs. This was reflected in the
form of comprehensive discussions within both the Research Panel and the Survey
Panel of the ICO, as well as at the ICO meeting of December 21, 1961. At this
meeting, the Chairman of the ICO asked that I call a special meeting of repre-
sentatives from the member agencies to discuss specifically the problem of estab-
lishing a Panel on International Programs. On the 28th of December 1961,
this ad hoc group met and, after reviewing the resolutions of the Commission,
recommended to the Chairman of the Interagency Committee that a Panel on
International Programs be established. In addition, this ad hoc group suggested
the following guidelines as the charter for the proposed Panel: (1) The Panel
would have the responsibility to insure that U.S. participation in the Commission
activities and other international programs proceeded in an aggressive, judicious,
and timely manner. This would include assistance to the State Department in
the preparation of U.S. position papers for future Comnvssion meetings, the
collation of existing international programs and the development of new inter-
national programs; (2) the Panel would provide a forum whereby various U.S.
inputs to the Commission and other international programs could have a com-
mon meeting point. This focus of international efforts would insure that the
U.S. Government, especially the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, would
be aware of all aspects of U.S. participation in international programs.

These recommendations were considered by the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography on January 11. 1962, at which time the Panel was formally
established.

Membership of the Panel consists of the following persons:

Dr. A. E. Maxwell, Chairman, Office of Naval Research.

Dr. H. B. Stewart, Jr., U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Comdr. R. J. Alexander, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. V. Brock, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Dr. I. E. Wallen, Atomic Energy Commission.

Col. W. R. Sturges, State Department.

Dr. J. Lyman, National Science Foundation.

Mr. R. B. Abel, ex officio, Office of Naval Research.

Comdr. S. N. Anastasion, ex officio, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (R. & D.).

Dr. P. M. Fye, observer, National Academy of Sciences (Woods Hole Ocean-
ographic Institution).

144 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

It is noted that a number of the Panel members are also members of other ICO
Panels and, in partici lar, the membership contains the Chairmen of the Research
Panel, Ships Panel, and Survey Panel. This membership was set up purposely
to allow the other Panels to feed the results of their work directly into this new
Panel. It is my hope as the Chairman of the Panel on International Programs,
that most of the Panel's work can be accomplished through the existing Panel
structure of the ICO, thereby making this a true forum to discuss international
programs.

The first meeting of the Panel was on the 30th of January 1962, and since it has
been the only meeting to date, I would like to review the meeting in some detail
in order that you might see how the Panel operates. T will review the meeting
in terms of actions taken as a result of resolutions adopted by the Commission
at its Paris meeting.

Resolution 1 requested that members submit to the Secretary of the Commission
their views on the establishment of advisory channels to the Commission in all
fields of oceanography, for consideration by the Commission at its second session.
In response to this resolution, the Panel requested the Chairman to write a letter
to Mr. McKernan and Dr. Revelle and suggest that they prepare a position paper
on this resolution that could be discussed by the Panel and other appropriate
groups in April and then be forwarded to the ICO for further consideration. This
letter has been sent.

The next Commission resolution requiring action was No. 3, which requested
that members consider certain cooperative international oceanographic programs.
It was recommended that members initiating proposals for such programs should
convene working groups consisting of all interested members and bodies to explore
avenues of planning, coordination, and cooperation, to prepare specific programs,
and to take appropriate and early actions so that all aspects of oceanographic
study should be taken into account where possible, and all findings be fully pub-
lished upon completion of each program. With regard to this resolution, the
Panel felt strongly that the United States should take actions necessary to assume
leadership in international programs coming under the auspices of the Com-
mission. After examining several proposed programs for international coopera-
tion, the Panel decided the cooperative tropical Atlantic investigations was the
most desirable program to pursue at this time. Further, the Panel felt that the
United States should proceed with dispatch in organizing this investigation and
suggested a time schedule along the following lines: (1) February 26, call a
meeting on this program inviting all interested U.S. participants. As you have
already heard, this meeting was held this past Monday. (2) March 5, the Panel
on International Programs review the February 6 meeting and prepare a report
to be submitted to the joint National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Ocean-
ography (NASCO), Interagency Committee on Oceanography meeting scheduled
for March 15-16. (3) If program is approved by these groups, notify the Secre-
tary of the Commission of the U.S. plans and request the Secretary to determine
the interest of other member states of the Commission. (4) Finally, in accord-
ance with the Commission resolution, the United States, as initiating member,
would call a working group meeting of interested member states to develop the
program. It is possible that such a working group meeting might be called to
coincide with the Commission meeting during September of this year.

Commission resolutions 4 and 10, respectively, commend to the members parti-
cipation in the International Indian Ocean Expedition, and suggest members
submit to the Secretariat the information on their existing declared national
and regional programs, plans of cruises of international interest and information
on berths available for scientists of other countries. The Panel agreed that
the U.S. participation in the International Indian Ocean Expedition should
be submitted to the Commission as a U.S. program of declared international
interest. Mr. Vetter, Executive Secretary of the Academy's Committee on
Oceanography was requested to prepare a statement of this participation that
could be reviewed by the Panel at its next meeting and forwarded to the Com-
mission via the ICO and State Department. In addition Commander Alexander,
Chairman of the Ships Panel, was assigned the responsibility for collecting the
cruise plans of U.S. research and survey ships in context with the ICO resolutions.

Resolution 7 of the Commission requested members to provide the Secretariat
with full information annually on what fixed stations of various types are in
operation, what data are being gathered and at what intervals, and on plans of
future developments. It also recommended that members make more complete
use of weather ships. Action on this resolution by the Panel included a request
that the Panel Chairman contact Lt. Comdr. R. P. Dinsmore of the U.S. Coast

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 145

Guaxd and ask him to prepare the required information on weather ships. Also
the Chairman was requested to write a letter to Dr. William Richardson of the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, named by the State Department as the
U.S. expert on buoys to the Commission, to inform him of these resolutions and
to offer him the assistance of the Panel. These actions have been carried out
by the Chairman.

The last resolution adopted by the Commission on which the Panel took action,
was No. 9. It recommended that members exchange all oceanographic data taken
by ships and recording stations outside territorial waters, within the limits of de-
clared national programs, commencing on January 1, 1960, and that members
establish national oceanographic data centers to facilitate collection, processing,
analysis, and exchange of oceanographic data. In response, the Panel asked Dr.
Woodrow Jacobs, Director of the National Oceanographic Data Center, to deter-
mine the various laws, regulations, rules, etc. pertaining to data exchange with
member States of the Commission. This would include contacting the State De-
partment, Hydrographic Office, Commerce Department, and National Academy
of Sciences. He was requested to collate this information and make it available
to the Panel at its meeting on March 5.

Other items on which the Panel took action were: (1) To recommend to the ICO
that Rear Adm. H. Arnold Karo, Director of the Coast and Geodetic Survey be
named as the U.S. member of the Consultative Committee of the Intergovern-
mental Oceanographic Commission with Mr. Donald McKernan and Dr. Roger
Revelle as alternates, and (2) to inform Mr. James Snodgrass of the Scripps In-
stitution of Oceanography, who was named by the State Department as the U.S.
expert on radio frequencies for oceanography, of the existence of the Panel and
offer its assistance where possible.

I have taken a great deal of your time to give you this detailed summary of
the actions of our Panel in hopes that the Committee can get an idea of what we
plan to do in the future. All of the Panel members feel strongly that the results
of their work are urgently needed to maintain the position of leadership in inter-
national oceanography that the United States has long held. I am sure that with
the dedication of these Panel members, this goal will be realized. I appreciate
this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of our Panel, and I would be glad
to answer any questions you may have.

146 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Distribution: general UNESCO/NS/176

PARIS, 1 February 1962
Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION

REPORT ON THE FIRST SESSION OF THE COMMISSION

Unesco, Paris 19-27 October 1961

I. INTRODUCTION

1 . The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission established by resolution 2.31 adopted by
the General Conference of Unesco at its eleventh session, and in conformity with the recommenda-
tion of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen 11-16 July 1960) met
for its first session in Paris at Unesco Headquarters from 19 to 27 October 1961.

2. By the end of the session, a total of 40 States had become members of the Commission. These
are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, India, Israel, Italy,
Ivory Coast, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway,
Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet-Nam.
Of these States only four, Chile, Ivory Coast, Pakistan and Rumania, did not send delegations to
the first session of the Commission. Rumania was represented at the meeting by the Permanent
Delegate to Unesco in the capacity of an observer. Observers from the following States not mem-
bers of the IOC were also present: Ceylon, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland and South Africa.

3. Representatives and observers of the following intergovernmental and non- governmental
organizations also attended the session: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Health
Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), International
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International Association of Physical Oceanography
(IAPO), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Special Committee on Oceanic Research
(SCOR), Permanent Association of Navigational Congresses, International Hydrographic Bureau
(IHB), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission.

4. The session was opened by the Acting Director-General of Unesco, Mr. Rene Maheu, who
welcomed the delegates on behalf of Unesco (see Annex I) and stressed the importance of the
newly created Commission as an instrument for solving those problems of oceanography which
require concerted international action.

5. The Commission received the following cable from the Soviet Oceanographic Expedition
aboard the research vessel "Vityaz":

"ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS SOVIET OCEANOGRAPHIC EXPEDITION ON BOARD
VITYAZ IN CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN I AM SENDING MY BEST WISHES TO PARTI-
CIPANTS OF CONFERENCE AND WISH EVERY SUCCESS IN CREATING INTERNA-
TIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDYING OCEANS DIRECTED TOWARDS GOOD OF ALL
MANKIND

Professor KORT"

This cable was announced to the plenary meeting and the answering cable was approved and sent
to the Chief of the Expedition, Professor V.G. Kort:

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 147

"ON BEHALF MEMBERS INTERGOVERNMENTAL OC E A NOG RA PHIC COMMISSION
THANKS YOUR CABLE BEST WISHES FOR SMOOTH SAILING AND SUCCESSFUL
VOYAGE

BRUUN
Chairman

II. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION

6. In accordance with Article 7 (3) of the IOC Statutes, the Commission formally invited those
intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations which had been informed by the Director-
General of Unesco of the convening of the first session of the Commission to participate in the
work of the Commission. (List of Organizations at Annex II).

7. The Commission also decided that, in view of the importance of the first session, it would be
desirable to elect first a temporary Bureau and a Steering Committee to serve during the first
session only. A Permanent Bureau would, in accordance with Article 6 of the Statutes, be
elected by the end of the session. A change was accordingly made in Article 10 of the Draft
Provisional Rules of Procedure submitted to the Commission. (See Annex III).

8. The Commission set up its Bureau for the duration of the session as follows:

Chairman: Dr. A. BRUUN (Denmark)

Vice- Chairmen: Dr. W.M. Cameron (Canada)

Vice-Admiral V.A. Tchekourov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

This Bureau, together with the following eight selected representatives, constituted the Steering
Committee of the session:

Captain R.H.R. Bagnati (Argentina)

Professor H. Lacombe (France) - Rapporteur

Dr. D.G. Meseck (Federal Republic of Germany)

Dr. N.K. Panikkar (India)

Mr. M. Toda (Japan)

Professor S. Szymborski (Poland)

Vice-Admiral Sir Archibald Day (United Kingdom)

The Hon. James Wakelin Jr. (United States of America).

9. Subject to the change indicated in paragraph 7 above, the Commission approved at the
beginning of its session the Draft Provisional Rules of Procedure submitted to it in document
IOC/1-2. It decided, however, to review these Rules at the end of its session and adopted a
revised set of Provisional Rules of Procedure which is reproduced in Annex III of this report.

10. The Commission adopted the Agenda of the session after adding two major items:

Item 9: Fritjof Nansen Memorial Session

Item 10: Other business; Revision of Provisional Rules of Procedure; Election of the
Bureau; Date and place of the second session of the IOC.

Also, several sub- items were added to Items 4 and 5:

Item 4(b): Advisory Committee on Fisheries Aspects of Oceanography.

4(e): Discussion of Provisional Rules of Procedure in connexion with the relations

of IOC with other organizations.
5(f): Preliminary consideration of Unesco Programme in Marine Sciences in
1963-1964.

Consideration of the programme of the Charles Darwin Station on the Galapagos Islands was in-
cluded under sub- item 5(a). (See approved Agenda - Annex IV).

148 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

11. The Commission unanimously approved the Report of the Secretariat (document NS/IOC/1-8)
presented by Dr. Wooster, Director of the Office of Oceanography of Unesco and Secretary of the

Commission.

12. At the end of the first plenary meeting the representative of the USSR made a declaration
stressing that the success of international co-operation in oceanography depended upon the parti-
cipation in the work of the Commission of all States active in oceanographic research. In this
connexion, the USSR delegation expressed regret at the absence from the Commission of the law-
ful delegates of the People's Republic of China, and denied the right of the representative of
Taiwan to represent China with its 650, 000, 000 people, at the meeting. This statement was com-
mented upon by the representative of China who pointed out that his right to represent China was
based upon the decision of the General Conference of Unesco.

13. The Commission, after preliminary discussion in plenary session of certain items of its
Agenda, appointed three working groups to examine related problems in detail and to prepare draft
resolutions to be submitted to the Commission for approval. These drafts were examined and re-
vised by the Steering Committee before presentation to the plenary meeting.

The working groups were constituted as follows:

Working Group No . I : For Item 4 of the Agenda - Relationship between the IOC and other
organizations .

1. India (Chairman, Dr. Panikkar)

2. Australia

3. USSR

4. U.S.A.

5. Brazil

6 . Norway

7 . United Kingdom

8. Germany

9 . Canada

with observers from FAO, WMO, IAEA, ICES, ICSU, SCOR and
other organizations present at the meeting.

Working Group No. II: For Item 5 of the Agenda - Co-operative International Programmes
of Oceanographic Investigations.

All interested members were invited to work in this group under the
chairmanship of the representative of the USSR, Commodore K.P.
Ryzhkov .

WorkingGroupNo. Ill: For Items 5 and 6 of the Agenda - Co-ordination of National

Programmes and Technical Questions including Exchange of Data.

All interested members were invited to work in this group under the
the chairmanship of the representative of the United States of America,
Dr. Roger Revelle. This group was further split into four ad hoc
working parties concerned with different technical questions.

III. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAJOR ITEMS OF THE AGENDA

Item 4: Relations between the IOC and other organizations

Discussions concentrated mainly upon the relationship between IOC and FAO and SCOR.
Some members suggested that a new Consultative Committee on the Fisheries Aspects
of Oceanography should be established by the IOC. At the same time, the Commission
was informed of the proposed creation by FAO of its own Advisory Committee on

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 149

Marine Resources Research and the intention of SCOR to establish a Working Group on
Fisheries Aspects of Oceanography. Many speakers emphasized that existing relations
between the IOC and other organizations already provided all the channels necessary
for the transmission of appropriate advice from these organizations and their committees
or working groups to the IOC. A good spirit of co-operation dominated this discussion
and general understanding of the necessity to simplify the whole system of organizations
interested in oceanography was widespread.

(See resolution 1 - Annex V)

International oceanographic programme

Working paper NS/IOC/1-6 served as a basis for the discussion. However the opinion
was expressed, and further supported, that the IOC should not only co-ordinate co-
operative international programmes, but also assist in the distribution of information
of international interest in respect to declared national programmes of international
interest. No specific recommendation was agreed upon in connexion with initiating new
large-scale co-operative oceanographic programmes. Rather a series of such pro-
grammes was referred back to the States members of the Commission and to the
Secretariat for further development. It was the general feeling in connexion with the
Indian Ocean Expedition that the IOC should gradually take over from SCOR the co-
ordinating functions with respect to this expedition by working out, together with SCOR
appropriate steps in this direction. Technical questions were mainly referred to work-
ing groups of experts, the establishment of which was recommended in the resolutions,
or to appropriate international organizations.

Strong support was shown for the development of a comprehensive programme for
world ocean study, and the Secretariat was requested to initiate its preparation.

An opinion was expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom that: "The
Secretary should ensure that any proposals laid before the Commission for its approval
and co-ordination shall in their final form contain estimates of the contributions in re-
sources and manpower that Member States would be invited to make" .

It was also suggested by the representative of France that some previous recommenda-
tions should be re-emphasized, especially those accepted at the Copenhagen meeting
with respect to training and the importance of providing careers for young marine
scientists.

(See resolutions 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7 - Annex V)

A group of Latin American States introduced a declaration concerning the development
of oceanography in that region. In this connexion a resolution was adopted urging in-
creased support to developing countries interested in participating in international
oceanographic programmes.

(See resolution 8 and declaration - Annex V)

During the preliminary discussion of the Unesco Draft Programme in Marine Sciences
for 1963-1964 some delegates (China, Japan, USSR) expressed their opinions on the
priority of certain regions in applying Unesco assistance for the development of marine
sciences. Some representatives raised a question concerning Unesco's financial
support of IOC activities. Representatives of India and USSR stressed the importance
of the role UneSco might play in the creation of an international pool of equipment pro-
posed by Spain. It was suggested that the Unesco book coupons might be useful in
solving immediate currency difficulties. The representative of the USSR introduced
a draft resolution recommending some redistribution of budgetary means in the
proposed Unesco Marine Science Programme for 1963-1964. However, in view of the
declaration of the group of Latin American States and the corresponding resolution
adopted (see above), the representative of the USSR did not insist on the Commission's
making a separate decision on the Soviet draft resolution, and asked only that it be
included in the report of the meeting.

(See Annex VI)

150 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Data centres, exchange of data and publications connected with Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission activities

Document NS/IOC/l-7 served as a basis for discussion at the plenary meeting. However,
the discussion took place mainly in Working Group No. Ill and in the ad hoc group under
the chairmanship of the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr.
B6hnecke. The importance of data exchange was stressed, not only in connexion with
co-operative international programmes, but also for the declared national and regional
programmes of international interest.

It was recognized that immediate exchange of oceanographic data in accordance with
the Data Centre's Manual of the International Geophysical Year should be started for
such programmes commencing from 1 January 1960. Ways and means of exchange of
bathymetric data were also discussed at length. The problem of publishing a new
General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans was raised several times and the opinion was
expressed that Unesco might assist financially in this matter. However, no specific
recommendation was made in this connexion in view of the forthcoming International
Hydrographic Conference in May 1962.

It was the general feeling that an oceanographic newsletter, which the Office of Oceano-
graphy of Unesco proposes to publish, should contain information concerning national
programmes of international interest.

It was also suggested that Unesco should study the feasibility and practicability of the
creation of an international pool of equipment.

(See resolution 9 - Extract from IGY Data Centre
Manual and resolution 10 - Annex V)

Standardization and inter calibration of methods and instruments

The importance of any work in this field was stressed many times and it was the general
feeling that the best way of carrying out intercalibration work would be to bring together
scientists and equipment aboard oceanographical vessels for joint oceanographic tests.
As an example, the recent Unesco- SCOR intercalibration tests at Honolulu and aboard
"Vityaz" and "Gascoyne" were cited. Representatives expressed the opinion that the
distribution of standard equipment could be put into effect through the proposed interna-
tional pool of equipment. It was felt that the task of planning new steps in the programme
of standardization and intercalibration of methods and equipment should be delegated to
SCOR because of the essentially scientific nature of this task.

(See resolution 11 - Annex V)

Item 8: International research and training vessel

The summary report on the international research and training vessel (document
NS/IOC/l-4) prepared by the Office of Oceanography of Unesco, served as a basis for
the discussion. The majority of speakers expressed the opinion that at the moment
there was no vital necessity to have an international oceanographic research and train-
ing vessel and that the tasks which might be assigned to such a vessel could be more
efficiently and cheaply carried out aboard national vessels.

Different representatives, especially the representative of Brazil, informed the
Commission of the possibilities offered by their countries to take on board scientific
or technical personnel of other countries for training.

At the same time, the representatives of India and Viet-Nam and of one or two other
States, still considered the International Oceanographic Research and Training Vessel
both necessary and useful.

A special drafting committee was appointed to summarize opinions. It was decided not
to close the issue permanently and to reserve the possibility for the IOC to return to
the question at some appropriaterfuture time.

(See resolution 12 - Annex V)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 151

Item 9: Fritjof Nansen Memorial Session

Professor A.D. Dobrovolsky from Mo3cow State University gave a lecture honouring
the memory of the great explorer and humanist Fritjof Nansen. He described his life
and work and the enormous impact which his oceanographical achievements made and
still make on the development of marine sciences.

Dr. BShnecke (Federal Republic of Germany) followed Professor Dobrovolsky with his
own recollections of Nansen's influence on his own scientific progress.

Professor Mosby from the University of Bergen gave a short talk of his own contacts
with Nansen and showed some original slides depicting certain of Nansen's expeditions.

(See Annex VII)

Item 10: Election of the Bureau, creation of a Consultative Committee, date and place of the
second session of the IOC

At the end of the session, the Bureau, comprising:

Chairman: Dr. A. BRUUN (Denmark)

Vice-Chairmen: Dr. W.M. Cameron (Canada)

Vice-Admiral V.A. Tchekourov (USSR)

was re-elected for a full term of office expiring at the end of the second session.

The Commission also decided to establish a consultative committee to work with the
Bureau and the Secretariat in the development of the programme of the Commission
during the period prior to the beginning of the second session. This committee consists
of representatives of France, India, U.S.A., Argentina, Japan, United Kingdom,
Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, Brazil, Australia and others as needed.

The Commission had previously received an invitation from the Government of Monaco
to hold the second session in the Principality. The Commission heartily welcomes
this gesture of recognition and expresses its gratitude to the Government of Monaco.
However, a fairly strong tendency was demonstrated among the delegates towards hold-
ing the second session of the IOC in Unesco Headquarters. The Commission decided in
favour of that opinion, but asked its Secretariat to inform the Government of Monaco
that it was favourably disposed to holding a future session in Monaco. It was therefore
agreed that the second session of the IOC take place in Paris in September/October of
1962 and that the Provisional Agenda should be distributed three months in advance to
all Member States, which recommendation was introduced into the Revised Provisional
Rules of Procedure. The importance of not conflicting with the dates of the 1962 meet-
ing of ICES was pointed out.

The representative of the USSR proposed that a second paragraph should be added to
Rule 6 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure stipulating that the provisional agenda for
each session of the Commission should be distributed to Member States six months in
advance of the session. The Commission decided not to accept the proposal in that
form, but considered it an important suggestion for the work of the Secretariat which
should be incorporated in the report of the session.

In closing the first session of the Commission, its Chairman, Dr. Bruun, on behalf of the
Bureau, expressed his thanks for the help received during the session from all representatives
and observers, members of the Secretariat and Unesco, including interpreters and technical staff,
and especiaUy noted the sincere spirit of international co-operation which had dominated the whole
session. He also expressed, on behalf of the re-elected Bureau, their appreciation of the Confi-
dence manifested by the Commission.

In issuing this Summary Report, the Secretariat of the Com-
mission wishes to record its deep sorrow at the passing away of
its distinguished Chairman. Dr. Bruun died in Copenhagen on
13 December 1961 . He leaves in the memories of all those who
worked with him in Paris in October the memory of a wise and
eminent man of science devoted to the cause of international co-
operation in oceanography.

152 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ANNEX I

ADDRESS BY MR. RENE MAHEU,
ACTING DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF UNESCO,
AT THE OPENING OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION

Paris, 19 October 1961

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to this inaugural meeting of the Intergovernmental
Oceapographic Commission. As you all know, the purpose of this Commission is to contribute to
the development of scientific research through the concerted efforts of its members to obtain a
better knowledge of the nature and resources of the oceans. The meeting in this hall of the repre-
sentatives of 40 nations shows clearly how much the creation of the Commission, decided by
Unesco's General Conference less than a year ago, meets a need of the international community.

Science has a long tradition of international co-operation behind it. The scientific study of
the oceans is one of the best examples by which to illustrate the need for this kind of co-operation.
The very vastness of the seas necessitates the combination and co-ordination of efforts and re-
sources in order to make research work a success. The oceans, whose waters mingle and circu-
late over the whole surface of the planet, cover approximately three-quarters of the earth's sur-
face and, beyond the limits of territorial waters, the high seas are a truly international area.

The scientific study of the ocean has become more important to mankind than ever before.
There are several reasons for this. The sea is a principal means of communication, used by a
considerable portion of world trade. It is a source of mineral wealth, some of which is dissolved,
the rest deposited on the sea bed. Being a reservoir of water and heat, it regulates meteorology
and climates. With its store of proteins, it nourishes hungry millions. It is also a gigantic ditch
into which man discharges the waste from his organic exchanges and the detritus, as it were, of
his civilization. In order to master the sea and to make rational use of the possibilities it offers,
one must have a thorough knowledge of the complex natural phenomena which take place within it.
Moreover, it may be said that, on the whole, scientists are less interested in solving immediate
practical problems than in satisfying their ardent curiosity for the truth. The sea offers an
almost unlimited field for such research.

At the time of the first great oceanographic expedition, carried out by the British vessel
"Challenger" in 1873-1876, a single ship could collect an enormous amount of new data. But
as their knowledge increased, scientists felt more and more the need for numerous, detailed and
systematic observations. There can be no doubt that in our own time, the solution of many im-
portant oceanographic problems requires the simultaneous and closely co-ordinated action of a
large number of vessels.

This international action, which had been steadily developing over a decade, gained strong
impetus from the International Geophysical Year. In the North Atlantic and the Pacific, interna-
tional co-operation made it possible to study vast regions of the ocean. The international Indian
Ocean Expedition, which is now being organized by the Special Committee on Oceanic Research
and which Unesco has agreed to sponsor, will provide an opportunity for more than 20 nations and
40 ships to work together on the exploration of an immense and still largely unknown ocean.

Other aspects of oceanography also require concerted action by all nations concerned. For
this research to be successful, it is essential to obtain rapidly and in convenient form the results
which have already been gathered from a study of the same or similar problems. Thus the exchange
of oceanographic data and information is of international importance. No doubt new documentation
centres will have to be added to those that already exist. But more than a purely quantitative
effort is required. The free exchange of information poses the capital problem of their quality
and comparability; hence the need for the standardization of methods and the calibration of instru- .
ments on an international basis. Nor is that all. The examination of technical questions relating

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 153

to navigational aids, the distribution of radio frequencies for oceanographic research, and the
operation of recording stations submerged in international waters - here are further problems
the solution of which depends, to varying degrees, on collaboration between nations.

During the last few years, governments. National Commissions for Unesco and governmental
and non- governmental scientific organizations have frequently drawn Unesco' s attention to these
problems and invited it to extend its programme of marine sciences.

Realizing the need for dynamic and co-ordinated international action in this field, Unesco's
General Conference, at its tenth session, held in Paris in November 1958, adopted a resolution
(resolution 2.42) which provided for the convening of an intergovernmental conference on oceano-
graphic research. This conference - in the preparation of which the United Nations, FAO, WMO
and IAEA were closely associated, and I should like to thank them once again - was held in
Copenhagen in July 1960. It considered and approved a body of measures designed, on the one
hand, to ensure the common use by the Member States concerned of international services for
oceanographic research and the training of personnel and, on the other hand, the immediate
application of an international research and training programme in the marine sciences.

The principal recommendation of the Copenhagen Conference was that an Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission be set up with the help, and within the framework, of Unesco, with the
task of recommending to Member States concerted action in oceanographic research.

At its eleventh session, in November- December 1960, the General Conference adopted the
recommendations of the Copenhagen Conference and set up within the framework of Unesco the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The General Conference approved the funds
needed to run the Commission, and in particular those required to set up an Office of Oceanography
to assure its Secretariat.

The office is attached to the Department of Natural Sciences of Unesco. This administrative
arrangement will, I feel sure, make it possible for the work of the Commission and of Unesco,
whose programme embraces activities closely related to the Commission's field of work, especi-
ally as regards promoting the development of research institutions and the training of research
workers, to progress harmoniously, side by side. It is, in my opinion, highly desirable that the
plans to be drawn up and executed by your Commission and Unesco's plans should be systemati-
cally but flexibly co-ordinated, while at the same time, as its sponsors requested, the Commission
should be guaranteed that freedom of action which is essential to the advancement of its work.

Unesco looks upon your Commission as an instrument which can be of great assistance in
solving those problems of oceanography for which, as I said before, concerted international action
is imperative. In performing this task, you may be assured of Unesco's assistance and support.
However, it should, no doubt, be said that there are many other problems which need to be
examined by scientists, institutions or specialized laboratories, research work in which it is not
the Commission's function to direct or to co-ordinate. Nor, it must be remembered, is it the
Commission's duty to carry out meteorological research - that is a function of WMO - nor
fishery research, which comes within the field of competence of FAO.

It is, moreover, desirable that in executing its programmes the Commission should co-
operate closely with other institutions of the United Nations family, particularly the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and all other competent intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations, respecting their various fields of competence, but working together
with them to arrange meetings and other forms of useful collaboration.

What I have just said needed to be said, I think, but it does not alter the fact that the tasks
which your Commission is called upon to perform and the opportunities that lie before it within
the field of action which I have just indicated are as^wide as the oceans themselves and are of the
utmost importance for the advancement of science and the good of mankind. Unesco, therefore,
is greatly honoured by your presence, and cordially wishes you success in your endeavours.
With high hopes, therefore, I declare the first session of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission open.

154 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ANNEX II

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS INFORMED OF CONVENING OF THE FIRST SESSION
OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1 . International Hydrographic Bureau

2. Commission for Fisheries Research in the West Pacific

3. International Whaling Commission

4. International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea

5. Caribbean Commission

6. South Pacific Commission

7. Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara

8. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean

9. Indo- Pacific Fisheries Council

10. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

11. Pan American Institute of Geography and History

12. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

13. International Commission for the North West Atlantic Fisheries

14. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission

15. International Pacific Halibut Commission

16. Permanent Commission for the Conservation and Exploitation of the Maritime Resources of
the South Pacific

17. Permanent Commission of the International Fisheries Convention

18. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission

19. North- West Pacific Fisheries Commission

20. International North Pacific Fur Seal Commission

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1. International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)

(a) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)

(b) International Union of Biological Sciences

(c) International Association of Physical Oceanography (of IUGG)

(d) Special Committee on Oceanic Research (of ICSU)

(e) International Geographical Union

2. Union of International Engineering Organizations

3. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses

4. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and of Natural Resources

5. Pacific Science Association

6. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 155

ANNEX III

PROVISIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE

(Revised text adopted by the Commission at its first session)

Section I - Membership

Rule 1

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) is
composed of States which have given notice of their willingness to participate in oceanographic
programmes which require concerted action, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 2 of the Statutes of the Commission as adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its
eleventh session.

Rule 2

Each State member of the Commission shall notify the Secretariat of the Commission of the
names of its designated representatives as well as of advisers and experts.

Section U - Sessions

Rule 3

The first session of the Commission shall be convened by the Director- General of Unesco.
The place and date of that session shall be communicated in advance to all interested States and
Organizations .

Rule 4

Other sessions shall be convened by the Secretary of the Commission under instructions
from the Bureau of the Commission.

Section III - Agenda

Rule 5

The provisional agenda of the first session of the Commission shall be prepared by the
Director-General of Unesco.

Rule 6

1 . The provisional agenda of other sessions of the Commission shall be prepared by the
Secretary of the Commission in consultation with the members of the Bureau and the Director-
General of Unesco.

2. The provisional agenda shall be communicated to the members of the Commission at least
three months before the opening of each session.

The provisional agenda of a session of the Commission shall include:

(a) Items whose inclusion has been decided by the Commission itself;

(b) Items proposed by any State member of the Commission;

(c) Items proposed by the United Nations or by any of the Agencies of the United Nations
system;

(d) Items which the Director-General of Unesco or the Secretary of the Commission may
deem necessary to raise.

156 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Rule 8

At the beginning of each session the Commission shall adopt the agenda for that session.

Rule 9

The Commission may, during a session, modify the order of items on the agenda. A majority
of two- thirds shall be required for the addition or deletion of items during a session.

Section IV - Bureau

1. At the beginning of its first session, the Commission shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-
Chairmen who shall remain in office until the end of that session.

2. The Commission shall also at its first session and for the duration of that session constitute
a Steering Committee composed of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairmen and of eight other elected
members .

Rule 11

Thereafter the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen shall be elected and shall hold office in accord-
ance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Statutes of the Commission.

Rule 12

If the Chairman is unable to act at any meeting or any part thereof, he shall be replaced
alternatively by one of the two Vice-Chairmen. A Vice-Chairman acting as Chairman shall have
the same powers and duties as the Chairman.

Rule 13

The Chairman or a Vice-Chairman acting as Chairman shall participate in the meetings of
the Commission in that capacity and not as the representative of the State by which he is accredited.
In such a case, an alternate representative shall be entitled to represent the State member con-
cerned in the meetings of the Commission and shall exercise the right to vote.

Rule 14

If the Chairman ceases to represent a State member of the Commission or is so incapacitated
that he can no longer hold office, a Vice-Chairman shall become Chairman for the unexpired
portion of the term of office. If that Vice-Chairman also ceases to represent a State member of
the Commission or is so incapacitated that he can no longer hold office, the other Vice-Chairman
shall become Chairman for the unexpired portion of the term of office.

Rule 15

Members of the Bureau are eligible for re-election.

Section V - Committees

Rule 16

Committees set up by the Commission in accordance with Article 5 of the Statutes of the
Commission shall meet in accordance with the decisions of the Commission, or of the Bureau.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 157

These Committees shall elect their own Chairman, Vice-Chairman and, if necessary, their
own Rapporteur.

These rules of procedure shall apply to the proceedings of committees unless the Commission
decides otherwise.

Section VI - Secretariat

Rule 19

The Director of the Unesco Office of Oceanography shall be the Secretary of the Commission.
He shall act in that capacity at all meetings of the Commission, of the Committees and of the
Bureau. He may designate another member of the Secretariat of the Commission to take his
place at any meeting.

Rule 20

The Secretary shall direct the members of the Secretariat of the Commission provided in
accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Statutes.

The Secretary or his representatives may make oral as well as written statements to the
Commission or its Committees and to the Bureau concerning any question under consideration.

In carrying out his functions as defined in Article 8 of the Statutes, on behalf of the Com-
mission, the Secretary shall act under the authority of the Director-General of Unesco.

Section VII - Languages

Rule 23

English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the working languages of the Commission.

Rule 24

Any representative may make a speech in a language other than the working languages
currently in use for a particular session of the Commission or of a committee, on the conditic
that he provide for the interpretation of his speech into one or the other of the said working
languages.

Section VIII - Conduct of business

All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public unless the Commission decides
otherwise .

A simple majority of the States members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum.

80597 O -62 -u

158 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Experts and observers may, with the authorization of the Chairman, make oral or written
statements before the Commission and its Committees.

Rule 28

The Chairman of the Commission shall declare the opening and closing of each meeting,
direct the discussions, ensure observance of these Rules, accord the right to speak, put questions
to the vote and announce decisions. He shall rule on points of order and, subject to these Rules,
shall have control of the proceedings and over the maintenance of order at meetings.

Rule 29

The Chairman shall call upon speakers in the order in which they have expressed the desire
to speak.

Rule 30

During the discussion on any matter, a representative may at anytime raise a point of order
and the point of order shall be forthwith decided by the Chairman. Any representative may appeal
against the ruling of the Chairman which can only be overruled by a majority of the members
present and voting. A representative may not in raising a point of order speak on the substance
of the matter under discussion.

Section IX - Voting

Each State member of the Commission shall have one vote.

1. Except on matters for which the Commission shall decide that a majority of two-thirds is re-
quired, decisions shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

2. Decisions as to the matters which require a two- thirds majority shall be made by a majority
of the members present and voting.

3. For the purpose of these Rules, the phrase "members present and voting" means members
casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members who abstain from voting are considered as not
voting.

Rule 33

Voting shall normally be by show of hands, except that any member may request a roll-call.
The vote and abstention of each member participating in a roll-call shall be inserted in the
record.

Rule 34

1. When an amendment is moved to a proposal, the amendment shall be voted on first. When
two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the Commission shall first vote on the amend-
ment furthest removed from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest there-
from, and so on, until all amendments have been put to a vote. If one or more amendments are
adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted on. If no amendment is adopted, the proposal
shall be put to the vote in its original form.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 159

2. A motion is considered an amendment to a proposal if it adds to, deletes from or revises
that proposal .

All elections shall be decided by secret ballot unless, in the absence of objections, the Com-
mission decides otherwise.

If a vote is equally divided on matters other than elections, the proposal shall be regarded
as rejected.

Section X - Records

1. Summary records of the meetings of the Commission shall be prepared by the Secretariat
of the Commission and circulated to its members.

Section XI - Reports

Rule 38

1 . The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the Commission.

2. The Commission shall submit reports on its activities to each ordinary session of the General
Conference of Unesco.

3. Copies of these reports shall be circulated by the Director-General of Unesco in accordance
with Article 10 of the Statutes of the Commission.

Section XII - Amendments

1. The Commission may amend these Rules of Procedure by a majority of the members present
and voting.

2. Suspension of any of these Rules shall require a two-thirds majority of the members present
and voting.

160 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ANNEX IV

INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION

First Session

Paris, Unesco, 19-27 October 1961

AGENDA

1 . Introduction

(a) Opening of the session and introductory remarks

(b) Formal invitation of intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations' representa-
tives to take part in the meeting as observers

2. Organization of Commission

(a) Election of Chairman

(b) Adoption of provisional Rules of Procedure

(c) Election of other officers

(d) Adoption of Agenda

3 . Report of the Secretariat

4. Relationship between the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and other
organizations

(a) Special Committee on Oceanic Research

(b) Advisory Committee on Fisheries Aspects of Oceanography

(c) United Nations Specialized Agencies

(d) Other intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations

(e) Discussion of provisional Rules of Procedure in connexion with relations of IOC with
other organizations

5. International Oceanographic Programme

(a) Comments on previous recommendations (including the Programme of Charles Darwin
Station on Galapagos Islands)

(b) New proposals

(c) Joint programme

(d) Aids to navigation

(e) Recording stations

(f) Preliminary consideration of Unesco programme in marine sciences for 1963-1964

6. Data centres - exchange of data and publications connected with the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission activities

7. Standardization and intercalibration of methods and instruments

8. International research and training vessel

9. Fritjof Nansen Memorial Session

10. Other business. Revision of provisional Rules of Procedure, election of the Bureau, date
and place of the second session of the IOC

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY \Q\

ANNEX V

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AT ITS FIRST SESSION

RESOLUTION I

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC
COMMISSION AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

The Commission

Recalling that the Statutes of the Commission prescribe that the purpose of the Commission shall
be to promote scientific investigation with a view to learning more about the nature and resources
of the oceans, through the concerted action of its members,

Bearing in mind the very wide scope of oceanography and the many important fields in which
scientific investigation of the nature and of the resources of the oceans is pursued, in particular
those concerned with fisheries of the world,

Bearing in mind further the interest and valuable work of many organizations, intergovernmental
and non- governmental, world-wide and regional, in oceanography or directly related fields and
that these organizations could contribute to the development and implementation of a well
co-ordinated and integrated international programme in oceanography,

Noting that the Economic and Social Council, at its thirty-second session, expressed the hope
that the Commission would take fully into account the activities and interests of all organizations
concerned with oceanography,

Appreciating that oceanography and fishery research are complementary undertakings and that
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has the primary responsibility within
the United Nations family for fisheries,

Appreciating further that the Food and Agriculture Organization plans to consider at its forth-
coming conference the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research,

Aware that the Special Committee on Oceanic Research of the International Council of Scientific
Unions is now serving Unesco as an advisory body on oceanography and has, since its inception
in 1957, contributed greatly towards the development of international co-operation in oceanic
research.

Aware also that the Special Committee on Oceanic Research is in process of establishing a work-
ing group of experts in fisheries and oceanographic sciences:

1 . Invites the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies and other intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations concerned with oceanography in its various disciplines, to co-operate
with the Commission to the fullest possible extent;

2. Expresses the hope that the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Meteorological
Organization and other interested agencies of the United Nations family will find it possible to
designate members of their Secretariats to co-operate actively with the Secretariat of the Com-
mission, the extent of such co-operation to be decided by agreement between these organizations
and Unesco;

3 . Requests the Members to submit to the Secretary of the Commission their views on the
establishment of advisory channels to the Commission in all fields of oceanography, including
fisheries oceanography, for consideration by the^Commission at its second session;

4. Requests the Bureau and the Secretary of the Commission, in the interim, to seek and
receive the advice of those organizations which now advise Unesco on oceanographic matters and
other intergovernmental and non- governmental organizations of a world-wide or regional nature,
which could contribute to the development of international programmes in oceanography.

162 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

5. Requests the Secretary of the Commission to submit to members, at least three months be-
fore the second session of the Commission, a draft report on the matters raised in 3 and 4 above.

RESOLUTION 2

POSTS AND CAREERS IN MARINE SCIENCES

The Commission

Noting the present shortage of experts in the marine sciences, which may well delay their develop-
ment for many years, although

Welcoming the considerable financial effort already made by Unesco and planned for future years
to further the advancement of these sciences, but

Convinced that an effort by the various countries is also required to ensure their full development,
and

Repeating the invitation set forth in paragraph 5 of the recommendation concerning the training
programme submitted by the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanographic Research held in
Copenhagen,

Recommends that Unesco be invited without delay to address an urgent appeal to governments for
the creation by them, within the specialized organs, of permanent posts and assured careers for
the many young scientists and technicians who are attracted by the marine sciences.

RESOLUTION 3

CO-OPERATIVE INTERNATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAMMES

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,

Having received numerous proposals for oceanographic research which, to be effective, would
require the concerted action of several Member States,

Recognizing that each proposal, by co-operative effort, would add materially to man's knowledge
of the world ocean.

Bearing in mind that to proceed with such co-operative research the implications of each proposal
should be carefully examined and weighed by all States considering participation, and being

Cognizant that the Commission might also contribute significantly to the formulation of a compre-
hensive programme for an eventual world ocean study,

Recommends for earnest consideration by such States as may desire to participate in the co-
operative programmes, each of the following proposals, (initiated by the member body indicated
below) as parts of a general study of the world ocean:

(a) North Atlantic Synoptic Survey (U.S. A),

(b) Co-operative programme of study of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (EPOC and IATTC)

(c) North Atlantic Expedition for studying fields of currents (USSR)

(d) West Pacific Expedition for studying fields of currents (USSR)

(e) West African Guinean Year (CCTA/CSA and U.S.A.)

(f) South Atlantic study (regional agreement between Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina)

(g) Standard section programme to study time changes in characteristics of the ocean (USSR)
(h) North Pacific Synoptic Survey (U.S.A.)

(i) Australian-Asiatic Seas Expedition (Naga II) (Thailand, South Viet-Nam)
(j) Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Study (Mexico, Cuba and Dominican Republic)
(k) Currents of the Drake passage (Argentina, document NS/IOC/INF . 13)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY \Q3

Noting that there may be other projects suitable for such consideration which have not been brought
to the attention of the Commission at this time;

Recommends that an initiating member or body, in consultation with the Bureau and with the assis-
tance of the Secretariat, convene a working group consisting of all interested members and bodies
to explore avenues of planning, co-ordination and co-operation (including consultation with appro-
priate national and international organizations) to prepare specific programmes, and to take
appropriate and early action with a view that all aspects of oceanographic study should be taken
into account where possible, and that all their findings be fully published upon the completion of
each programme;

Requests the Secretariat to collate all proposals on oceanographic research submitted by Member
States and by other bodies prior to the next meeting of the Commission; and

Requests the Secretariat to initiate the preparation of a comprehensive programme for world
ocean study through the most effective means he deems appropriate.

RESOLUTION 4

INDIAN OCEAN EXPEDITION

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, having considered the international research
programme for the Indian Ocean (the International Indian Ocean Expedition), and

Recognizing that the foregoing programme would benefit by the voluntary co-operation of Member
States of the Commission,

Appreciating that SCOR has taken and will continue to take a prominent part in the co-ordination
of that expedition, and that the appropriate role of the Commission in that programme has not
yet been clarified,

Bearing in mind that the proposed programmes would also profit from the advice and co-operation
of international agencies presently concerned in oceanic research,

Commends the International Indian Ocean Expedition to its members for possible participation;
and

Instructs the Secretary to assume such co-ordinating functions with respect to that Expedition as
can be worked out in consultation with SCOR and other appropriate bodies.

RESOLUTION 5

AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Commission

Recognizing that accurate navigation is essential for detailed systematic oceanographic investiga-
tions, and further

Recognizing that systems of aids to navigation presently available for use do not generally meet
the requirements of detailed oceanographic investigation except for limited specific areas and
that such systems, if possessing the required accuracy should continue to be established in the
interim,

Aware that several systems of aids to navigation, are presently under development which show
promise of meeting the long-range ocean- wide requirements of detailed systematic oceanographic
investigation.

164 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Resolves that the Commission through its member governments actively encourage and support
the continued development and subsequent establishment of a ground based long-range radio
navigation system capable of meeting the world-wide requirements for detailed systematic oceano-
graphic investigations; and

Recommends that in the establishment of the accepted world-wide ground based system of long-
range radio navigation, priority be given to those areas for which no aids are presently available
and for which large-scale oceanographic investigations are planned;

Further recommends that the International Hydrographic Bureau at Monaco, Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization be requested
through their member governments to co-operate with IOC in the expeditious development, and
subsequent establishment of a single national and international ground based long-distance radio
navigation aid capable of meeting the accuracy requirements for detailed systematic oceanographic
investigation (repeatability + 50 m. and position accuracy + 0, 25 nautical miles);

Further recommends that steps be taken by Member States to assist those countries having ships
taking part in the international co-operative oceanographic investigations to obtain and effectively
use the equipment required for these navigational systems;

Further recommends that the development of other promising and economical systems of naviga-
tion even of lesser accuracy such as certain methods of satellite navigation, be actively pursued.

RESOLUTION 6

COMMUNICATIONS

The Commission

Recognizing the vital role that communications play in any substantive oceanographic investiga-
tions, and

Recognizing further that existing frequencies in the radio communications spectrum are almost
completely absorbed.

Aware that the continued development of new instrumentation and techniques will further compli-
cate the problem,

Aware that we must move aggressively forward to a solution of this vital problem,

Authorizes the Bureau of the Commission to establish a working group of experts on radio com-
munications to be responsible for the study and establishment of oceanographic radio communica-
tion requirements. The working group should render its initial report with recommendations in
time for approval, adoption, and presentation by the Commission and its member governments
to the next study session of the Administrative Radio Conference. The expenses including travel
of the individual members of the working group should be met by the member governments and
organizations having experts on the working group or by Unesco.

RESOLUTION 7

FIXED STATIONS

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,

Considering the attached report NS/IOC/INF . 16, prepared by the ad hoc working group on fixed
stations.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 165

1. Recommends to Member States that they provide the Secretariat of IOC annually with full
information on what stations of the various types are in operation, what data are being gathered
from them and at what time intervals, and on plans for future developments (including technical
information on engineering and instrumental matters);

2. Recommends to Member States concerned that they make fuller use of weather ships for the
needs of oceanography;

3. Recommends to Unesco that steps be taken in consultation with IMCO to clarify the legal
status of unmanned and manned observing buoys;

4. Requests the Bureau to establish a working group of experts from Member States, WMO and
other appropriate international organizations, to study the existing network of fixed stations and
the needs of extending it (types, number, locations, kinds of observations and their spacing in
time) and prepare proposals for meeting these needs. The working group should report to the
next session of the IOC. Expenses of the individual members, including travel, should be met by
the member governments and organizations having representatives on the working group, or by
Unesco.

ADDENDUM TO RESOLUTION 7
(NS/IOC/INF.16)

REPORT OF THE WORKING PANEL ON OBSERVING
STATIONS AND WEATHER SHIPS

From the contributions at this, and other, conferences*1' it is evident that the employment
of "fixed" stations for taking oceanographic observations is of increasing importance to modern
oceanography, and that the establishment of networks of such stations is of interest to many
Member States. Information gathered continuously, or at frequent intervals, from fixed stations
is obtainable at relatively small cost and is indispensable for the solution of several types of
oceanographic problems. Series of data from fixed points, closely spaced in time, make possible
the study of time variations in oceanographic parameters; some of these vary importantly with
frequencies of a few minutes, other with frequencies of days, months or years. A network of
fixed stations at suitable locations can provide sets of truly synoptic observations which can be
employed to monitor changes in the ocean circulation and the distribution of properties, and thus
can assist in the solution of problems of forecasting. Such data, taken in conjunction with observa-
tions by moving ships, which cannot themselves be truly synoptic, can assist in the proper inter-
pretation of the information from such moving ships.

The fixed stations now in use, or in the advanced planning stage, are of four kinds. Coastal
and island stations, ocean station vessels (weather ships), unmanned anchored buoys, and manned
anchored platforms.

Coastal and Island Stations

A large number of stations are presently being maintained at coastal and some island loca-
tions for the recording of sea level (tides) and a few for long- period wave records. At most of
these there are taken records, at least daily, of surface temperature and salinity. During the
I.G.Y. , there were also taken near a number of such stations, especially at oceanic islands,
shallow casts for temperature and salinity, at daily and weekly intervals, for computing steric
sea level .

It appears most desirable to increase the number of such stations, especially on off-shore
oceanic islands and at them to obtain not only sea level, temperature, and salinity observations,
but also to obtain meteorological data, data on chemical constituents of the ocean at various
depths, solar radiation and simple biological observations.

(1) See example document: IOC/1-6, IOC/INF . 1 , IOC/INF . 1 1 , and Ocean/92(l), and NS/ 163
of Paris Conference of March 1960.

166 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

A network of island stations can be a very important part of a programme of detailed research
and survey in an ocean area. Such a network is an integral part of the EPOC plan for a co-
operative study of the Eastern Tropical Pacific, and is a part of the plan for the Indian Ocean
Expedition. In the tropical Atlantic there exist a series of oceanic islands which could be similarly
employed in that region.

Ocean Station Vessels (weather ships)

These platforms, operating at fixed points in the open sea for weather observations and air-
sea rescue, under the auspices of ICAO and other agencies offer a magnificent, but largely un-
used, opportunity for obtaining time- series data on physical, chemical and biological parameters
both at the surface and at various depths. To take advantage of this opportunity, all such ships
should be provided with suitable oceanographic winches and Other oceanographic equipment, and
with a small team of oceanographic observers. Supplementary meteorological observation of
special interest to oceanography may be added to the present routine weather observation in con-
sultation with interested specialists.

It is also possible to employ a local network of anchored instrument buoys in connexion with
a weather ship, the data being gathered by the ship by the removal of data records or by tele-
metering to obtain time- series at a number of points simultaneously.

Weather vessels can also be of great value in obtaining repeated hydrographic and biological
sections when travelling to their stations and their home ports.

Manned Anchored Platforms

Light ships have for many years been employed to collect various types of oceanographic
data. Their continued, and expanded, use should be encouraged in order to obtain time series,
at fixed locations in deep water, of some types of data, which are not currently amenable to
automatic instrumental recording, there are under development special- purpose manned stations,
such as the FLIP stations of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the similar station being
developed for use in the Mediterranean by the group at Monaco. Such stations are costly, and
will, therefore, probably be used in only small numbers, but they will have capabilities not
possible in the small unmanned buoys.

Unmanned Stations (buoys)

Although oceanic islands and weather ships offer good possibilities for obtaining important
synoptic and time- series oceanographic data, their locations are not under control of the oceano-
grapher, and there are large areas of the sea in which they do not exist. In order to obtain, at
deep sea locations, such data at reasonable cost, there are being developed in a number of
laboratories, anchored data- collecting systems which can be placed where needed.

A network of such instrument- systems needs to be established at suitable points in the World
Ocean and especially at such critical points as the regions where deep water is formed, at
current boundaries, at places where the mixed- layer depth is highly variable, etc.

From such stations can be taken automatically data from the atmosphere, such as barometric
pressure, wind direction and velocity, and solar radiation, and data from the sea, such as
temperature at various depths, current direction and velocity and transparency. Instruments
under development will make possible the automatic recording of salinity, oxygen, and some
simple biological parameters. Such data may be stored in the buoy and retrieved by ships, or
may be read out by telemetering systems. The telemetering may be at long-range to shore
stations, or by short-range telemetering on demand to aircraft or satellites.

Technical problems which are not yet fully or satisfactorily solved include anchoring
systems, data transducers, data storage devices, power sources, data readout and telemetering
systems. Close co-operation in developing these new instrument systems could greatly facilitate
the solution of such problems.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 167

Action by the IOC

The greater, and more effective, use of fixed observing stations of the various types noted
above could be promoted by the co-operative efforts of the Member States of IOC in a number of
ways:

1 . Collection and dissemination of information on what stations of the various types are now in
operation, what data are being gathered from them, at what time intervals, and plans for future
developments.

2. Planning for the types, numbers and locations of stations needed for an ocean- wide synoptic
network.

3. Arriving at joint decisions on time-intervals at which various kinds of observations should be
taken and setting, where necessary, standard observing hours.

4. Promoting necessary intergovernmental or other international arrangements for establish-
ment of coastal and island stations.

5. Clarify the legal status of unmanned and manned anchored buoys - i.e. the rights and duties
of persons and States placing them in the sea.

6. Joint action with ICAO and other agencies for the use of ocean station vessels for oceano-
graphy.

7. Exchanging of technical information on engineering and instrumental problems with relation
to development of unmanned anchored stations.

It would be useful if there were established by the IOC a standing Committee to carry out
these functions on a continuing basis, with the aid of the IOC Secretariat and, where required,
(e.g. for items 5 and 7 above) the assistance of other experts.

RESOLUTION 8

RESOLUTION IN CONNEXION WITH THE JOINT

DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE DELEGATIONS OF ARGENTINA,

BRAZIL, CUBA, ECUADOR, MEXICO, URUGUAY AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

The Commission,

Noting the Joint Declaration submitted by Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay
and the Dominican Republic,

Appreciating the needs of these Latin American countries for assistance in the training of oceano-
graphers and for the development of oceanographic activities,

Recommends that these interested members include in their requests for technical assistance,
proposals in the marine sciences; and also

Recommends that these countries initiate and develop projects in the marine sciences under the
Special Fund of the United Nations with the assistance of the Office of Oceanography of Unesco;
and

Recommends that the Director-General consider the possibility of increasing or modifying the
allocations of the Unesco oceanographic programme to give further assistance to developing
countries interested in participating in international oceanographic programmes.

168 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ADDENDUM TO RESOLUTION 8

JOINT DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE DELEGATIONS OF ARGENTINA,

BRAZIL, CUBA, ECUADOR, MEXICO, URUGUAY AND THE DOMINICAN

REPUBLIC TO THE PLENARY MEETING OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL

OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION AT ITS FIRST SESSION

The delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay, and the Dominican
Republic, present at the First session of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,

Aware of the substantial progress achieved by oceanography in highly industrialized countries and
of the fact that nations in process of development, despite their efforts to intensify their activities
in this field, are increasingly failing to keep abreast of this progress because of their inadequate
human and economic resources,

Noting that a thorough knowledge of the oceans can be obtained only through more intensive and
effective international co-operation, which makes it urgent to provide a larger number of oceano-
graphic research centres furnished with equipment and specialized technical staff,

Observing that the funds so far assigned by Unesco to oceanographic research in countries in pro-
cess of development have proved insufficient for the purpose, and

Bearing in mind that the Latin American countries have not yet been able to contribute effectively
and as much as they would like to do, to the advancement of world oceanography owing to the
above-mentioned lack of resources,

Invite the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission to recommend the Director-General of
Unesco to make appreciable increase in the budget of its Regular programme and of the Technical
Assistance programme, and to grant special funds for the promotion of oceanographic research,
the development of existing institutions and the training of the necessary technical staff, in order
to speed up the progress of such research in Latin American countries, so that they may acquire
sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to make a real and substantial contribution to
implementation of regional oceanographic projects in their respective areas.

RESOLUTION 9

EXCHANGE OF OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,

Desiring to foster the full and expeditious exchange of oceanographic data,

Noting the existence of the data centres listed in document IOC/1-7, including the centre for
bathymetric data under the International Hydrographic Bureau with sub-centres at various national
hydrographic offices,

Reiterates the recommendation made by the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanographic
Research at Copenhagen in July 1960 that oceanographic data should be exchanged and that system
of World Data Centres established during the International Geophysical Year should be continued
in future;

Recommends that all oceanographic data taken by ships and recording stations outside territorial
waters within the limits of declared national programmes be exchanged under the headings listed
and by the methods prescribed in the IGY data centre manual, commencing from 1 January 1960,
in accordance with the attached extracts from the manual (IOC/INF. 17).

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY \QQ

Recommends to member countries the establishment of national oceanographic data centres in
order to facilitate the collection, processing, analysis, and exchange of oceanographic data;

Urges member countries to participate with the I.H.B., in co-operation with World Date Centres
A and B for Oceanography, in the preparation of bathymetric plotting sheets for the world ocean
on as large a scale as possible;

Recommends to the Governments of the U.S. A . , USSR, and the United Kingdom that they appoint
representatives of World Data Centre A, World Data Centre B and the Permanent Service for
Mean Sea Level to a working group of experts on the organization of oceanographic data exchanges
and invites the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the International Hydrographic
Bureau and the World Meteorological Organization to designate representatives to this working
group.

The mission of this working group shall be the facilitating of exchanges of oceanographic
data, the standardization of forms for reporting and coding data, the encouragement of the prepara-
tion of data catalogues, and the assistance of development of national oceanographic data centres.

The working group should meet at the call of the Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceano-
graphic Commission and should report to the next session of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission. Expenses of the individual members, including travel, should be met by the
member governments and organizations having representatives on the working group, or by
Unesco.

Requests the Secretary and the Bureau of the Commission to seek advice from appropriate bodies
on the volume and nature of the data to be exchanged in the future .

ADDENDUM TO RESOLUTION 9

IGY LIST OF DATA TO BE EXCHANGED
(NS/IOC/INF.17)

Projects

(a) Shore stations recordings of:

(i) Sea level

(ii) Long period waves

(b) Afloat:

(i) Serial station for depth, temperature, salinity and chemical analysis

(ii) Colour and transparency

(iii) State of sea and swell

(iv) Currents

(v) Bottom sediments

(vi) Bathymetry

(vii) Bathythermography

(viii) Meteorology and actinometry

(ix) Biology

Description and presentation of data

(a) Sea-level records. These will be the mean monthly sea levels computed from hourly
observations from a recording gauge or alternatively according to standard observations on a
tide staff.

170 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

(b) Long period wave records will be retained at the appropriate institutions and parts of them
made available on request together with relevant details at cost of reproduction. Periods of
observations and the range of frequencies covered should be reported for inclusion in WDC
indexes .

(c) Serial station records:

(i) Depth as accurately as possible using suitable standard depths.

(ii) Temperature in °C to + 0.01°.

(iii) Salinity by accurate method to + 0.02 per cent.

(iv) Concentrations of 02, Si04, P04, N02, N03, H2S (if present), C02, NH2, H3BO3, C14,
D20., T,0, and other chemical species, pH, alkalinity and radio-activity. Whenever
non-standard methods of analysis are used, specifications are to be given.

(d) Colour and transparency. Data at selected stations should be included with serial station
records.

(e) State of sea and swell. Visual observations and averaged results of instrumental measure-
ments of height, period and direction of waves, expressed in the customary units. Full details
of scales to be furnished with tabulated results.

(f) Currents. Observational data on currents along sections and at anchor stations, at specified
levels, and with information about the method and circumstances of measurement e.g. ship be-
haviour, etc.

(g) Bottom sediments. A field description of each bottom sample in accordance with the specifica-
tions in USHO Publication No. 607, p. 155.

(h) Bathymetry

(i) The sounding at each station to be included with the data under (c).

(ii) For echo soundings the system preferred is an overlay of the ship's track chart show-
ing all navigational fixes on a chart of scale about 1:400,000 (1: 250,000 to 1:600,000)
showing soundings as closely spaced as they can conveniently be written. If an overlay
cannot be furnished, tabulated soundings at an interval of not more than 2 1/2 miles
are desired. In either case, full details of the assumed speed of sound, corrections
(if any) to sounding for actual speed, and any corrections to frequency standard are to
be furnished.

(iii) Original echograms will be handled similarly to long wave records. Para. (b).

(i) Bathythermography. Tabulations of temperatures at standard depths as on Form IBM
8180850, with data on time, date and location.

(j) Meteorology

(i) Tabulated data for standard marine observations of air temperature, ocean surface
temperature, absolute or relative humidity, speed and direction of wind, barometric
pressure, cloud, visibility and other atmospheric phenomena, and precipitation. If
scales used are not explicit c.g.s. units, conversion tables should be furnished.

(ii) Upper air data. Radiosonde observations of temperature, humidity and pressure using
WMO format. Speed and direction of wind with a description of method used.

(iii) Actinometry. Daily observations of the total, direct, diffused and reflected radiation
carried out during daylight and the results of 24 hour observations of effective radia-
tion in selected situations.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY J7J

(k) Biology. Data on quantity and composition of plankton standard layers, if feasible.

Other observations:

References should be given for inclusion in WDC indexes, of any types of data obtained, e.g.
submarine geology, submarine geophysics, special echo soundings and marine biological observa-
tions .

General:

(a) Results should be presented chronologically for each expedition beginning with its first day of
work.

(b) Each table heading is to contain the date, time and the name of the observing ship (or station)
and be accompanied by a chart, showing the positions of ship stations. An indication is to be
given of how positions have been fixed e.g. dead reckoning, observation, bearing, etc.

(c) The time in use is to be stated e.g. GMT or time zone; and in the case of a serial station the
time is that of dropping the messenger for the first cast.

(d) Data should be presented in final processed form after all instrumental corrections have
been made. But in the case of serial stations interpolation to standard depths is to be omitted if
this will delay transmission.

Time schedules and transmission:

Cruise data are to be forwarded as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than
6 months after completion of the cruise. In the case of Antarctic expeditions and similar long
cruises during which analysis maybe conducted on board, three months is the desirable interval
after the end of the voyage. All other data should be forwarded within one year after collection.

One copy of the data is to be sent to both WDCs whenever feasible. Alternatively data should
be sent in duplicate to one of the WDCs. The method used is to be made clear on the transmittal
note .

Data which are already being sent to certain organizations will continue in accordance with
established schedules and in addition to transmission to WDCs, e.g.

(a) Mean sea-level observations to the Liverpool Observatory and Tidal Institute, The Observa-
tory, Birkenhead for the Mean Sea Level Committee of the IAPO. It is hoped that a copy of all
mean sea- level observations will be sent direct to the LTI for the MSL Committee as well as to
one or both WDCs.

(b) Bathymetric data to the International Hydrographic Bureau, Quai des Etats-Unis, Monaco,
for the Carte Bathymetrique Internationale des Oceans.

(c) North Atlantic Serial Station data to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

RESOLUTION 10

CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

The Commission recommends that:

1 . (a) Regional organizations and member countries as soon as possible should submit to the
Secretariat of the IOC, information on their existing national and regional programmes;

172 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

(b) Plans of cruises of international interest projected for the future should also be submitted
together with information on berths available for scientists of other countries; likewise
scientists prepared to carry out work at sea should submit details of their availability for
future cruises;

(c) Reports on the general results of all cruises should be forwarded expeditiously as the
cruises are completed;

(d) Descriptions of newly- developed instruments and techniques should also be forwarded to
the Office of Oceanography of Unesco.

2. (a) The oceanography newsletter which the Office of Oceanography of Unesco proposes to
publish should contain a brief summary of the information mentioned above;

(b) The newsletter should be reproduced by any rapid and economical method of publication
and sent as quickly as possible to mailing lists furnished by each member country.

3. The Secretariat of the IOC in consultations with the Bureau of the Commission, SCOR and
other appropriate agencies, should consider the feasibility and practicality of the creation of the
international pool of scientific equipment and study means whereby such a pool can be created.
Such a pool might be created even on a partial basis in time for the International Indian Ocean
Expedition.

4. Member States should be urged to distribute scientific papers and abstracts to the mailing
lists referred to in paragraph 2 (b) above.

RESOLUTION 11

STANDARDIZATION AND INTERCALIBRATION OF OCEANOGRAPfflC
METHODS AND EQUIPMENT

The Commission

Recognizing that there is a pressing need for a co-ordinated programme that ensures that oceano-
graphic observations will be more meaningful and useful for oceanographic research in general,

Recognizing further that this can be accomplished by a carefully planned programme which in-
cludes to varying degrees the standardization, intercalibration and absolute calibration of
observational methods and equipment, and that the formulation of such a programme should be
carried out by those scientists most intimately involved in the collection and use. of such data,

Convinced that in order to have comparable results this will probably involve some standardiza-
tion of methods and equipment but equally convinced that world-wide standardization of all oceano-
graphic techniques is not now desirable,

Aware that such a programme should proceed in an orderly fashion so that the final results will

be the assurance that accurate oceanographic data can be mutually exchanged among oceanographers,

Further aware of the excellent work in this field being carried out by IAPO, ICESandlCSEM, and of the
recent intercalibrations at Honolulu and aboard "Vityaz" and "Gascoyne sponsored jointly by
SCOR and Unesco,

Requests SCOR to undertake the following task:

Appoint as soon as possible working groups for the purpose of examining, summarizing, and
criticizing the present oceanographic methods and equipment in common use to determine where
these methods or equipment do not provide universally usable, accurate data, or where such data
cannot presently be utilized to the utmost, and to recommend by report to the IOC appropriate

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 173

steps whereby these methods or equipment should be made universally usable. This may in some
cases be accomplished by standardization or by intercalibration, or by such methods as these
experts may determine.

RESOLUTION 12

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING VESSEL

Noting the proposal for an International Oceanographic Research and Training Vessel to be
sponsored by Unesco,

Following the resolutions adopted at the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanographic Research,
held in Copenhagen in July 1960 and the General Conference of Unesco at its eleventh session in
November/December I960,

Being of the opinion that it is difficult at the present time for such a vessel to be operated directly
by an international organization, that further examination of this problem is required, and that it
may well be found that training can be more efficiently and cheaply carried out aboard national
vessels,

Considers that the present time is not suitable for carrying out the proposal;

Recommends that nations operating national oceanographic research vessels be encouraged to
accept scientists for training from other nations, without such vessels. This offer has already
been made by Brazil and by several other countries;

Recommends in addition that the member nations continue to keep in mind the proposal for one
or more international vessels which could be operated on an international or regional basis and
that the item be inserted in the agenda of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission at an
appropriate future time .

ANNEX VI

DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT

CONCERNING THE PLANNED UNESCO BUDGET FOR 1963-1964

IN THE SPHERE OF OCEANOGRAPHY

(Proposal by the USSR delegation)

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, having heard the report by the Secretariat
concerning the planned Unesco budget for 1963-1964 in the sphere of oceanography,

Recommends, within the limits of proposed expenditure for 1963-1964, that:

(a) Provision be made for an increase in assistance to the development of oceanographic research
in the countries of Africa which have acceded to independence in recent years, and in
particular Ghana;

(b) Provision be made for an increase in the volume of resources supplied to India for the crea-
tion of an oceanographic centre in Cochin;

(c) Provision be made to give the financial assistance to Ecuador for investigations in the vicinity
of the Galapagos Islands, in the conduct of which several countries are interested.

80597 O -62 -12

174 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

ANNEX VII

Professor A . D. Dobrovolsky
Moscow State University, USSR

FRITJOF NANSEN MEMORIAL

The name of Fritjof Nansen is known the world over but it seems to me that there are two
countries to the people of which he is especially dear, that is to say, Norway, of which country
he was a faithful son, and the USSR, to whom he was a true friend. Regardless of nationality, all
oceanographers of the world respect and cherish this man because he was the founder of marine
science. The first session of the IOC would undoubtedly select Nansen as its President if only he
had been alive. This thought is not as fantastic as it might appear at first glance, for only 100
years have passed since his birth. Recently I read in the newspaper that in England there was a
wedding of a man 102 years old and his bride 73 ! But it was not the fate of Nansen to live to be
100 years old and the only thing we can do now is to honour his memory by our recollections of
him.

In a short talk it is impossible to give, in adequate detail, a full account of Nansen's life.
Therefore I will draw your attention only to certain incidents. First of all, it should be noted
that Nansen, at only 20 years of age, went to sea, to the waters of Greenland, in the fishing boat
"Jason" . This fact alone is not surprising as Norway is a seafaring nation, but what is remark-
able is that Nansen went to sea as a scientist. His first scientific problem was a study of the
feeding of seals. However, already in this first expedition, he paid attention to the ice move-
ments and currents. Already he had the idea of the Greenland crossing and was thinking over the
plan of this enterprise.

To visit the central regions of the Greenland ice plateau was a thought in many people's
minds at that time, but only Nansen's attempt to cross this plateau was successful. This fact can
be accounted for primarily by his careful planning and thorough preparation of the Expedition,
which characterized all other expeditions undertaken by Nansen. Already in 1888, when he had
crossed Greenland, he was thinking of the journey to the North Pole. Even when proposing to his
future wife after his return from Greenland, he warned her that he would go to the North Pole and
in fact did so.

In 1893 his ship "Fram" sailed on a voyage which many at that time regarded as crazy.
Indeed it was considered a very complicated way of committing suicide! Really, Nansen's funda-
mental idea in that expedition was an act of defiance: instead of fighting the ice as his predecessors
had, he decided to surrender to it. Nansen knew that Siberian trees had been found on the east
coast of Greenland and that the wreckage of the American ship "Jeanette" which perished near
our New Siberian Islands had been brought to the same place (these facts were established by the
Norwegian Mohn) . Certainly, then a ship could take the same route. If one assumed that the ice
floes follow the shortest route along the great circles of the globe, then to get to the North Pole
it would be necessary to enter the ice floes near the New Siberian Islands. So Nansen did just
this.

However, for the success of the expedition, it was necessary to' have a specially designed
ship which would withstand the pressure of the ice floes. Here again, Nansen didn't follow the
straightforward idea that such a ship must be of extremely solid construction, but suggested a
very clever idea whereby the ship's hull was rounded to permit its being pushed upward by the
lateral pressure of the ice floes. This idea was successfully incorporated in the design of
"Fram" by the shipbuilder Colin Archer .

However, Nansen never actually arrived at the North Pole. The "Fram" did not drift along
a great circle, so Nansen and Johansson made a brave attempt to walk to the Pole on foot.
Eventually they were forced to turn back without reaching their goal. But this did not discourage
Nansen. From the very beginning, his purpose was a scientific study of the Arctic Ocean, not
merely an adventure for its own sake. In this purpose he succeeded. We can say with assurance

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 175

that it was Nansen who discovered for us the great depths of the Arctic Ocean. Thanks to him we
knew the oceanographical characteristics of this Ocean, the movement of its ice floes, its inter-
change with the Atlantic Ocean, etc.

Apart from its geographical and regional importance, the work of that expedition had also a
theoretical significance concerning the ice drift. Nansen established that the speed of the ice
drift was approximately l/50th of the wind speed and the direction of the drift was about 30 degrees
to the right of the wind. Several years ago these rules were supplemented by Professor Zubov
(USSR) who showed that the ice was drifting along isobars (lines of equal atmospheric pressure)
and that the speed of the drift was proportional to the pressure gradient.

The fact that the drift did not coincide with the direction of the wind forced Nansen to con-
sider that this was in effect caused by the earth's rotation (Coriolis force). He also correctly
came to the conclusion that this force should influence the development of currents. On the basis
of this suggestion the young Swedish scientist Wilfrid Ekman, to whom Nansen proposed the
mathematical solution of this problem, created an elegant theory of wind-driven currents. This
theory is still important and is being developed and generalized by present-day scientists.

The scientific results of the "Fram" expedition are published in five volumes, of which
Volume 3 - Oceanography (1902) is especially interesting. I am sure that every oceanographer of
our time will find there many interesting and fresh thoughts. As well, it is an excellent example
of clarity and logic of expression which may serve as a model to both young and old in the scienti-
fic world.

One of the questions studied by Nansen on the basis of "Fram's" observations, was the ques-
tion of water exchange between the Central Arctic Basin and the Greenland Sea, but there was not
enough data for solving this problem at the time. Therefore Nansen undertook a new journey to
the Spitzbergen region on the small schooner "Veslamo" (1913). This was, one might say, a
family affair. Aboard, together with Nansen, were his son and daughter. From this expedition
came very interesting material for clarifying the problem of water exchange and also for the study
of mixing processes (especially of winter convection and tidal currents). After this expedition,
he wrote the book "Spitzbergen Waters" which even today has not lost its interest.

Later, Nansen, together with another Norwegian scientist Helland Hansen, conducted several
expeditions in the northern part of the Atlantic on the small vessel "Armauer Hansen" . The
results of these studies, published in 1925 jointly by both scientists, are of exceptional interest.
The authors examined extensive material and showed many features pertaining to the hydrology
of this part of the World Ocean. Here, by the way, was first successfully applied the method of
T-S analysis for the characterization of water masses. In this region were also found great
internal waves with amplitudes up to 100 metres. At about the same time, Nansen became
especially interested in the possibilities of studying the Arctic from the air. He had an excellent
sense of reality and a gift for seeing into the future. He was able to see in aviation, then very
weak, a powerful means of future investigation. He was the first Chairman of the International
Aero-Arctic Society and his foresight has since been justified. Recent aircraft expeditions to the
Central Arctic Basin conducted by the U.S.A. , Canada and especially the USSR, have permitted
the collection of extremely interesting and important data. I think that the underwater Lomonosov
Ridge, extending from the New Siberian Islands to Greenland and discovered by Soviet expeditions
landed on ice floes, represents so far the greatest geographical discovery of the second half of
this century.

Another fascinating example of Nansen' s ability to look into the future, is his book "To the
Land of the Future" which he wrote after journeying across Siberia. On the ship "Correct" he
went through the Barents and Kara Seas into the Gulf of Yenisei, and then up along the river by
mainland. Now we can quite distinctly see the contours of this "land of the future": the most
powerful hydroelectric power station in Bratsk, the longest electric railroad from Moscow to
Baikal, the vast expanse of newly cultivated land, .numerous industrial centres, the new scientific
centre in Novosibirsk, etc. What was to Nansen merely a dream of the future has become for us
a reality.

176 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Nansen is also famous through the fact that he himself designed the equipment for his investi-
gations and worked out himself methods of data processing. It is enough to remind you that we
still work with the Nansen Bottle, with a Nansen Plankton Net, with Nansen's Clamp and Nansen's
Magnifying Glass for reading thermometers, etc.

Nansen suggested a very interesting device for measuring bottom currents, based on the
principle of a pendulum- weather vane and also proposed a very interesting way of calculating
currents from ice drift observations, etc.

I think that our Commission should take into account the fruitful experience of Nansen when
studying the oceans and when organizing international co-operation. If in our work we remember
about Nansen, then I think our efforts cannot but be successful.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY J77

ANNEX VIII
LIST OF MEMBER COUNTRIES AND PARTICIPANTS OF THE SESSION

A. DELEGATIONS OF MEMBER COUNTRIES
Country

1 . Argentina

Delegate

Name and Title

Captain R.H.R. BAGNATI

Head of Delegation

Chief, Naval Hydrographical Service

BUENOS AIRES

Captain de Croveta ARAGNO
Chief, Department of Oceanography
Naval Hydrographical Service
BUENOS AIRES

Australia

Dr. G.F. HUMPHREY

Chief, Division of Fisheries and Oceanography

CSIRO Marine Laboratory

CRONULLA

Belgium

Dr. Gardner DAVrES

Australian Permanent Delegate to Unesco

Professor A. CAPART
Director of the Royal Belgium Institute of
Natural Sciences

Mr. M. DELOZ

Assistant Adviser to the Administration of
Scientific Research of the Ministry of Educa-
tion and Culture

Delegate

Dr. E. LELOUP

Director of the Institute of Marine Studies

OSTEND

Captain of Frigate "Castro Moreira da Silva'
Brazilian Navy
RIO DE JANEIRO

Observer Dr. M. VANNUCCI

National Research Council
SAO PAULO

Delegate Dr. William M. CAMERON

Head of Delegation
Director of Oceanographic Research
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys
OTTAWA

Dr. H.B. HACHEY

Chief Oceanographer

Fisheries Research Board of Canada

Secretary, Canadian Committee on Oceanography

OTTA WA

178 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Country

6 . Chile

7. China

8. Cuba

Name and Title

No representative present

Delegate Dr. KEH-MING-CHAO

Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco

" Dr. Dario GUITART

Head of the Delegation

Director of the National Aquarium

HAVANA

Delegate

Dr . A . Alvarez de LOS RIOS
Cultural Attache
Cuban Embassy
PARIS

Professor Dr< H.E. STEEMAN NIELSEN

Head of the Delegation

Professor, High School of Pharmacy

COPENHAGEN

Dr. Erik BERTELSEN

Director, Danish Institute for Fisheries and

Marine Research
CHARLOTTENLUND

Dr. A.F. BRUUN
Lecturer in Oceanology
University of Copenhagen
COPENHAGEN

10. Dominican Republic

11. Ecuador

Rev. F. Robles TOLEDANO

Permanent Delegate of the Dominican Republic

Mr. Parra MURGA

First Secretary of the Delegation of the
Dominican Republic

Mr. Cristobal BONIFAZ JIJON
Ambassador of Ecuador to France

12. Finland

Mr. Fernand SUARES
Consul of Ecuador in Dunkirk

Miss Eugenie LISITZHM, Dr. Sc .

Acting Head

Finnish Oceanographic Institute

HELSINKI

13. Federal Republic of
Germany

Dr. MESECK

Head of the Delegation

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture

BONN

Dr. G. BOHNECKE

Secretary, Special Committee on Oceanic

Research
Neuer Wall 34,
HAMBURG 36

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 179

Country

13 . Federal Republic of

Germany (continued)

Name and Title

Delegate Dr. G. ZWDEBLER

President, German Hydrographic Institute
HAMBURG

Professor Dr. G. DIETRICH
Director, Oceanographic Institute of the
University of KIEL

Professor Dr. LUNDBECK
Department of Maritime Fisheries in the
Federal Research Institute for Fisheries

Dr. MOCKLINGHOFF

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture

BONN

Professor Dr. Otto von SIMSON
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
PARIS

Mr. Frenke SEIFERT
HAMBURG

14. France

Professor H. LACOMBE

Head of the Delegation

Director, Laboratory of Physical Oceanography,

Museum of Natural History
PARIS

Mr. Jean FURNESTIN
Directeur

L'Institut Scientifique et Technique des Peches
Maritimes

Vice-Admiral MONAQUE

President du Comite Central d'Oceanographie
et d' Etude des Cotes

Dr. M. PERES

Professor of the Faculty of Sciences

MARSEILLE

Dr. MONCEAUX

PARIS

15. Ghana

Delegate Dr. Walter POPLE

Lecturer of University
GHANA

Dr. N.K. PANIKKAR

Secretary, Indian National Committee on

Oceanic Research
NEW DELHI

Dr. M. MENAT
HAIFA

180 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Country
17. Israel (continued)

Name and Title

Mr. D. PELEG
Scientific Counsellor
Israeli Embassy
PARIS

18. Italy

Delegate Professor Paulo DORE

Head of Delegation
Professor of Bologna University
BOLOGNA

Professor Umberto d'ANCONA
Instituto di Zoologia e Anatomia
Comparata
PADUA

" Dr . Gaetano CANNONE

Chief, Fisheries Section
Ministry of Merchant Marine
ROME

Capt. Ernesto DEBRAZZI

Director, Italian Hydrographic Institute of

the Navy
GENOA

Professor Carlo MALDURA
Laboratorio Centrale di Idrobiologia
ROME

Professor Mario PICOTTI

Instituto Sperimentale Talscografico

TRIESTE

Observer Dr. Sergio PAROLETTI

Fisheries Section
Ministry of Merchant Marine
ROME

19. Ivory Coast

20. Japan

No representative present

Delegate Mr. Morikuni TODA

Permanent delegate to Unesco
Counsellor, Japanese Embassy
PARIS

Professor Dr. Ken SUGAWARA

Nagoya University

NAGOYA

Dr. Kazuhiko TERADA
Chief, Marine Division
Japan Meteorological Agency
TOKYO

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 181

Country
21 . Korea

Name and Title

Delegate Ambassador Sun Yup PAIK

Head of the Delegation
Embassy of Korea
PARIS

Mr. Bae Dong HWAN

Chief, Fisheries Section

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

SEOUL

21. Mexico

Delegate

Mr. Young Chan LOW
Third Secretary
Embassy of Korea
PARIS

Mr. Young Chul LEE
Expert of the Delegation

Mr. Hong Soon YONG

Student

SEOUL

Dr. Jorge CARRANZA
Director

Biological Station
VERACRUZ

23 . Mauritania

Mr. Julio Faesler CARLISE
Commercial Attache
Embassy of Mexico
LONDON

Mr. Gusseynou DIOP
Conseiller d'Ambassade
PARIS

24 . Monaco

Mr. PEDOYA
Conseiller d'Ambassade
PARIS

Mr. Arthur CROVETTO
Head of the Delegation
Ministre Plenipotentiaire
Ministere d'Etat
MONACO

Commandant Jacques- Yves COUSTEAU
Director. Oceanographic Museum
MONACO

Rene NOVELLA

General Secretary

National Commission for Unesco

MONACO

182 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Country
25. Morocco

Delegate

Name and Title

Mr. LARAKI

Director-General of the Merchant Marine

CASABLANCA

Mr. VARLET

Director of Scientific Institute of Fisheries

CASABLANCA

26. Netherlands

Professor P. GROEN

Head of the Delegation

Senior Scientific Officer

Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

DE BILT

27. Norway

Dr. H. POSTMA
Zoological Station
DEN HELDER

Professor Dr. P. KORRINGA

Director, Ryksinstituut voor Visseryonddrzock

IJMUIDEN

Professor Dr. H. MOSBY
Head of the Delegation
Geophysical Institute
University of BERGEN

Professor Dr. T. BRAARUD
Institute of Marine Biology
University of OSLO

Dr. G. ROLLEFSEN
Directorate of Fisheries
BERGEN

28. Pakistan

29 . Poland

No representative present

Dr. Stanislaw SZIMBORSKI
Director, Polska Akademia Nauk
SOPOT

30. Rumania

Dr. Arthur NEDELCU-KARASSI
Permanent Delegate of Rumania to Unesco
PARIS

31. Spain

32. Switzerland

Delegate Mr. Jose Maria ULLRICH

Secretary to Spanish Embassy
PARIS

" Professor Adolf PORTMANN

Head of the Delegation
Director, Zoological Institute at the University

of Basle
BASLE

" Mrs . MANGOLD WIRZ

Zoological Institute
BASLE

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 183

Country
33. Thailand

Name and Title

Delegate Mr. Boon IN DRA MBA RAY A

Dean of the Faculty of Fisheries
University of Agriculture
BANGKOK

Capt. Amporn PENYAPOL, R.T.
Chief of Oceanographic Division
Royal Thai Navy
BANGKOK

34. Tunisia

35. United Arab Republic

36. United Kingdom

Mr. Brahm DOUIK

Professor Hamed Abdel Fattah GOHAR

University of Cairo

CAIRO

Vice-Admiral Sir Archibald DAY
Head of the Delegation
Office of the Minister for Science
LONDON *

Dr. G.E.R. DEACON

Director, National Institute of Oceanography

WORMLEY

Dr. J.B. TAIT
Marine Laboratory
ABERDEEN

37. Uruguay

Lt. Cdr. D.F.D. SCOTT

Admiralty

LONDON

Capt. of Frigate " Munoz Basso"
Oceanographic Service
MONTEVIDEO

38. United States of America

The Hon. James H. WAKELIN Jr.

Head of the Delegation

Asst. Secretary of the Navy for Research and

Development
WASHINGTON D.C.

Rear-Admiral H. Arnold KARO

Director

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Donald L. Mc KERNAN
Department of the Interior
WASHINGTON. D.C.

Dr. Roger REVELLE
Scientific Adviser to the Secretary
Department of the Interior
WASHINGTON, D.C.

184 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Country

38. United States of America Delegate
(continued)

Name and Title

Rear-Admiral E.C. STEPHAN
Hydrographer of the Navy
Department of the Navy
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. Andrew W. ANDERSON
Regional Fishery Attache (Europe)
American Embassy
COPENHAGEN

Dr. W.M. CHAPMAN
Director, Van Camp Foundation
SAN DIEGO, California

Dr. Robert L. FISHER

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

LA JOLLA, California

Mr. Michael G. KELAKOS
First Secretary
American Embassy
PARIS

Dr. John LYMAN

National Science Foundation

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. Arthur MAXWELL
Office of Naval Research
Department of the Navy
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. Harris B. STEWART Jr.
Chief Oceanographer
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
Department of Commerce
WASHINGTON, D.C.

'Cdr. S.N. ANASTASION
Assistant to Chairman of the Delegation
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Cdr. John A. DAVIS Jr.

U.S. Navy

CHEVY CHASE, Maryland

Hon. John D. DINGLE

Chairman of the Sub- committee of Oceanography

Member of Congress

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hon. John DREWRY

Chief, Counsel of the House Merchant Marine

and Fisheries Committee
WASHINGTON, D.C.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 185

Country

United States of America
(continued)

Name and Title

Mr. Paul S. BAUER

Special Consultant

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee

United States Congress

WASHINGTON. D.C.

Rear-Admiral R. BENNETT
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator Norris COTTON
Lebanon, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator J.M. BUTLER
BALTIMORE

Miss J.S. GEMMEL

Secretary to Chairman of the Delegation

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. JohnB. HERSEY

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

WOODS HOLE, Mass.

Mr. Daniel MARKEL

Senate Committee on Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Capt. William MORAN

Aide to the Chairman of the Delegation

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. Dixie Lee RAY
National Science Foundation
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. Adrian F. RICHARDS
Office of Naval Research
London Branch
LONDON

Mr. Harold E. ROLAND Jr.
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Cdr. Walter C. SANDS
Office of Naval Research
London Branch
LONDON

Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics

Delegate Vice-Admiral V .A . TCHEKOUROV

Head of the Delegation
Head of the Hydrographic Service
LENINGRAD

-Dr. A. P. ALEXSEEV

Deputy Director, Polar Institute of Oceanography
and Fisheries

MURMANSK

186 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Country

39. Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (continued)

Name and Title

Delegate Dr. N.A. BELINSKY

Central Institute of Forecasting
Hydrometeorological Service
MOSCOW

" Professor A. D. DOBROVOLSKY

Department of Oceanography
Moscow State University
MOSCOW

" Commodore K. P. RYZHKOV

Hydrometeorological Service
MOSCOW

Dr. N.N. SYSSOEV
Acting Director,
Institute of Oceanology
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
MOSCOW

" Professor L. A. ZENKEVITCH

Chairman,

National Committee on Oceanography
Academy of Sciences of the USSR
MOSCOW

40. Viet-Nam

Mr. Ngnen Dinh HUNG

Director,

Institute of Oceanography

NWATRANG

B. OBSERVERS
Guatemala

Mr. Francisco Azurdia SOTO
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Embassy of Guatemala
PARIS

Honduras
Iceland

Mr. Carlos Roberto REINA

Mr. H.E. ANDERSEN
Ambassador of Iceland to France
PARIS

Mr. TomasA. TOMASSON
First Secretary
Embassy of Iceland
PARIS

South Africa

Mr. J. A. KING
Scientific Adviser
Embassy of South Africa
LONDON

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 187

C. REPRESENTATIVES

International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)

Professor Carlo SALVETTI
Director, Research and Laboratories
VIENNA

Professor I. HELA
Director, IAEA Laboratory
MONACO

Mr. I.C. ROBERTS

First Officer, Division of Health, Safety and

Waste Disposal
VIENNA

Mr. Roch de MAUTORT
Administrative Officer
IAEA Laboratory
MONACO

Mr. Andre FINKELSTEIN

Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO)

Dr. D.B. FINN

Director of Fisheries, FAO

ROME

Dr. M. RUIVO

Chief, Research Programme Section, FAO

ROME

World Meteorological Organization

(WMO) and
World Health Organization (WHO)

Dr. K. LANGLO

Chief, Technical Division

GENEVA

Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization (IMCO)

Mr. Roger GROSCLAUDE

Chief of External Relations and Legal Matters

LONDON

International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO)

Mr. N. DETEERE
Air Transport Officer
PARIS

International Council of Scientific
Unions (ICSU)

Dr. A.E. DECAE
Administrative Secretary
THE HAGUE

Mr. Robert G. SNIDER

Co-ordinator, International Indian Ocean

Expedition
NEW YORK

International Union of Geodesy and

Geophysics (IUGG) and
International Association of Physical

Oceanography (IAPO)

Dr. G.E.R. DEACON
WORMLEY, United Kingdom

International Union of Biological
Sciences (IUBS)

Dr. R. CURRIE
WORMLEY, United Kingdom

188 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

REPRESENTATIVES (continued)

Special Committee on Oceanographic
Research (SCOR)

Professor Dr. P. TCHERNIA
PARIS

International Hydrographic Bureau
(IHB)

Rear-Admiral Robert W. KNOX

President, International Hydrographic Bureau

MONACO

International Council for the Scientific
Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

Dr. J. FURNESTIN

Director of the Scientific and Technical

Institute of Fisheries
PARIS

Dr. Arni FRIDRIKSSON
Secretary-General of the Council
Charlottenlund Slot
CHARLOTTENLUND, Denmark

Dr. J.B. TAIT

Chairman of the Council's Hydrographical

Committee
Marine Laboratory
ABERDEEN (Scotland)

Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission

Dr. M.B. SCHAEFER
Director of Investigations
LA JOLLA. California

UNESCO

Mr. Rene MAHEU, Acting Director-General

Dr. H. RODERICK, Acting Director, Department of Natural

Sciences
Mr. C. LUSSIER, Acting Legal Adviser
Mr. R. SCOTT, Office of Legal Adviser

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMISSION

Dr. W.S. WOOSTER, Director, Office of Oceanography,

Secretary of the IOC
Dr. K.N. FEDEROV, Assistant Secretary of the IOC
Dr. Y. TAKENOUTI, Assistant Secretary of the IOC
Dr. HOWELL- RIVERO, Assistant Secretary of the IOC

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 189

Mr. Dingell. Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Chairman, Ocean Surveys
Advisory Panel.

Doctor, the committee welcomes you, and thanks you for your
courtesy in being present.

STATEMENT OF DR. HARRIS B. STEWART, JR., CHAIRMAN OF
THE OCEAN SURVEYS ADVISORY PANEL, INTERAGENCY COM-
MITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Dr. Stewart. Thank you, sir. T think in view of the lateness of
the hour, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will somewhat
abridge my prepared statement, if this is legitimate procedure.

Mr. Dingell. This would be appropriate, Doctor.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Stewart follows:)

Statement of Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Chairman of the Ocean Surveys
Advisory Panel, Interagency Committee on Oceanography

I am Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., chief oceanographer of the Coast and Geodetic
Survey of the U.S. Department of Commerce and a Deputy Assistant Director of
that Bureau. However, I am here today in neither of these capacities, but rather
as Chairman of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel of the Interagency Committee
on Oceanography. The "Surveys Panel," as we call it, is an outgrowth of the
old Task Group B, a working group of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology, the predecessor of the present ICO.
When the Federal Council determined that the subcommittee should be a per-
manent committee of the Council in early 1960, the former Task Group B became
the Ocean Survevs Advisory Panel, and our first meeting was held on June 15,
1960. At that meeting, Adin. Charles Pierce (U.S.C. &G.S.) was elected Chair-
man, and on his retirement the following year, I assumed the chairmanship of this
Panel. The present Panel membership includes representatives from 10 different
agencies: The Atomic Energy Commission, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Coast Guard, Geological Survey, Maritime Admin-
istration, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography, National
Science Foundation, Navy, and the Weather Bureau. For the record, I have
listed the various representatives:

Harris B. Stewart, Jr., U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Chairman.

Jack C. Thompson, Weather Bureau.

Capt. Max G. Ricketts, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, alternate.

Lt. Comdr. J. A. Adelman, Navy Hydrographic Office.

Comdr. R. J. Alexander, Operations, Navy, alternate.

Dr. A. E. Maxwell, Office of Naval Research.

Joseph E. King, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Howard Eckles, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, alternate.

Capt. E. V. Carlson, U.S. Coast Guard.

Lt. Comdr. R. P. Dinsmore, U.S. Coast Guard, alternate.

Dr. C. O'D. Iselin, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, observer for
the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography.

R. C. Vetter, National Academy, of Sciences Committee on Oceanography
alternate.

Vito Russo, Maritime Administration, observer.

James Trumbull, U.S. Geological Survey, observer.

Dr. D. D. Keck, National Science Foundation, observer.

Dr. John Lyman, National Science Foundation, alternate.

Dr. Irvin E. Wallen, Atomic Energy Commission, observer.

Dr. Woodrow Jacobs, National Oceanographic Data Center, observer.
You will notice as you hear from the other panel chairmen that mair of these
names are repeated on the other panels. This, I feel, is part of the strength of
the ICO panel structure. It does mean that several of us spend a good deal of
time at panel meetings and carrying out the work of these panels, but, by the
same token, it also means that there is the cross-fertilization between the panels
that is an essential to the efficient operation of the whole. This means, for
example, that those working with the ocean surveys program are also completely

80597—62 13

190 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

familiar with the research objectives of the research portion of the national
oceanographic program, know the ship scheduling plans developed through the
Ships Panel, the instrumentation developments and plans being worked on
through the Instrumentation and Facilities Panel, the manpower problems in-
volved through participation in the work of the Manpower and Training Panel,
and the international aspects of the survey program have already been discussed
in meetings of the newly formed Panel on International Programs. When a
subject overlaps the areas of two panels, they meet together. For example,,
members of the Surveys Panel and the Ships Panel met with scientists from the
private oceanographic institutions last September to go over the plans for the-
Coast and Geodetic Survey's new oceanographic survey ship; and recently a plan
developed in Hawaii for cooperative surveys to provide the data for the solution
of a specific research problem in the central Pacific was presented at a joint meeting
of the Research and the Surveys Panels.

All this is merely to point out that in addition to the feed-in of material from
the various panels to the ICO as shown in the diagram presented by Chairman
Wakelin, there is also a vigorous exchange among the panels. They are anything
but self-contained and isolated from the other panels of the ICO. I felt that
this aspect of the ICO's operations was worth pointing out.

But what of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel itself? The Panel — as do the
other panels — has a technical feed-in to the ICO during the planning stages of the
national oceanographic program for the coming fiscal year. We also have — as
have the other panels — prepared each year budget summaries of proposed agency
work in our particular field of panel responsibility. By doing this at several points
during the annual budget cycle, the ICO has been able to keep tabs on how the
budgetary support for the national oceanographic program as a whole is pro-
gressing.

Although these two Panel activities require considerable time and effort on the
part of the Panel members, they are primarily staff functions to the ICO. The
real raisons d'etre of the Surveys Panel are, I feel, (1) the development of inter-
agency survey plans on the national level, and (2) the initiation and fostering of
operational cooperation — what I like to call cooperation at the "wet-deck" level.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand these two points a bit
and, iii so doing, point out some specific examples of the accomplishments of this
Panel.

One of the first tasks of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel was to prepare a
national program for the systematic investigation of the world ocean. This was a
monumental task. To accomplish it, we appointed an ad hoc working group com-
posed of representatives of the agencies most concerned, and chaired by Capt.
C. N. G. Hendrix, at that time attached to the Navy Hydrographic Office. The
program went through many revisions. It contained, at its stage of maximum
thickness, chapters on navigational control, on the survey needs of all the various
agencies, and of the nongovernmental oceanographic community, and even pre-
sented silhouettes of the various oceanographic ships that might be involved in
such surveys. I have a copy of this volume with me today. Subsequently the
written version of the U.S. national program for oceanwide surveys was con-
siderably conden-ed, and in its present form has been transmitted to the ICO and
submitted to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography for
their comments. I will gladly leave a copy of this document with you today for
inclusion in the record.

Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has heard over the past few years a great
deal of testimony on this Nation's need for more knowledge of the seas. There
is one point, however, that I would like to reemphasize in connection with our
need for a U.S. oceanwide survey program. We must have maps of the ocean.
By this I do not mean only navigational charts — although we need these too.
I mean good base maps of the shape of the sea floor, of its gravitational and
magnetic characteristics, of the distribution of its bottom sediments, of the cur-
rents— both surface and subsurface — of the temperature and its variation as well
as that of the other physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
oceans. Before any land area can be developed and exploited, base maps are
necessarv. The same is true of the oceans; yet while, on one hand, we say that
United States must exploit the seas for our general welfare — even for our very
survival— on the other hand, we are forced to say that our maps of the sea are
not as good as were those of North America at the time of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition in 1805. This, Mr. Chairman, is indeed a singularly deplorable situa-
tion, and it is toward the remedying of this situation that the Ocean Surveys.
Panel has developed our plan for oceanwide surveys — the systematic investiga-

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 191

tion of our oceans. A man cannot sit down at an empty desk and say, "today
I will do research in oceanography." He must have the data to work with.
From these oceanwide surveys will come the basic facts, the data, on which this
country can base a strong and productive oceanographic research effort. The
oceanwide surveys will point up special areas and problems toward which the
research effort can be directed.

Toward this end, the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel has — in addition to develop-
ing the survey program — also been working on a set of general instructions for
the conduct of oceanwide surveys. I have brought with me and will leave with
you for inclusion in the record the preliminary draft of these instructions worked
up by the Panel. We have recently decided to go ahead with a full manual for
carrying out the work at sea on these surveys. This manual, when completed,
will be an interagency manual, probably published through the National Oceano-
graphic Data Center. It will be looseleaf, so that as changes in techniques are
developed the manual can be brought up to date. It will be a long task, but the
Panel feels that such a manual is essential in order that data collected by differ-
ent ships at different times will be compatible, and so that all data will be in a
form readily able to be assimilated into the National Oceanographic Data Center.
This idea of a concerted effort to learn more about the world ocean is not an
idea limited to a few members of the Federal Government. It was most recently
put forward in this country by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on
Oceanography, and the present plan of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel follows
quite closely the basic objectives set down in chapter 9 of the NASCO report.
This is neither a purely U.S. idea nor a new idea. The British Challenger Expe-
dition in 1872-76 was motivated by the same need.

On April 27, 1927, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a resolution that
"The President of the Academy be requested to appoint a Committee on Ocea-
nography from the sections of the Academy concerned to consider the share of
the United States of America in a worldwide program of oceanographic research,
and report to the Academy." In T. Wayland Vaughan's report to the Academy
of 1937 entitled "International Aspects of Oceanography," he states "Ocea-
nography is necessarily a subject of worldwide extent * * *. It is obvious that
any comprehensive systematic investigation of the oceans must in large measure
be an international enterprise." The present NASCO Committee concurred in
this. The Ocean Surveys Panel concurs. The Soviet Union also concurs, and
I have here the Russian plan for oceanwide systematic investigations. The
printed material is a translation of an information paper submitted at the Copen-
hagen meetings in July of 1960. The large chart is the modification of this plan
submitted at the Paris meetings of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com-
mission last fall. The Russian oceanographers and the U.S. oceanographers all
have the same end in mind — learning about the world ocean. I will leave these
interesting documents with your committee, Mr. Chairman, and you might wish
to insert them in the record, for they do show that the program we envisage and
on which we have started on a modest scale is one of international importance
and concern.

The Surveys Panel helped in the preparation of the position papers for the
U.S. delegation to the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission at Paris last fall. The Panel prepared the background material and
wrote the U.S. Proposal on Oceanwide Systematic Investigations. I will leave a
copy of this background material and of the proposal itself for your committee.
Currently an ad hoc working group of the Surveys Panel headed up by Mr.
Vernon Brock of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is developing the detailed
plans for the first national multiship cooperative investigation of a portion of the
world ocean to be carried out by various Government agencies. This is known
as the tropical Atlantic investigation. The plan as originally put forward had
as its purpose "To provide environmental data essential for pelagic fisheries
research and to contribute substantially to the understanding of the oceanography
of the eastern tropical Atlantic." The program was initiated to coincide with
inshore trawler surveys being supported through the former ICA and would pro-
vide offshore data on a singularly interesting portion of the Atlantic. Already
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Navy have cooperated on this pro-
gram by having BCF biologists aboard Navy vessels in the general area collecting
valuable data on the physical and biological oceanography. This program worked
very well, and BCF has just completed a set of instructions so the Navy ships
can continue this work without the necessity of having biologists aboard. Just
yesterday a planning session for this tropical Atlantic investigation was held at
the data center with representatives from all of the Government agencies con-
cerned and from several of the private oceanographic institutions. A good plan

192 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

is developing, and I feel that this particular cooperative project will produce
good results both scientifically and from the point of view of international relations.

The committee might be interested in some of the background work that the
Surveys Panel has put into this. I have here the original questionnaire sent out
to the Panel members last March in which they were asked for their agency's
views on such a cooperative effort in the tropical Atlantic. I have the May 8
Panel report on the results of this questionnaire, the minutes of the August 4
meeting of the Panel at which this was the main agenda item, and the minutes of
the Panel meeting last December 1 at which the current status of the project
was discussed. I will leave these for you, for the record, Mr. Chairman, for I be-
lieve it will be of interest to this committee to see how such a program has been
developed by the Panel. I am sorry that the minutes of yesterday's productive
meeting are not yet available.

The first real function, then, of the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel has been in
the field of developing a national program of oceanographic surveys. The
second function has been the initiation and fostering of interagency cooperation
at the "wet deck" level.

There are numerous examples since the inception of the ICO of the type of close
cooperation to which I refer. Probably the first, however, was the 1960 Ex-
plorer Expedition of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Actually aboard and carry-
ing out programs planned closely with the Coast Survey were personnel from the
Weather Bureau and the Navy Electronics Laboratory, from the Marine Physical
Laboratory and the Tuna Oceanography Research Group of the Scripps Institu-
tion of Oceanography, and from Oregon State College. In addition, programs
were planned and carried out in conjunction with the Geological Survey, Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries, National Museum of the Smithsonian, Bureau of Mines,
Public Health Service, and even the Census Bureau and the Post Office Depart-
ment. It was, indeed a cooperative expedition. I have brought with me, Mr.
Chairman and will leave for your committee the first copy of the report on this
expedition. This copy was especially collated and bound by personnel of the
Government Printing Office prior to the regular run of the report, due for delivery
to the Coast and Geodetic Survey later this week. I am pleased to present you
with this first copy. However, a program in which the Ocean Surveys Advisory
Panel played a more important role was the United States' first attempt at the
oceanwide surveys program. The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey ship Pioneer
during calendar year 1962 started the oceanwide surveys in the North Pacific.
It was indeed the beginning of what the Panel hopes will in time become a full-
scale international oceanwide survey program. The guidelines under which the
survey was planned and carried out were those of the NASCO report and of the
Surveys Panel of the ICO. It was not just a Coast Survey show. The Weather
Bureau had a meteorologist aboard carrying out part of their upper atmosphere
program and contributing immeasurably to the success of the whole venture by
his careful surface weather analyses and predictions. The Weather Bureau was
sufficiently pleased with this cooperative venture, that they are doubling the
meteorological program on the Pioneer this season. The Geological Survey had
several people aboard, both geophysicists and geologists.

The former worked closely with the geophysicists of the Coast Survey in both
the towed magnetometer program and the shipboard gravity meter program.
Their geologists carried out an extensive program of sediment studies on the
sediment cores collected by the Coast Survey. They also worked closely with
the meteorologist and ran analyses of radioisotopes in collected rainwater. The
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Laboratory at Seattle had a man aboard whose
program of plankton sampling and midwater trawls was closely integrated in
the planning of the station operations. He also worked closely with two biologists
from the University of Hawaii who were aboard carrying out studies of the
phytoplankton productivity. Their studies, in turn, depended heavily on the
water temperature and chemistry data obtained by the Coast Survey in their
oceanographic station program, and the data from these water samples were also
used by the Geological Survey scientists interested in the chemical exchange
across the water-sediment interface at the bottom.

There was also aboard from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography a radio-
chemist supported by the Atomic Energy Commission. He was collecting and
concentrating water samples for determinations of the cesium 137 concentration.
These various scientific programs were not carried out on the former not-to-
interfere basis, but were in fact planned as part of the overall program and in-
tegrated into the other projects going on aboard. The really exciting thing
about the Pioneer operation insofar as the Ocean Surveys Panel is concerned
was that it represented a start on the oceanwide surveys program. For the first

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 193

time in the long and honorable history of exploration of the world ocean, a ship
with good navigational control — in this case loran-C — and was able to carry-
out a systematic grid-type survey on the deep sea hundreds of miles from the
nearest land. The Pioneer's lines were 10 nautical miles apart, and the resultant
charts from the phase I, or underway phase, will, for the first time, provide
accurately located information for use in making a map of that part of the sea
floor. In addition, there will be available gravity anomaly maps and total field
magnetic intensity maps of the same area with the same control. The Pioneer
operation will continue this year, and the Ocean Surveys Panel has just recently
approved a change in her program to allow a more concentrated arrangement of
oceanographic station observations in one area rather than the long line of stations
run last year from Midway north to the Aleutians, east along the trench, and
south into Hawaii.

I have here for the record summary charts of the phase I and phase II operations
of the Pioneer last year that I will leave with the committee. This same spirit of
cooperation at the "wet deck" level is also evident in the operations of the Navy
Hydrographic Office and the Coast Guard. The Rehoboth of the Hydrographic
Office this past year in connection with military surveys in the Central Pacific
carried out a multifaceted operation very similar to that of the Pioneer but with
a much wider spacing of lines.

The Rehoboth's operations also included magnetometer and gravity operations,
hydrographic operations, and oceanographic station observations in addition to
cooperative studies of phytoplankton productivity with personnel from the Uni-
versity of Hawaii and special meteorological observations made for the Weather
Bureau. I would also like to leave with you, Mr. Chairman, both a summary
of this operation and a copy of the letter from the Hydrographic Office sent to
Government agencies and private institutions announcing this survey and inviting
cooperation in the work. This is exactly the type of interagency cooperation that
ilic Surveys Panel is encouraging.

The Coast Guard's operations in the Bering Sea are another good example of
this sort of cooperation. This coming year, for example, the Northwind will be
doing cooperative oceanographic work with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
as part of the International Fur Seal Patrol operations. She will be operating
in the Bering Sea, and her operations will include the making of oceanographic
profiles across the Oyashio Current. She will later be working farther north with
personnel from the Navy Electronics Laboratory. To show you how this co-
operation works, a recent letter from Dr. K. O. Emery at the University of
Southern California expressed an interest in obtaining bottom samples from the
Bering Sea in conjunction with some studies he is carrying out with a Japanese
marine geologist. Dr. Hiroshi Niino. Not only will he be able to have samples
from the Coast Guard's Northwind's operations with the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries and later with the Navy Electronics Laboratory, but also from the
Bering Sea surveys of the Coast Survey ship Surveyor doing some hydrographic
and oceanographic work south and east of the Northwind's area. In this way
another of the Survey Panel's objective — getting the most worth out of every
survey operation — is being realized.

In conclusion, there are one or two other aspects of the Panel's operations that
are worth mentioning. At the request of the Coast Guard, the Panel has through
the ICO rendered assistance to that agency in planning for their oceanographic
operations. The statutory authority of the Coast Guard has — as you know —
just recently been broadened to include oceanographic operations. The Panel
was glad of the opportunity to be of service to them in offering recommendations.
The equipping of their ocean stations vessels with the necessary gear to obtain time-
series oceanographic data was, we felt, of the highest priority and the acquisition
of these data will be of considerable use in the overall national survey program.

The Panel has recently met jointly with the newly formed NASCO Panel on
Surveys. In response to their recommendations, the Pioneer operations will be
slightly modified this year to include lines run into shallower water so the marine
geophysical data can more readily be tied in with land data, specific east-west
lines will run on their recommendation to examine a specific area where the mag-
netics people on the west coast feel a prominent anomaly may be found on the
basis of data already in hand from the ana to the east. This is mentioned merely
to point out that the Panel also works closely with the NASCO group.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for being asked
to come before your committee today to explain some of what the Ocean Surveys
Advisory Panel of the ICO has been doing. My statement has been long, and I
thank you for your patience. I shall be glad to answer any questions that you
may have relevant to the Panel's operations.

194 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Dr. Stewart. I am Chairman of the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel
of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography.

The first page and a half of my statement summarizes the history
of this particular Panel, and then lists the members.

You will notice, or you have noticed — and I am going now to the
prepared statement — that many of these names are repeated on the
other panels. This, I think, is part of the strength of this ICO panel
structure. It does mean that several of us spend a good deal of time
at panel meetings and carrying out the work of these panels, but,
by the same token, it also means that there is the cross-fertilization
between these panels which is essential to the efficient operation of
the whole. I think this is an important point to make.

The panel, as do other panels, has a technical feed in to the ICO
during the planning stages of the national oceanographic program
for the coining fiscal year. We also have, as have the other panels,
prepared each year budget summaries of the proposed agency work
in our particular field, by doing this at several points during the annual
budget cycle, the ICO has been able to keep tabs on how budgetary
support for the national program is progressing.

Although these two panel activities require considerable time and
effort on the part of panel members, they are primarily staff functions
to the ICO. The real raison d'etre of the Survey Panel is, I feel, (1)
the development of interagency survey programs and plans at the
national level, and (2) the initiation and fostering of operational
cooperation, what I like to call cooperation at the "wet deck" level.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand these
two points a bit, and in so doing, point out specific examples of the
accomplishments of this particular panel. One of the first tasks of
the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel was to prepare a national program
for the systematic investigation of the world's oceans. This was a
monumental task.

To accomplish it, we appointed an ad hoc working group composed
of representatives of the agencies most concerned and chaired by Capt.
C. N. G. Hendrix of the Hydrographic Office. At that time, I was
of the Hydrographic Office. The program went through many re-
visions, as a program such as this always does. It contained at its
stage of maximum thickness chapters on navigational control, survey
needs of all the various agencies as of the nongovernmental oceano-
graphic community. It even presented silhouettes of the various
oceanographic ships that might be involved in such surveys.

Subsequently, the written version of the U.S.

Mr. Bauer. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt?

Would you submit this for committee study, please?

Dr. Stewart. I have a copy of it here, Mr. Bauer. It is very fat.
It is only a draft from which the final one was worked. This was
merely a working paper of this group, Mr. Bauer. I will submit it,
if you wish, but I also submit that this was merely the work of an ad
hoc group, it was not approved by the panel, and the final document of
it I have here, and will indeed submit this, if this is agreeable with the
committee.

Mr. Dingell. That would be acceptable.

(The document will be found in subcommittee files.)

Dr. Stewart. This written version here that I have has been
transmitted to the ICO, and submitted to the National Academy of

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 195

Science's Committee on Oceanography for their comments, and I will
leave a copy of this with you, Mr. Chairman.

Incidentally, this program, entitled "Proposed U.S. National
Program for Oceanwide Systematic Investigations" is, I believe, a
present-day counterpart of the 1899 Akerman-Pettersson report of
the ICES that Mr. Bauer had put into the record a few days ago.

This is, in fact, a U.S. program for a comparable type operation.

Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has heard over the past few years
a great deal of testimony on this Nation's need for more knowledge
of the seas.

There is one point, however, that I would like to reemphasize in
connection with our need for U.S. oceanwide survey program. We
must have maps of the ocean. By this, I don't mean only navigational
charts, although we need these too, but I mean good maps of the shape
of the sea floor, of its gravitational and magnetic characteristics, of
the distribution of its bottom sediments, of the currents, both surface
and subsurface, of the temperature, and its variation, and so on.

Before any land area can be developed and exploited, base maps
are necessary. The same is true of the oceans, yet while on one hand,
we say that the United States must exploit the seas for our general
welfare, even for our very survival, on the other hand, we are forced
to say that our maps of the sea are not as good as were those of North
America at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1805.

This, Mr. Chairman, is indeed a singularly deplorable situation,
and it is toward the remedying of this situation that the Ocean Sur-
veys Panel has developed this plan for oceanwide surveys.

We must have the data to work with. An oceanographer cannot
sit down at an empty desk and say, "Today I will do research in
oceanography." He must have the data.

In these oceanwide surveys will come the basic facts, the data on
which this country can base a strong and productive oceanographic
research effort.

The oceanwide survey will point up special areas and problems
toward which the research effort can be directed. Toward this end,
the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel has, in addition to developing the
survey program, also been working on a set of general instructions
for the conduct of oceanwide surveys. I have brought with me and
will leave with you for inclusion in the record a preliminary draft of
these instructions as they have been developed by this particular
panel. These are instructions for carrying out these oceanwide
surveys.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, would you leave them with us for Mr.
Bauer and the committee staff to scrutinize? I know they are rather
voluminous, and although we are anxious to have a complete record,
we don't want to get it too big.

Dr. Stewart. Yes, I shall be glad to leave all of these in that
particular category, Mr. Chairman, and }tou can decide for yourselves
which you wish to include in the record.

To move along. The Panel is now currently working on a manual,
which will be an interagency manual for use in conducting oceanwide
surveys.

This idea of a concerted effort to learn more about the world ocean
is not limited to a few members of the Federal Government. It was
most recently pushed forward in this country by the NASCO report,

196 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

and the present plan of the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel follows quite
closely the basic objectives of chapter 9 of the NASCO report.

These surveys are obviously necessary. The present NASCO
concurred in the necessity for such surveys. The Ocean Survey
concurs in this, and the Soviet Union also concurs in this. I have
here, Mr. Chairman, the Russian plan for oceanwide surveys, ocean-
wide systematic investigations, which again, I will leave.

The printed material there is a translation of an information paper
submitted at the Copenhagen meetings in July of 1960. I also have
a large Russian chart, showing their plan for oceanwide surveys, which
I will also leave for the scrutiny of the committee, but the Russian
oceanograpluTs and the U.S. oceanographers all have the same end
in mind, learning; about the world ocean.

The Survey Panel, Mr. Chairman, also helped in the preparation
of position papers for the U.S. delegation to the first meeting of the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in Paris last fall. The
Panel prepared the background material and wrote the U.S. proposal
for oceanwide systematic investigation. I will leave a copy of this
background material, and of the proposal for your committee.

Currently, an ad hoc working group of the Survey's Panel headed
up by Mr. Vernon Brock of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is
developing the detailed plans for the first national multiship coopera-
tive investigation of a portion of the world ocean to be carried out by
various Government agencies and private institutions.

This is known as the tropical Atlantic investigation. The plan
as originally put forward, had as its purpose:

To provide environmental data essential for pelagic fisheries research and to
contribute substantially to the understanding of the oceanography of the eastern
tropical Atlantic.

The program was initiated to coincide with inshore trawler surveys
being supported through the former ICA, and would provide offshore
data on a singularly interesting portion of the Atlantic. Already the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Navy have cooperated on
this program by having BCF biologists aboard Navy vessels in the
general area collecting valuable data on the physical and biological
oceanography.

This program worked very well, and the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries has just completed a set of instructions so that the Navy
ships can continue this work without having to have biologists
aboard.

Mr. Bauer. Do you have a set of those instructions?

Dr. Stewart. I do not, sir.

Air. Bauer. Would you supply them?

(The following was furnished for insertion.)

Department op the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau op Commercial Fisheries,

Washington, D.C., March 18, 1962.
Hon. John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Dingell: During the course of testimony before your subcommittee
by Dr. Harris Stewart, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, on March 1, 1962,
interest was shown in the cooperation between our Bureau and the Navy.

The particular context of the interest, as we understand it, was in what we
have called the ships of opportunity program, as encouraged by the Interagency

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE OX OCEANOGRAPHY 197

Committee on Oceanography. The development of this program has been in
response to the need for more information about the ocean, and the realization
that information could be collected from many ships not now doing so, such as
operational Navy fleet units, Military Sea Transportation ships, and fishing vessels.

The program is being carried out jointly by the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office
and Biological Laboratories of our Bureau.

A feasibility study of the procurement of oceanographic data from American
tuna clippers operating in the eastern tropical Pacific is presently being carried
out by the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office and scientists of the Bureau's Biological
Laboratory at San Diego.

An outstanding example of cooperation in this program was participation by
Bureau scientists in Sol ant- Amity III , carried out by a group of five operational
Navy fleet units to west African waters, September 14 to December 18, 1961.
The Bureau is presently planning a major program of oceanography in the tropical
Atlantic, an area which is particularly lacking in oceanographic data. It was
from this special interest that Bureau scientists participated aboard vessels of
the force.

Briefly, the program aboard the vessels was:

1. Bathythermograph observation. A unique and valuable coverage was
obtained from a special series of six lines of bathythermograph stations in
the Gulf of Guinea.

2. Surface trolling for tuna in the Gulf of Guinea was carried out, from
two vessels of the force, with a catch of 19 tuna and 10 fish of other species.

3. 300 porpoises and fish schools were heard, recorded, and tracked by
sonar.

4. Bathymetry. A seamount rising 6,000 feet from the floor of the Guinea
Abyssal Plain was discovered.

5. A watch was maintained for sea birds and fish schools at the surface,
and the distribution of 735 sea birds was recorded in the Gulf of Guinea.

We have, up to this point, handled the field operations of the ships of oppor-
tunity program on a specific problem basis, because the operational requirements
of vessels with primary missions other than oceanography require us to fit our
plans in with theirs.

Insofar as the Solant and Amity III cruise was concerned, Bureau scientists
participated for the entire operation and a need to develop instructions for the
collection of oceanographic data of interest to the Bureau did not develop. How-
ever, for future cruises to areas of interest to the Bureau, it is planned to either
send Bureau scientists or such instructions as appropriate. As pointed out
earlier, it is difficult to provide a standard set of instructions since both the nature
of the cruises and the kinds of data desired are not standard ;«in fact certain kinds
of data such as those involving estimates of school sizes and fish species based on
evidence at the surface of the sea can only be reliably obtained by a trained and
experienced observer.
Sincerely yours,

H. E. Crowther,

Acting Director
(For Donald L. McKernan, Director).

Dr. Stewart. All right. Just this past Monday, a planning session
for this tropical Atlantic investigation was held at the National
Oceanographic Data Center, with representatives from all of the
Government agencies concerned, and from several of the private
oceanographic institutions. These were Woods Hole, Narragansett
Marine Laboratory, Bingham Oceanographic Laboratory of Yale,
Department of Meteorology and Oceanography of New York Uni-
versity, Chesapeake Bay Institute, the Marine Laboratory of the
University of Miami, and the Department of Oceanographv at Texas
A. & M.

These were excellent planning sessions for a cooperative investiga-
tion of the tropical Atlantic, and I will leave with you a copy of the
agenda of these meetings, also a copy of the plan for the investigation
of the tropical Atlantic.

This is being carried out and coordinated through an ad hoc panel
of our Surveys Panel.

198 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

I think we are developing a good plan for this tropical Atlantic
investigation, and I feel that this particular project will produce good
results both scientifically and from the point of view of international
relations.

I have here on the off chance that the committee might be interested
in the Panel's method of operation in setting this up, the original
questionnaire sent out to Panel members last March, in which they
were asked for their agency's views on such a cooperative effort in
the tropical Atlantic. I have the May 8 panel report on the results
of this questionnaire.

I have also the minutes of the August 1, 1961, meeting of the
Panel, at which this was the main agenda item.

I also have the minutes of the Panel meeting last December 1, at
which the current status of the project was discussed. I will leave
all of these for you, Mr. Chairman, so that you will have on hand
papers showing how this Panel actually works.

I am sorry that the minutes of Monday's meeting are not yet avail-
able. The first real function, then, of the Ocean Surveys Advisory
Panel is in the field of developing a national program of oceanographic
surveys.

The second function has been the initiation and fostering of inter-
agency cooperation at what I like to call the wet-deck level. There
were numerous examples of this since the inception of the ICO.
Probably the first, however, was the 1960 Explorer expedition of the
Coast and Geodetic Survey. Actually aboard and carrying out pro-
grams planned closely with the Coast Survey were personnel from the
Weather Bureau, the Navy Electronics Laboratory, from the Marine
Physical Laboratory, and the tuna oceanography research group of
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and from Oregon State
College.

In addition, programs were planned and carried out abroad in
conjunction with the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, the National Museum of the Smithsonian, the Bureau of
Mines, the Public Health Service, even the Census Bureau and the
Post Office Department. It was indeed a cooperative expedition.

I have brought with me, Mr. Chairman, and will leave for your
committee the first copy of the report of this particular expedition.
This copy was especially collated and bound by personnel of the
Government Printing Office prior to the regular running of the
report, due for delivery to the Coast Survey this week. I am pleased
to present you, sir, with this first copy of the report of this truly
cooperative expedition.

However, a program in which the Ocean Survey Advisory Panel
played a more important role was the United States first attempt at
ocean wide surveys. The Coast and Geodetic Survey ship the Pioneer,
during calendar year 1961, started oceanwide surveys in the Pacific.
This is the program initially proposed by the National Academy of
Sciences and pushed forward by the Interagency Committee on
Oceanography. It was indeed the beginning of what the Panel
hopes will in time become a full-scale international oceanwide survey
program .

The guidelines under which the survey was planned and carried
out were those of the NASCO report, and of the Surveys Panel of the
ICO. It was not just a Coast Survey show. The Weather Bureau

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 199

had a meteorologist aboard, carrying out a part of their upper atmo-
sphere program, and contributing immeasurable to the success of the
whole venture by his careful surface weather analysis and predictions.
The Weather Bureau was sufficiently pleased with this cooperative
venture so that they are doubling the meteorological program aboard
the Pioneer this season. The Geological Survey and the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries sent people. The University of Hawaii was
involved. These are all listed in my statement, without going into
details.

There was also aboard from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
a radioehemist, supported by the AEC. However, the really exciting
part of the Pioneer operation, insofar as the Ocean Survey Advisory
Panel was concerned, is that it represented a start on this oceanwide
survey program. For the first time, a ship with good navigational
control — in this case, loran-C — -was able to carry out a systematic
grid-type survey on the deep sea, hundreds of miles from the nearest
land.

I have, sir, and will leave again for your consideration, a copy of
the paper of Rear Adm. H. Arnold Karo, the Director of the Coast
and Geodetic Survey, his paper presented before the Institute of
Navigation meeting in San Diego last January.

This paper summarizes in considerable detail exactly what went on
in this first attempt at oceanwide surveys. I will leave this, too, for
your consideration.

The Rehoboth of the Hydrographic Office this past year, in connec-
tion with military surveys in the central Pacific, carried out also a
multifaceted operation very similar to that of the Pioneer, but with
much wider spacing of lines. The Rehoboth's operations also in-
cluded magnetometer and hydrographic operations and oceanographic
station operations, in addition to cooperative studies of phytoplankton
productivity with personnel from the University of Hawaii and special
meteorological observations made for the Weather Bureau.

I would like to leave with you, Mr. Chairman, both a summary of
this operation of the Hydrographic Office's, plus a copy of a letter
from the Hydrographic Office sent to various Government agencies
and private institutions announcing this survey in advance, and in-
viting cooperation of the other Government agencies and the private
institutions. It is exactly the type of interagency cooperation that
the Survey Panel is encouraging.

The Coast Guard's operations in the Bering Sea are another good
example of this sort of cooperation fostered by the ICO Ocean Sur-
veys Panel. This coming year, the Northwind will be doing coopera-
tive oceanographic work with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, as
part of the International Fur Seal Patrol. She will be operating in the
Bering Sea, and her operations will include the making of oceano-
graphic profiles across the Oyashio Current. She will later be work-
ing farther north with personnel from the Navy Electronics Labora-
tory. To show you how this cooperation works, a recent letter by
Dr. K. O. Emory at the University of Southern California expressed
an interest in obtaining bottom samples from the Bering Sea in con-
junction with some study he is carrying out with a Japanese marine
geologist. Not only will he be able to have samples from the North-
wind's operations, but also from the Bering Sea survey of the Coast
and Geodetic Survey ship Surveyor doing some hydrographic and

200 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE OX OCEANOGRAPHY

oceanographic work south and east of the Northwind's area. Thus in
another way in the Surveys Panel objective, getting the most out of
every operation at sea, is being realized.

In conclusion, there are one or two other aspects of the Panel's
operations that are worth mentioning. At the request of the Coast
Guard, the Panel has through the ICO rendered assistance to that
agency in planning for their oceanographic operations. The statu-
tory authority of the Coast Guard has, as jrou know, just recently been
broadened to include oceanographic operations. The Panel was
glad of the opportunity to be of service to them in offering recom-
mendations.

The equipping of their ocean station vessels, we felt, with the
necessary gear to obtain time-series oceanographic data was of the
highest priority and the acquisition of these data will be of consider-
able use in the overall national survey program.

The Panel has recently met jointly with the newly formed NASCO
Panel on Surveys. In response to then recommendations, the Pioneer
operations will be slightly modified this year to include lines run into
shallower water, so the marine geophysical data can be more readily
tied in with land data, specific east-west lines will run on their recom-
mendation to examine a specific area where the magnetics people on
the west coast feel a prominent anomaly may be found on the basis
of data already in hand.

This is merely mentioned to point out that the Panel also works
closely Avith the NASCO group, and uses their recommendations to
modify the plans of the agencies involved.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for
being asked to come before your committee today to explain some of
what the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel of the ICO has been doing.
I shall be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, on behalf of the committee, I would like to
commend you for a very fine statement, and to express the gratitude
of the committee for the very careful preparation that went into your
statement. The committee is particularly appreciative, I am sure,
of not only the extensive job you have done this morning, but also
the work that must have gone into preparation. I think that it
would not be untoward for the Chair to speak on behalf of the com-
mittee and say that we are very much impressed with the work that
your Panel has done.

Mr. Bauer?

Mr. Bauer. I have no questions.

Mr. Dingell. Mr. Drewry?

Mr. Drewry. No questions.

Mr. Dingell. I have one brief question, and that is this: Your
Panel is set up as are the other Panels, insofar as its basic authority,
is it not?

Dr. Stewart. Right; it is, sir.

Mr. Dingell. It operates principally through interchange of infor-
mation, does it not?

Dr. Stewart. No, sir; in that interchange of information line that
was injected early in Mr. Abel's testimony, I believe there was some
confusion. He was referring in talking of the interchange of infor-
mation to the Coordination Committee on Oceanography, the infor-
mal group that has no tie-in with the ICO at all.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 201

Mr. Dingell. I see.

Dr. Stewart. Our Panel, us are the other Panels, are operation
Panels of the ICO, and are far and above merely information exchange
groups, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Does your Panel actually establish broad policy as
to survey areas which should be investigated?

Dr. Stewart. Yes, sir; it does this.

Mr. Dingell. Does it have any authority to implement the broad
policy which it establishes?

Dr. Stewart. As a panel? No. However, it does accomplish
the implementation of these things, by having the members of the
ICO return to their individual agencies and crank these plans into
their agency programs.

I believe, sir, the tropical Atlantic investigation, which I covered
in my statement, is a typical example of this. This is a program
that was initiated within the ICO. The Government agencies agreed
that this needed doing, and the Government agencies themselves are
putting forth the ships and the equipment, and the manpower to do
this.

Mr. Dingell. Has your Panel, or has the ICO established a long-
range program for oceanographic survey?

Dr. Stewart. Yes, sir. This is included.

Mr. Dingell. You have put that in.

Dr. Stewart. This is included here.

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, you have done a very fine job this morning.
Thank you very much.

On behalf of the committee and the staff, thank you very much,
and if you will leave the information which you have, Mr. Bauer will
review it, and the staff will review it, and we will insert as much as we
appropriately can in the record.

Dr. Stewart. It is voluminous. I apologize, but I wanted to be
sure that the data were available to your committee, sir.

Mr. Dingell. I think that is the right course, and it is appreciated.

Dr. B. C. Dees, chairman of the training and manpower.

Mr. Abel. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Dees is unable to attend, due to
other hearing commitments. I would be glad to file his statement.

Mr. Dingell. All right, I think that would be most appreciated
by the committee, and I am sure if there are any questions, we can
refer them to Dr. Dees.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Dees follows:)

Statement by Bowen C. Dees, Chairman, Manpower and Training Panel
of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography

It is a great pleasure for me to appear before the committee to discuss the work
of the Manpower and Training Panel of the Interagency Committee on Ocean-
ography. Although this Panel is one of the more recently organized ones, I
believe you will agree that it has been given an important assignment.

OBJECTIVES

The Manpower and Training Panel of ICO has been concerned, first, with
securing a thorough understanding of th*> present and prospective situation with
respect to manpower in the field of oceanography. The Panel has reviewed the
available National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography and the
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography reports to determine their
implications for scientific manpower. It has further examined the manpower
implications in the national oceanographic program. The present supply of

202 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

oceanographers has been analyzed as has the prospective supply as indicated by
those now in training.

The Panel has reviewed the manpower situation as a prerequisite to the develop-
ment of programs which are designed to resolve those manpower problems which
impede the progress of the national program. It is expected that some programs
(over and above those already in being) will then be proposed for the consideration
of the ICO and the Federal Council on Science and Technology. Upon acceptance
by these bodies, approved programs will become a part of the national ocean-
ographic program, and will attain the same recognition by the executive depart-
ment agencies as the other segments of that program.

Stated briefly, the objectives of the Manpower and Training Panel are to
identify those problem areas in manpower which are likely to impede the national
oceanographic program and to propose programs to the ICO for the solution of
such problems.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL

Present membership of the panel includes A. R. Gordon from the Navy Hydro-
graphic Office; James W. McGary from the Office of Naval Research; Robert C.
Czapiewski and T. B. Ryan from the Coast and Geodetic Survey; J. Lockwood
Chamberlin and Ralph B. Silliman from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries;
George W. Courtney, Jr., and Irvin E. Wallen from the Atomic Energy Com-
mission; Henry H. Armsby from the Office of Education; and Bowen C. Dees
and Keith Kelson from the National Science Foundation. Gordon A. Riley and
Richard C. Vetter are members representing NASCO in order to guarantee ade-
quate liaison with that body. In addition, others are invited to participate in
the work of the panel on topics of particular concern to their respective agencies.

ACTIVITIES OF THE PANEL

In its review of the manpower situation, the panel determined that about 2,600
professional scientists and engineers were employed in oceanography in early 1962.
Included under this definition are all those with bachelor degree level or equiva-
lent training, regardless of the field of academic degree. This number includes
about 1,400 attached to universities, private laboratories, and State laboratories,
in addition to about 1,200 in Government agencies.

Although the panel has not had sufficient time to analyze the demand-supply
situation in all areas of oceanography, it appears to the panel that there is a con-
siderable range in the degree of manpower shortage situations in different special-
izations. The panel has attempted to locate critical shortage areas and has iden-
tified two which should be considered as examples rather than an exhaustive
listing.

Manpower-shortage situations of a serious character have been identified in
physical oceanography and in taxonomy. In the former field, a substantial num-
ber of unfilled positions have been found in Government agencies and a smaller
number in the universities. Furthermore, large numbers of positions in physical
oceanography have in the past been filled by persons whose academic training has
not been as directly related to their employment field as would be desirable. The
relatively small numbers of scientists with university degrees in oceanography, in
which physical oceanography is usually emphasized, have been insufficient to
staff the increasing requirements for their services.

A quite different situation obtains in taxonomy, another identified shortage
area. The number of positions available to taxonomists who have special com-
petence in marine biology has not been large, and the past lack of effective demand
has not encouraged training of additional workers in this area. A situation results
in which the ability of the universities to train for this field has been impaired. In
the face of substantial expansion in ocean surveys programs, there is the imminent
danger that necessary taxonomic work on new collections arising from the surveys
program will be long delayed. An inventory of taxonomic specialists in marine
organisms at U.S. museums and herbaria shows no specialists available for some
important groups and extremely thin coverage for others.

The panel has also estimated professional manpower requirements implicit in
the proposed national oceanographic program. On the basis of preliminary
estimates of oceanography program expenditures planned by the Federal agencies
over the next 8 years, it appears likely that requirements will be for two or three
times as many professional scientists and engineers in 1970 as at present. In
addition there will be a not insignificant number required for replacements on
account of retirement, transfer to other fields, etc. Altogether, approximately
700 new professional recruits into oceanography will be needed each year (on the

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 203

average) to staff programs now proposed. It should be emphasized again that
such estimates are based upon preliminary estimates of research programs being
proposed by the Federal agencies for the Federal program. When the 10-year
program is finally fixed and adopted, it will be possible to estimate manpower re-
quirements with greater confidence.

There is no doubt that the supply of scientists and engineers now engaged in
oceanography falls short of the numbers required to staff programs of the magni-
tude now being considered. Nor are there sufficient numbers now in graduate
training in oceanography to supply the gap, although the recent increase in
graduate enrollments is encouraging. Such numbers can only be secured through
a sharp increase in oceanography enrollments and through "conversion" of science
students from other fields; individuals entering oceanographic work from other
fields of science have of course been the principal source of marine scientists in the
past. Even with these measures contributing to the maximum, the upgrading of
those now in the field, transfers from related fields, and improved utilization of
research and training facilities will be required to meet requirements of the magni-
tude now contemplated.

The panel is now considering several recommendations directed toward im-
proving the supply situation as promptly as possible. I want particularly to
emphasize that the panel's report is still incomplete, and the recommendations
being considered are by no means fully documented. Accordingly my comments
on such recommendations should be considered highly tentative, and limited to
my own views of the panel's thinking. These recommendations are mainly di-
rected toward those Federal agencies which are responsible for the oceanography
research and training programs. Generally, these recommendations will be de-
signed to encourage each agency (a) to examine its own use of professional ocean-
ographers, (6) to determine the nature of the training required for the tasks to be
performed in oceanography, (c) to fix the numbers of personnel reqxrired by levels
of training necessary to perform such tasks, and (d) to develop training programs
(both within the Federal agencies and at outside institutions) by means of which
staff personnel may achieve higher competencies. The panel is also considering
a mechanism through which Federal agency manpower training plans in this
area may be periodically reviewed by the ICO.

Other recommendations of the panel will probably be directed toward pro-
moting greater interest in the subject of oceanography in secondary schools and
•colleges. Federal agencies will be asked to make information on oceanography
available to educational institutions which may wish to use it in connection w ith
science instruction. Plans will be recommended under which Federal agency
staff members can be made available for discussions or lectures on appropriate
oceanographic topics. Visits to Federal marine laboratories and facilities at
appropriate times by students would be encouraged. Federal agencies with
responsibilities for the support of science education will be asked to support the
educational institutions in their efforts to obtain suitable instructional materials
and provide adequate teacher training relevant to this field. Other recommenda-
tions are designed to support training by the Federal agencies in a manner con-
sistent with the manpower requirements engendered by their support of research.

Finally, the panel has been considering the impact of Federal programs on the
educational institutions and private laboratories. It believes the recommenda-
tions which it will make to the Federal agencies will be beneficial to these insti-
tutions. However, at a later date, the earlier surveys of these research and
training institutions should be brought up to date, particularly from the standpoint
of the impact of Federal agency programs.

FUTURE PLANS

The immediate future work of the panel will be devoted to the completion of
its interim report as already suggested. It will then probably want to turn its
attention to a more detailed examination of the oceanography manpower and
training situation in the non-Federal agencies. It will be particularly interested
in the influence of the Federal program on college and university research and
training activities. On a Longer range basis, the panel is looking for ways of
improving our basic information on the supply of and requirements for personnel
in this field. It is contemplated that an estimate of the supply of scientists in
oceanography will be prepared eaeh year through the cooperative efforts of the
National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel. Similar information on
requirements will be sought.

Another program of the panel deserving mention is the development of a direc-
tory of academic course offerings in oceanography. Each educational institution

204 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

offering degree credit level instruction in oceanography will be requested by the
panel to report such courses, their level, fields covered, degrees offered, etc. These
data will then be assembled into an oceanography educational directory for distri-
bution to institutions and students seeking such information. The panel is
scheduling completion of this directory by spring.

The panel is of the opinion that its efforts to provide a better understanding of
scientific manpower problems in oceanography represent only a beginning. If
this type of work is to be maximally useful, a continuing and consistent surveillance
over the manpower situation is required.

Mr. Dingell. Are there any other witnesses to be heard this
morning?

Commander Anastasion?

Commander Anastasion. Yes, sir, Air. Wakelin suggested that
you call the Chairman of the data center. He is here. If you do not
have the time, we can file his statement.

Mr. Dingell. We would appreciate it, Doctor, you would have
no objection to filing your statement, would you?

Dr. Jacobs. No, sir. I might point out that this prepared statement
was rather hurriedly prepared. I have a couple of areas where I
think the language is a little unfortunate, if I could have an oppor-
tunity to correct these?

Mr. Dingell. Doctor, in order to be perfectly fair, we intendlto
keep the record open for a substantial period, to have an opportunity
to add information as appears necessary to the departments and to
the committee, so would 10 days be sufficient for you to refine the
statement to your satisfaction?

Dr. Jacobs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dingell. Well, if you have no objection to that, then, I
would suggest you don't file it today, and then you have 10 days in
which to do it, submit it to the committee, or even briefly more than
that, if you desire.

(The following was furnished for insertion:)

Statement of Dr. Woodrow C. Jacobs, Director, National Oceanographic

Data Center

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I would first of all like to express my appreciation
for this opportunity to appear before you for the purpose of presenting the organ-
ization, accomplishments, and plans for the National Oceanographic Data Center
(NODC). It would appear quite appropriate to make such a presentation at
this time in view of the continued interest your committee has had in the center
since it was first proposed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography early
in 1960.

BACKGROUND

In the decade prior to 1960, the need for a central depository and service
agency for oceanographic data had been expressed many times by the scientific
community and by representatives of government, and, in June 1960, as a result
of this expressed need, the Federal Council for Science and Technology unan-
imously recommended that a National Oceanographic Data Center be established.
This action, itself, was based upon the specific recommendation submitted to it
by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. This action will probably be
looked upon in the historical sense, as the first formal action taken toward the
implementation of a national oceanographic program. We trust that historj7
will also show that the establishment of the center was the logical and most
practical first step to take toward augmentation of our national research and
survey effort in oceanography.

On December 23, 1960, an interagency agreement for the establishment and
operation of a National Oceanographic Data Center was signed by the Director
of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of
the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Acting Chairman of the United

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 205

States Atomic Energy Commission. This agreement defined the pro rata share
of each sponsoring agency, established an Interagency Advisory Board, and out-
lined the mission of the center. The Interagency Advisory Board was established
on the basis of one representative from each of the contributing agencies plus two
representatives appointed by the National Academy of Sciences. The current
membership of the Board is the same as it was at the time of its first meeting on
January 16, 1961. The representatives and their agencies are as follows:

Mr. Howard Eckles, Chairman, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Dr. Vincent Schultz, Atomic Energy Commission.

Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Mr. Boyd E. Olson, U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office.

Dr. Arthur E. Maxwell, Office of Naval Research.

Dr. John Lyman, National Science Foundation.

Mr. Robert Schloemer, Weather Bureau,
and the two representatives appointed by the National Academy of Sciences:

Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Dr. Donald W. Pritchard, the Johns Hopkins University.
The NODC Advisory Board is charged with the responsibility for transmitting
joint policy and providing technical guidance to the center. By its formal actions,
it reflects the majority opinion of the sponsoring agencies.

The interagency agreement further outlines in considerable detail, the functions
of the data center and the methods of operation. I will not attempt to elaborate
upon these details at this time Mr. Chairman, but with your permission, I would
like to leave with your committee a copy of the agreement to be made a part of the
record.

While the data center, itself, actually came into being in November 1960,
using temporary quarters provided by the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office at
Suitland, Md., the formal dedication ceremony, which officially inaugurated the
center at its new location within the reservation of the Naval Weapons Plant, was
held on January 16, 1961. This central metropolitan location has proved to be
exceptionally convenient to the users of the data center and to the staffs of the
sponsoring agencies.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Although the NODC has been in existence for only a year, its archives already
comprise what is probably the world's largest collection of marine environmental
data. However, we do not want to take undue credit for this circumstance;
the oceanographic data previously held by the Hydrographic Office, and ac-
cumulated by them over a period of a decade or more, still constitutes a sizable
fraction of our present holdings.

During this first year we have accessioned into our files all of the physical and
chemical data from about 200,000 oceanographic stations (each station is com-
prised of sounding measurements at 10 or more depths and includes temperature,
salinity, and other chemical data). In addition to these data, we have on hand
about 700,000 bathythermograms (BT's) which provide temperature information
at depths up to 900 feet. We are now processing BT's at the rate of 5,000 per
month. Through our normal production, and through a contract with the J. I.
Thompson Co., we have been able to reduce our original backlog of BT's (100,000)
by about 35,000. New BT records received during the year totaled 51,000.

The data files also include several millions of surface observations (sea swell,
surface temperature, current drift, etc.) which have been collected since the turn
of the century by the cooperative observers of the merchant marine. Most of
these data are available on punched cards or magnetic tapes for rapid servicing
by electronic data processing equipment.

In addition to our domestic exchanges, at the present time we exchange data
with the Hydrographic Office of Argentina, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceanographic
Groups and Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Canada, the hydro-
graphic offices of Chile and France, Navy and fisheries organizations of Great
Britain, the hydrographic departments of the Netherlands and New Zealand,
Navy of the Union of South Africa, and various government agencies in Tokyo,
and the Hydrographic Office of Japan. Most of these exchanges involve bathy-
thermograph data primarily; however, those with Canada and Japan include
physical and chemical data at the surface and depths (oceanographic station data) .

The NODC has also made an exchange with the Hydrographic Institute at
Split, Yugoslavia. The NODC has provided them with NODC publications,
and the institute has agreed to supply observational data on an "as available
basis."

S0597— 62 14

206 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

One of the most important exchange agreements instituted during the last year
was the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Under the
agreement the NODC will provide to the ICES punchcards of all of the Bulletin
Hydrographique (the official publication of the ICES) data for the years 1902 to
1956 (the latest publication) in exchange for which ICES will provide punchcards
of future data collections. This is an especially important exchange inasmuch as
the ICES embraces 16 member nations. Their files also include data submitted
to them by the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries
(ICNAF).

The International Indian Ocean Expedition (IIOE), besides affording us an
opportunity for further development of our new physical-chemical data form,
has also given us an opportunity to solidify additional international exchanges and
to obtain observations from one of the world's oceans for which there are very
few data.

This month (March) will usher in an additional phase in the activity of the
center with the establishment here of World Data Center-A for oceanography
(WDC-A), formerly housed at Texas A. & M. College. As you may recall, the
World Data Centers were originally set up to cover the data activities of the IGY,
but by international agreement these are to be continued under the IGC, the
International Geophysical Cooperation, which has replaced and extended the
IGY activities. The establishment of the World Data Center for Oceanography
here will expand the international functions of the center although it should be
pointed out that all of the international data collecting activities will not come
under the WDC-A charter. Those activities which are strictly in the national
interest will continue to be conducted solely as an NODC function — the data
acquisition being accomplished either through purchase or through the interna-
tional exchange of forms, documents, or computer inputs.

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), at its Paris meet-
ings in October 1961, recommended the establishment of national data centers
by its members. Such an action by member countries will serve to facilitate
greatly the international exchange of data by providing intermediate focal points
for the assembling of information. At the present time, we find it necessary to
contact and negotiate with an excessively large number of individual services and
research institutions in order to fulfill our requirements for foreign oceanographic
materials.

RELATIONS WITH INDUSTRY

Although most of our requests over the past year have come from scientists
engaged in research, it has become apparent that industry is looking to us for
support. It is also apparent that our relationship with industry can be reciprocal
inasmuch as they provide data to us for areas where data are sparse. Oil com-
panies, for example, provide us geological data from their offshore drilling sites.
We retain these data as proprietary information so long as the companies wish
them to remain so.

With the present involvement of industry in all phases of oceanography, the
possibilities for mutual cooperation are extensive and important.

DATA PROCESSING

The activities of the center are not limited simply to data archiving and dis-
semination, but they include also computational support where this is required.
At the present timethe center possesses some basic computer equipment but the
bulk of the work is actually performed on an IBM 7070 and related equipment
housed at the Navy Hydrographic Office.

This phase of the center's activities will be expanded as rapidly as is warranted
by the increased oceanographic research and operational effort. We are in the
process of building up our mathematical and programing staff and are currently
working on programs for the mechanization of biological and geological informa-
tion commensurate with those programs which currently exist for the computa-
tional support of physical and chemical oceanography.

PUBLICATIONS

The NODC publications at the present time consist of three series:

1. General series, which includes publications of a general or descriptive nature
(such as atlases and data tabulations).

2. The manual series, which includes observational and recording instruction
documents.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 207

3. Catalog series, which contains primary inventories of NODC holdings.

The three mosl recent publications are:

"Inventory of Worldwide HT Data."

"Inventory Oceanographic Data, North Atlantic Ocean."

"Oeeanographic Vessels of the World" — this in collaboration with the IGY
World Data Center A, ai Texas A. & M.

In addition to the series described, the center also issues a -'onthlv newsletter
which has a current distribution list of approximately 400. This was originally
intended only as a house organ for distribution to the Board and to a limited
number of those agencies specifically interested in NODC activities. However,
the occasional inclusion of items of general oceanographic interest brought such
a favorable response from reviewers that its scope has now been broadened
permanently to include an increased number of such items. This response has
simply pointed out that there has been a long-felt need for a general across-the-
board oceanographic news publication.

It has also become apparent that the NODC is a convenient outlet for oceano-
graphic publications, such as operating and instruction manuals and the like,
•and whose use cuts across agency lines. This obviates the necessity for each
agency to publish and distribute its own instruction manuals.

Additional publications will be issued under the byline of the World Data
Center A as a part of the data publication to which the United States is committed,
and which is contributed to by all participants of the IGC.

QUALITY CONTROL OF OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA

No discussion of the present and future role of NODC would be complete
w'thout some discussion of the part it plays in monitoring the quality and
adequacy of the national oceanographic data gathering effort. The data center
holds a unique position midway in the circuit between the data gathering mecha-
nisms and programs on the one hand, and the research and operational interests
which these observational programs were designed to support on the other hand.
This unique strategic position that it holds rather emphatically spells out the
role it must play in the evaluation of the accuracy and adequacy, not only of
instrumentation and observational procedures, but perhaps of the conduct of the
survey programs themselves. The present organizational structure of the data
center contains a branch whose staff is identified solely with the important area
of quality control.

RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

A number of research investigations are now underway to improve our service
to oceanographers and to improve the quality of the data. Among the more
important of these investigations is our work on the development of holding-recall
systems for biological and geological-geophysical data. These two areas in
oceanographic data processing have long been beglected and the staggering mass
of data accumulated over the past years, and currently being accumulated, makes
it exceedingly urgent that systems be devised for the processing and recall of these
data.

Thus far the NODC has made significant advances in a holding-recall system
for geological and geophysical data. We have begun a pilot project to evaluate
the keyword (UNITERM) system for indexing documents on bottom sediments
and gravity. Upon completion of the pilot program, Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr.,
chairman of our ad hoc committee for geology and geophysics, will convene his
committee to consider the feasibility of the system and submit recommendations
to the Interagency Advisory Board.

Within the past month and a half we have been fortunate to add to our staff a
Ph. D. in biology who will assist us in the development of a corollary system for
holding and recall of biological data. As with the geological-geophysical system,
the biological holding-recall system is being developed in concert with the oceano-
graphic community. The community has already provided our biologist with a
good point of departure in a report of our ad hoc committee on biological data
processing. The biological program will be coordinated closely with the geo-
logical-geophysical program so that all NODC systems will be compatible.

208 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

FUTURE OF NODC

I have very briefly described the recent activities of the center and now, perhaps,,
it is appropriate to say something about plans for the future. At the present
moment, NODC is not much more than a rather elaborate extension of the tradi-
tional data archiving activities that it inherited from the Navy Hydrographic
Office. In the past, almost the entire effort has gone into the collecting and proc-
essing of the chemical and physical oceanographic data. Nevertheless, actions
are already underway to extend the activities to include geological, bathymetric,
and biological informal ion. Eventually it is expected that most, if not all, ele-
ments of the marine environment will come under the cognizance of the center.

In cases where environmental data are not uniquely oceanographic in nature,
but are data which are frequently used in oceanographic work, it will be necessary
that NODC provide the acquisition channels for the information from another
data center or some other appropriate collection source. For example, we have
opened discussions with the meteorological center at Asheville. N.C., for the pur-
pose of exploring the means for providing the communications and facilities
required for the rapid transfer of meteorological and oceanographic data between
the two data centers. Eventually other data and information centers will be
brought into the picture.

It should be borne in mind that it takes time to develop a data center to the
point where it can satisfy the majority of the research and operational require-
ments from its own resources. This suggests that in the initial stages of develop-
ment the center must endeavor to place itself in position to utilize the resources of
others wherever these resources may be physically located. This means, in
short that we place early emphasis on the intelligence function, i.e., the prepara-
tion and maintenance of files and inventory of national and international data
and information sources and further, that we provide the mechanisms for the
rapid acquisition of these materials when the need arises.

In the long-term sense it will not be sufficient that NODC merely keep track
of information on oceanographic data in the narrow meaning of the word. We
intend to extend our responsibility to cover oceanographic information in the
broadest possible sense. Many of the users (particularly in the operational
areas) will not be oceanographically well informed and for this reason it will be
necessary that NODC be in position to give technical advice to these users along
a broad technical front. Such a service will pay for itself many times over through
the duplication of operational or research effort that is prevented by such an
activity.

Mr. Dingell. Were there any other witnesses who desired to be
heard?

Now I want to express the thanks of the committee to all who were
present today, and participated, and I also want to express the
apologies of the committee that so many people with heavy schedules
were compelled to wait upon the pleasure of the committee for so long.

The committee will stand adjourned to the call of the Chair, and
the record will remain open for 10 days or longer as the Chair and
staff directs. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to
the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

(The following: outstanding document was obtained from Prof.
Peter Dohrn, Director of the Naples Zoological Station. Its inclu-
sion in the record is for the purpose of emphasizing the approach and
recommendations to young oceanographers by one of the world's
most outstanding oceanographers, the late Prof. Fridtjof Nansen.)

College Echoes — "Adventure"

(By Fridtjof Nansen)

Rectorial address delivered at St. Andrews University, October 3, 1926

Solomon is said to have compared "the people unto the sea, and orators and
counselors to the wind, for that the sea would be calm and quiet if the winds did
not trouble it." If, in the present case, I may call you the sea, I am pretty sure
that you are troubled enough already without the help of any orators. And yet
though I have never before felt any desire to cultivate windy oratory, I do wish
I could be a tempest today to your credit.

But winds, whether strong or weak, may blow from so many quarters. I
wonder what direction you expect me to blow from? I have been wondering
how on earth you ever came to think of making me your rector. Was it because,
long ago, long before you were born, I expect, a young fellow with the same name
as mine made some journeys through the frozen North? You may have heard
something about it when you were children. Or could it be because, during some
recent years, my name has happened to be connected with several undertakings
intended to alleviate the sufferings of unfortunate fellow creatures?

I could not find out, and that was disheartening, as it might have given me my
cue for this address, the delivery of which, I understand, will be my chief duty as
your rector.

But after all, why should I worry? You will not remember what it was about
anyhow.

You must not think that we old people are as self-satisfied as we seem. We
know well enough that although you are extraordinarily nice to us, and evidently
like to see us — sometimes at any rate — still, to be quite honest, you often think
us intolerable bores with our heavy learning and good advice; at least I remember
I did when I was your age, and not without reason perhaps.

Long ago La Rochefoucauld said that "old folk like to give good precepts in
order to console themselves for no longer being able to give bad examples."

I do not know that we can altogether accept that definition, though there may
be more truth in it than we realize at first. I am sure, however, we shall all agree
with the same sage when he said that: "we never meet with any intelligent people
but those who are of the same opinion as ourselves." As a rule, it is only by sad
experience that we are enabled to verify the wisdom of opinions that differ from
ours. How much easier life would be if we could be taught by others. But the
real wisdom of life we have to discover with our own eyes.

"Experience doth take dreadfully high wages," your immortal Carlyle said,
^'but she teacheth like none other." Stick to that, young friends. Listen to
authority and age; you may learn a great deal from those who are older than
ourselves — but trust your own eyes still more, and keep them open. A truth
acquired by the use of your own eyes, though imperfect, is worth 10 truths told
you by others, for besides increasing your knowledge it has improved your capacity
to see.

But although I believe that as strongly as any of you, here I stand nonetheless,
your rector, rather an old man, I am sorry to say, and I have to deliver an im-
proving address to you who are setting sail on your voyage through life. What
shall I say?

200

210 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

Well, I presume that a rectorial address should first say a few wise words about
the ocean of life which you are to navigate. But I am afraid I can make you no
wiser in that respect, the sea is so rough now, and the mist and sand so dense
that it is difficult to see ahead.

A dangerous sea for the young to navigate, they say. I should think it would
be a remarkably interesting voyage. One act of the play is finished, a new act
is just beginning. There is ferment everywhere. Old established truths are
overthrown, it is for you to find new ones. Yes, indeed, the sea is difficult. Many
may be wrecked, perhaps, but all the more will remain to be done by everyone of
you who has got the grit to do it.

My friend Amundsen observed the other day that he was glad he was not
born later as then there would have been nothing left for him to explore except
the moon. It made one think of Martin Frobisher who, 350 years ago, ''resolved
wyth himself to go * * * and to accomplishe" the North- West Passage, "or to
bring true certificate of the truth, or else never to returne againe, knowine; this
to be the onely thing of the world that was left undone yet, whereby a notable
mind mighte be made famous and fortunate."

Now, it is not the aim and end of life to become "famous and fortunate." It
is not so easy as that. You have come here to do your part, and to do it well
wherever you are placed. And there have been many things worth doing since
Frobisher's days, and will be more than enough for you too, my friends. Let
one speak of some of them. We have heard much lately about the decline of
European civilisation; it has reached its old age, they say, and is on its way
downhill. And amongst other things they point to the lack of originality, and
to a certain alarming sterility in the productiveness of the West European brain
nowadays, perhaps especially manifesting itself in the art of our time, and in the
lack of commanding personalities. But do not allow yourselves to become
pessimists. This talk of decline is nothing new. Let us get it into true perspec-
tive. We like of course to think that mankind is constantly making progress, it
is such a nice comforting idea. But, is it right? Progress implies that we know
whither we are going, and we can only advance towards a fixed point. But such
such a point is just what is lacking. You will remember that Archimedes long
ago said, though in a different connection: "Give me a fixed point and I can lift
the earth!"

Fancy if some of the ancient leaders of thought: Buddha, Socrates, the Christ — ■
came back to us and we showed them all our marvelous inventions and our
scientific discoveries, the result of the great progress since their days. Would
they not smile indulgently at us — as we smile at our children when they show us
their favorite toys? I imagine the following dialog might have taken place
between Socrates ; ,nd Marconi:

Socrates, after having seen all the inventions would say: "This is all very
interesting, but what have you learnt about yourself?"

Marconi: "But do you not see what enormous importance it has for the whole
of human life, for business, for economic conditions and development, to be able
to convey information quickly!"

Socrates: "But how has it all helped you? Have you become a better man
by it? And if it helps somebody, perhaps others suffer."

Marconi: "But look at the broadcasting which brings beautiful music and good
lectures to thousands, and even to millions of people."

Socrates: "How then do these people get time for that which is infinitely more
important, to think for themselves."

No, we have no reason to boast outselves better than our fathers. Indeed, it
is doubtful whether there is any proof of the superiority of the so-called civilized
man over his "uncivilized" ancestors. Let us go back some 5,000 or 6,000 years
to the ancient Egyptians, living in a stone age. When we see what those people
accomplished with their implements, can we say honestly that we feel ourselves
superior to them?

And if we go back 12,000 or 15,000 years we find the Cro-Magnon people, a race
certainly in no respect inferior to any of us, with a magnificent stature, taller than
we are, 6 feet, three inches in height, and what skulls. Look at that beautiful
high arch of intelligence from their fine forehead to the neck — a cranium with one-
sixth more brain than that of the modern European. Fancy if such a man had
the education and knowledge of an undergraduate of our days, what could he not
have made out of life if placed in our midst? They would certainly have done at
least as well as any of us.

Oh, no, my friends, let us be modest. The rising trend of evolution, which
carried our ancestors from the level of the apes to that of the Cro-Magnon people,

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 211

stopped thousands of years ago, owing to the conditions of modern social life,
especially to its urbanization, which interfere with "the survival of the fittest," and
make the inferior elements of mankind the most prolific. The human race is
certainly still changing, and changing rapidly, but "it is no use galloping if you
are going in the wrong direction." These are questions of the very gravest im-
portance, to be earnestly studied by those of you who are going to be the reformers
we await so anxiously. But surely, even if the race may not have improved
physically of late, our ideas have done so. Our ethics and morality have de-
veloped far beyond the primitive stage. Yes, certainly, so far as individuals go,
though not to the extent that mai^ people think, and certainly not when the
individuals combine into groups.

Nations have hardly begun as yet to have real morality. They are little more
than collections of beasts of prey. Private human virtues such as modesty,
unselfishness, charity, love of one's neighbor, the feeling of solidarity, still strike
them only too often as ridiculous folly if they are urged to practice them in their
policies. This may sound a harsh judgment, and perhaps it is too harsh. But
let me give you an example that should have shocked much more profoundly
than it did the public conscience of mankind: I mean the proceedings of the
special Assembly of the League of Nations in March last. Now, this League is
just a great and remarkable adventure. A new ship sailing out along new tracks
with the future hopes of mankind on board. It marks, we trust, the beginning
of a new era in the world's history, attempting as it does, to introduce into the
dealings between nations, respect for those virtues I mentioned, and to create a
feeling of solidarity and establish real cooperation between them for the better-
ment of the world. We, therefore, expected much. But alas, a new spirit of
the world cannot be created in a day, and amongst the crew of that ship there
are still many sailors who have not forgotten their old habits. The nations of
the world met in Geneva in March for one single purpose, which everyone believed
to be not only desirable, but even essential to the future of Europe — the purpose
of admitting Germany to the League. Everyone imagined that the way was
clear. After the Locarno meetings, after the noble speeches breathing interna-
tional brotherhood and love, we really thought that the nations of the world had
at last turned over a new leaf. We may still hope, since the events of this Sep-
tember, that Locarno may have been the begining of something new and better.
But in March a great many of our first bright hopes were tragically dispelled.
Then we had the spectacle of one nation after another raising obstacles to the
fulfilment of our common purpose, and doing so with a disregard for decency which
we had none of us believed it would be possible for them to show. And in the
end, as you remember, we had to leave Geneva defeated and dismayed, because
some States were still determined to think solely of their own interests instead of
the world at large.

Well, in September, we repaired in part the disaster that had happened, and
we are profoundly grateful for much that was said and done, but we remember,
too, the foul, occult powers that were at work in March, and remembering that
we cannot resist the conviction that there is something rotten outside Hamlet's
state of Denmark.

Let me, however, give you another example: The Russian famine in 1921-22,
when the Volga region and the most fertile parts of Russia were ravaged by a ter-
rible drought — when something like 30 million people, or more, were starving and
dying, dying by the thousands.

A heart-rending appeal for help went out to all the world, and eventually a great
many people in this and in other countries helped, and helped generously. But
many more were busy trying to find out first who was to blame: was it drought?
Or was it the political system of the" Russian state? As if that could ameliorate
the terrible suffering or make any difference whatever to those who were dying of
starvation.

But what was worse, there was in various transatlantic countries such an
abundance of maize at that time that the farmers did not know how to get rid of
it before the new harvest, so they had to burn it as fuel in their railway engines..
At the same time the ships in Europe were idle, and laid up, for there were no
cargoes. Simultaneously there were thousands, nay millions, of unemployed.

All this while 30 million people in the Volga region — not far away and easily
reached by our ships — were allowed to starve and die, the politicians of the world
at large, except in the United States, trying to find an excuse for doing nothing, on
the pretext that it was the Russians' own fault — a result of the Bolshevik system.

Fancy, if the unemployed had been put on board the idle ships, had been sent
to South America, and had brought the maize to the Black Sea, and saved the-

212 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

stricken millions, how much suffering they could have relieved. Do you not think
the world would have been the better for it? I tell you, that there is something
rotten in the condition of the world. There is still ample scope for improvement.

The touchstone of real culture should be the feeling of solidarity and continuity.
You, your family, your class, your nation are only parts of the whole, passing
links in space and time. But of that feeling there seems to be nothing as yet be-
tween nations, and mighty little between classes. In their relations you still have
the morality of the savage, who only considers his own advantage.

How strange that we have not yet outgrown these perpetual struggles and dis-
putes between different classes of the same people, that we have no more rational
means of settling them than brute force, strikes, and lockouts — and that we use
this weapon and stop working, even while there is unemployment and privation.

I often wonder what an inhabitant of some other globe would say if he could
look down and see how we manage things upon this little planet of ours. Would
he think that there were intelligent beings on this earth? Wasn't it Bernard
Shaw who said some time ago that he did not know what the inhabitants of the
other globes were doing but he was firmly convinced that they used our earth
as a lunatic asylum. Yes, there can be no doubt that excessive nationalism as
well as class warfare are dangers, but there may be dangers on the other side too.
Let us not forget that national patriotism, as was mentioned by Lord Cecil on
the last Assembly of the League, is a necessary stimulus for the development of
the world. Beware of the tendency toward uniformity, toward creating a great
uniform human family. Desirable as it may be in some respects, I cannot help
seeing a great danger in it. Increasing urbanization, uniform education, the
rapidly improving means of transport and communication, tend to abolish dist-
ance, and to wipe out those characteristic differences between natures and cultures
which have made life interesting and beautiful, and acted as an important stimu-
lus to new thought. There are several ideals in vogue nowadays, which, if real-
ized, would lead us toward a dangerous monotony, a uniform greyness, in which
it would be difficult to develop one's own personality. All this may be difficult
to alter, but we ought not to shut our eyes to it.

It is not a very encouraging picture which your rector has drawn of the sea
you have to navigate, of the stage in which you have to act your part in life. He
has drawn it to the best of his knowledge, well aware that it is useless to paint
with many colors when you will so soon be caught in the baffling grey mists of
reality.

But you have the buoyant strength of youth, and when they tell you that
civilization is going downhill, remember it has been bad enough many times before
in history. In spite of its age, the world is young, and now let us trust that in
the spring, when a new summer is born — -

"April for all I choose

In it the old things tumble,
In it things new refresh us,

It makes a mighty rumble —
But peace is not so precious
As that his will man shows;
*******
In April the summer grows." 1

What we call development goes in great waves up and down. If you are in the
trough you have always the possibility of rising on to a crest ahead of you. The
great thing in human life is not so much where we stand as in what direction we are
moving. And, mind you, it is not the stage that makes your actions great or
small. It is for you yourselves to create your role on the stage.

"Men at some time are masters of their fates
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

If the world is out of joint it is for you to put it right, to make it a better place
to live in, each of you to the best of his ability — as I told you, there is ample scope
for improvement. The old beaten tracks do not take us to our goal.

It is time to begin prospecting in new lands.

We need you, young friends, with fresh eyes capable of seeing the simple,
elemental things — ready to try new trials, to run risks, and dare the unknown.

My distinguished predecessors, Barrie and Kipling, have spoken to you about
courage and about independence, two heaven-born qualities for this voyage of life,

1 Translated by A. K. Palmer from Bjoustierne Bjornson.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 213

and never more needed than in our day. They are worth infinitely more than
all your wireless and broadcasting, and all the rest. But a third genius is needed
to complete the group of deities — it is the spirit of adventure. It is about this
genius that I wish to say a few words to you today.

Who is she? Xo less than the spirit that urges mankind forward on the way
toward knowledge. The soul's mysterious impulse to fill the void spaces,
analogous to nature's horror vacui.

Don't you remember how as a child, when some part of the house was closed,
and vaguely suspected of being haunted, you felt fearfully frightened, and yet
pined to get there, to meet those mysterious ghosts? The risks added to the
charm, and one day when you were alone you somehow managed to get in. But
how disappointed you were when you saw no ghosts after all.

That was your awakening spirit of adventure. It is in every one of us. It is
our mysterious longing to do things, to fill life with something more than our
daily walk from home to office, and from office back home again. It is our
perpetual yearning to overcome difficulties and dangers, to see hidden things,
to penetrate into regions outside our beaten track — it is the call of the unknown —
the longing for the land of beyond — the divine force, deeply rooted in the soul of
man, which drove the first hunters out into new regions — the mainspring perhaps
of our greatest actions, winged human thought, knowing no bounds to its
freedom.

We will find in the lives of men who have done anything, of those whom we
call great men, that it is this spirit of adventure, the call of the unknown, that
has lured and urged then on along their course.

Kipling says in "Kim": "God causes men to be born * * * who have a lust
to go abroad at the risk of their lives and discover news- — today it may be of
far-off things — tomorrow of some hidden mountain— and the next day of some
nearby men who have done a foolishness against the state. These souls are
very few, and of these few, not more than 10 are of the best." But, my young
friends, though modesty is a becoming virtue, let us always believe that we are
in amongst those 10.

For most of us ordinary people, life is a voyage from harbor to harbor along a
fairly safe coast. We run no great risks. There are plenty of shoals and sunken
rocks, no doubt, but we have reliable charts and sailing directions, and, if any-
thing unforeseen should happen, we can always put in for the night at the nearest
port. On the whole a fairly comfortable, and not very exciting existence. But
what about the things worth doing, the achievements, the aims to live and die for?

No, although so many of us have to do it, coastal navigation is not really to
the liking of our race. Your ancestors and mine — the Norsemen — they did not
hug the coast. With their undaunted spirit of adventure, they hoisted their
sails for distant shores, and no fear of risks could keep them back — the call of
the unknown summoned them across the seas, and it was they who led the way
across the oceans. If it had not been for that spirit of adventure in our race,
how differently history would read today, and in my opinion the difference would
not be for the better.

Let me tell you an example of the awakening spirit of adventure in the history
of the British Empire, how it led on the one hand to disaster, but on the other
to greatness.

In the middle of the 16th century, England's power on the sea was very modest.
We hear, for instance, that in 1540 London had, with the exception of the royal
fleet, only four ships of more than 120 tons burden. Then awoke the idea that
it might be possible to find a short route to the riches of Cathay or China north
of Norway and Russia.

This seemed a promising adventure. The merchants of London, a society
named "The Mystery and Company of the Merchant Adventurers," equipped
three ships, and placed the expedition under the command of the gallant general
Sir Hugh Willoughby, on account of his tall, handsome appearance, and of his
rare qualities as a soldier.

The ships sailed in May, 1553, amid great expectations and much rejoicing.
Willoughby, with 2 ships and 62 men, had to winter on the coast of the Kola
Peninsula, and when Russian fishermen came to the place next spring, they found
two ships with only dead men on board. They had all died of scurvy. When
the two ships were subsequently sailed homeward one of them was wrecked on
the coast of Norway, and the new crew lost; the other, with 24 men on board,
disappeared, and was never heard of again.

Such was the unlucky fate of those two ships in spite of their names: Bona
Esperanza and Bona Confidentia. But the third vessel, Edward Bonaventure,
under command of the able Richard Chancellor, was separated from the two other

214 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

shipsrin a gale north of Norway, and arrived at Vardo. Here Chancellor evi-
dently heard about the route to the White Sea, and the long-established trade
between the Norwegians and Russians. This was a new adventure, and as other
ships never came he decided to try that route.

He met, however, with some Scotsmen, who do not seem to have been as enter-
prising as Scotsmen are supposed to be. They warned him earnestly against the
voyage. But he sailed all the same, "determining," as he declared, "either to
bring that to pass which was intended, or else to die the death."

They came into the White Sea and to the river Dvina. Chancellor went to
Moscow, and was there received by the Russian czar, Ivan the Terrible. Next
summer he returned in his ship to England, bearing a letter from the czar.

This voyage, and the so-called discovery of this old Norse route to Russia
through the White Sea, form an important turning point in the development of
English commerce and shipping. It meant the opening of a great new market
for English goods, a profitable trade with Russia developed quickly, and the
Muscovy Co., which received special privileges, became so rich and powerful
that it could soon support important undertakings in other parts of the world
as well. A rapid development of the English mercantile marine followed. Thus
it came about that England was soon in a position to compete with the stronger
seapowers even in other regions. This episode, in fact, marks the beginning of
Great Britain's power on the sea.

The story shows how apparently small accidents may prove decisive in the
history of a whole people. If those ships had not been separated, how differently
everything might have turned out. But still more: If it had not been for the true
spirit of adventure in that one man, Richard Chancellor, and if he had not been
of the type who grasp their opportunities, he would not have entered the White
Sea — England's important trade with Russia would not have commenced at
that time — the development of her shipping would have been very different, and
the history of the world would have proceeded along other lines.

I am convinced that the future development of the possibilities of your own
people as well as of those of mankind will depend on some of you young people
striking boldly out along new tracks. I am sure that the great events in the
world always depend on the spirit of adventure shown by certain individuals in
grasping opportunities when they occur. And so it is in the personal life of every
one of us.

Let me tell you a little about myself, not because that self is a personage of any
■great importance, or a good example, but simply because it is the only one I have,
and we must all of us judge life from the standpoint of our own experience. Now
when I look back upon my own life, it strikes me that if anything worth doing has
•ever been accomplished on that crooked course of regrettable irregularities it
was only due to a certain spirit of adventure, acting, however, in a sporadic and
imperfect way.

In his admirable address, Barrie proposed that a good subject for his successor's
rectorial address would be "the mess the Rector himself has made of life." Little
did he know how much to the point that subject would be for your present Rector.
Barrie warned you against Macconnachie, his imaginary other half, who is always
flying around on one wing, dragging him with him. And what shall we other
poor mortals say, whose Macconnachies do not write charming plays for us,
like Barrie's, but merely lead us astray? How many nasty tricks that unruly
fellow has played me. When we were young, and plodding steadily along a
fairly promising road, he would suddenly bolt up some unexpected sidetrack, and
I had to follow and try to make the best of it.

Now, do not mistake that fanciful creature for the spirit of adventure. Far
from it, he is just Master Irresponsible, an emotional, impulsive, and quarrelsome
person, who is very easily bored, and thinks it extremely dull when you go on
with the same thing for long, and who therefore is always on the lookout for some-
thing new to turn up, like a child looking round for new things to play with.

But the spirit of adventure may still save the situation and see you through,
once you have been diverted on to a new trail. For its nature is not to want
continually to change: on the contrary, it is to want to see the end of things.
And once you have embarked upon an undertaking, the spirit of adventure will
not give in, whether you sink or swim, till the work is done, and done well. Do
not think that adventure is child's play or that the heights can be won in a day.
You -wish to rise, and be great, but remember:

"The heights by great men reached and kept
Were not attained by sudden flight;
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upwards in the night."

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 215

Real greatness was never attained without patience and industry — "Genius
is an inexhaustible power of taking trouble," Carlyle said. "Patience is power,"
adds an Eastern proverb, "with time and patience the mulberry leaf becomes
satin."

Check Master Irresponsible then, and consider well before you move. Make
your preparations carefully; they can never be too careful — the road is long.
Xo guesswork, no approximations. But when you strike out then throw your
whole self into the enterprise. Set all your sails. No wavering, for "self-trust
is the first secret of success," and don't check your boat when you are tacking.

We pass many crossroads on our way through life, and the test of a man is
how he behaves at each crossroad, Some people cannot decide, they waver,
wishing to keep all ways open, and always looking back, they end by getting
nowhere. The traveler of the right mettle may consider well, but then he takes
one road, and sticks to that, and he always arrives somewhere. For him, the
only road is the road ahead of him, and there is no way back.

I* have always thought the much-praised "line of retreat" is a snare for people
who wish to reach their goal. Let me tell you one secret of such so-called suc-
cesses as there may have been in my life, and here I believe I give you really good
advice. It was to burn my boats and demolish the bridges behind me. Then
one loses no time in looking behind when one should have quite enough to do^ in
looking ahead — then there is no choice for you or your men but forward. You
have to do or die.

Let me try to tell you how it worked in my case. I have to apologize once
more for devoting so much time to myself, but I see no way of avoiding that,
if I am really to tell you something about my life. I was an undergraduate even
younger than most of you, probably, and a "ne'er do well" except for some little
sport perhaps.

According to Carlyle, the first of all problems for a man to find out is what
kind of work he is to do in this universe.

But even this little problem I had not been able to solve. I had a leaning to
science, but to which science? Physics and chemistry interested me most, but
Master Irresponsible, over whom I had no control at that time, did not like that
kind of work much. One day he suddenly took it into his head that zoology
would be better, as that promised more fun — more shooting and out-of-door
life — consequently we went in for zoology.

Then one day the irresponsible creature suddenly suggested that we should go
on a voyage to the Arctic Sea, under the pretext of studying tre animal life of the
polar regions — I was 20 then. Off we went. That was the first fatal step that
led me astray from the quiet life of science. It gave me moie Arctic sport, more
interest in various polar problems than actual zoological research. And on that
voyage we were caught and beset in the pack ice, and drifted for over 3 weeks
toward the then unknown east coast of Greenland. I saw the mountains and
glaciers, and a longing awoke in me, and vague plans revolved in my mind of
exploring the unknown interior of that mysterious land. I returned home. I
was made curator of the Zoological Museum at Bergen. The Arctic dreams
were more or less forgotten. I went in, body and soul, for zoology, and especially
for microscopical anatomy. For 6 years I lived in a microscope; it was an
entirely new world. Master Irresponsible kept me fairly quiet during 3 years,
and we were well on the way to becoming a promising young zoologist. During
that period, too, I visited this university, just 40 years ago, and met for the first
time your great zoologist, my old friend, Professor Mcintosh, who is still among
us. I wrote some works especially on the microscopical anatomy of the nervous
system. They contained some discoveries of value, I believe, but still more
important were perhaps the new problems which they raised. We were full of
ambitious plans for investigations to solve those problems. Most of those
investigations have later been made by others, but some of the problems are still
waiting to be solved, I believe.

Anyhow, we had possibilities of doing work worth doing, and of becoming a
sound man of science, and a university professor. I still feel a pang of regret
when I think of those lost opportunities.

But just then Master Irresponsible took advantage of a weak moment, and
played me one of his fatal tricks. We had just finished a treatise on the nervous
system, with the result that the author's own nervous system was overstrained,
and needed a little rest. Then he brought back the Arctic dreams, and told me
that the time had come to carry out our old plan of crossing Greenland. It
would not take long, and we could soon return to the nervous system again with
renewed vigor.

216 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

He would not have succeeded if he had not been joined by a stronger ally —
the spirit of adventure. To resist those two together was hopeless. I had to go.
Many attempts had been made to cross Greenland, the unknown interior of
which was supposed to be covered by an enormous icecap, called the Inland Ice.
But all of these attempts had been made from the inhabited west coast, and had
not succeeded. How then was my plan formed?

It was one autumn evening in Bergen (in 1883); I was sitting and listening
indifferently as the day's paper was being read by my friend the clergyman. But
suddenly my attention was roused by a telegram: Nordenskiold had come back
from his expedition toward the interior of Greenland, he had had two Lapps
with him, who had found good snow for skiing, and had covered incredible dis-
tances on ski. In that same moment it struck me that an expedition of Norwegian
ski runners, going in the opposite direction, from east to west, will cross Greenland.
The plan was ready.

So it struck me that the only sure road to success was to force a passage through
the floe belt, land on the desolate and icebound east coast of Greenland, and
thence cross through the unknown, over to the inhabited west coast. In this
way one would burn one's boats behind one, there would be no need to urge one's
men on, as the east coast would attract no one back, while in front would lie the
colonies on the west coast with the allurements and amenities of civilization.
This plan, when it was published, was declared by the so-called competent
authorities to be utterly impossible. One of them, a Dane, who had traveled
along the icebound east coast of Greenland, where I proposed to land, declared
in a public lecture that the plan "betrayed absolute ignorance of the true con-
ditions," and showed "such absolute recklessness that it was scarcely possible
to criticize it seriously." I daresay he was right in his way.

Some authorities criticized especially the unpardonable rashness of destroying
the bridges behind you. The first thought of a good general and leader was
always to secure a safe line of retreat, without which his men would not go on
with confidence. But I always thought "the line of retreat" a wretched invention,
as I told you before, and I was justified by the events. In spite of my youthful
ignorance and lack of experience, and although our preparations and equipment
were lamentably imperfect in several respects, as my companion, Captain Sver-
drup, would tell you, if he were to give you his candid opinion, the expedition was
carried out in accordance with the plan. The method worked out extremely
well, the lack of the line of retreat simplified matters, and acted as a stimulus,
making up for the defects in our preparations.

The same method was also used for our next expedition. Of course, having
once set foot on the Arctic trail, and heard the "call of the wild" of the unknown
regions, we could not return to the microscope and the histology of the nervous
system again, much as I longed to do so. I had conceived an idea that there was
a continuous drift of the ice across the unknown regions round the North Pole,
from the sea north of Bering Straits and Siberia on into the sea between Green-
land and Spitsbergen. I found more and more proofs which definitely convinced
me of the existence of such a drift.

Then it struck me that this drift of the ice could be used for transport of an
expedition across the unknown regions. It would only mean building a ship of a
special shape, sufficiently strong to resist the ice pressure, and this ship we could
push as far as possible into the pack ice on the side where it was drifting north-
ward, let her be frozen in, and then the ice would carry us across the regions which
the previous expeditions had tried in vain to reach.

It simply meant working with the forces of nature instead of against them.

Here again the same principle was applied. Once we were well started on this
expedition, there would be no line of retreat. Our hope was ahead of us, and so
the ship was called the Fram, which means forward.

When this plan was published it was severely attacked by most of the very
first authorities on polar exploration in Great Britain and in other countries.

As the prominent Arctic navigator, Admiral Sir George Nares expressed it:
It totally disregarded the adopted Arctic axioms for successfully navigating an
icy region, which were: "that it is absolutely necessary to keep close to a coast
line, and that the farther we advance from civilization the more desirable it is to
insure a reasonably safe line of retreat." He did not believe in a drift of the polar
ice as assumed by me.

That splendid Arctic explorer, Admiral Sir Leopold McClintock said that it
was impossible to build a ship strong enough to resist the ice pressure in the
winter, and he believed, as did the majority of the others, that "there was no
probability of ever seeing the Fram again when once she had given herself over
to the pitiless polar ice."

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE OX OCEANOGRAPHY 217

The ship was built. Her famous builder with the Scotch name, Colin Archer,
was a Norwegian whose lather had come from this country. The expedition was
carried out in full accordance with the plan. We had a great deal more knowledge
and more experience this time.

The drift of the ice was found to be very nearly what was expected, and the
ship was strong enough to resist even the most desperate attacks of the ice. We
went into the pack ice north of the New Siberian Islands in 1893, and the ship
came out of the ice again north of Spitsbergen 3 years later safe and sound, after
having drifted across the unknown regions.

But the spirit of adventure is always urging you on, once you begin to listen to
it. When we had drifted with the Frarn for a long time we saw that she would
drift across, and the end of the expedition would be attained. But then the
adventurous spirit found that something more could be done by two of us leaving
the ship with dogs and sledges. We could travel across the drift ice
toward the pole, and in that way explore parts of the unknown region outside
the drift route of the Fram. But in that case we could not think of returning to
the drifting ship, as we should not know where she had drifted to in the meantime.
We should have to go to Franz Josef Land and Spitsbergen, where we might find
a sealing vessel to bring us home. Again we had to break the line of retreat, and
again the method worked well.

Hjalmar Johansen went with me, and, while the Fram and the rest of the expe-
dition were left in the safe hands of Captain Sverdrup, we set off from the ship with
dogs and sledges on March 14, 1895. We expected our sledge expedition to last
3 months at most, and carried food for that period. But the ice was more difficult
than we expected.

At last we reached the north coast of a land which afterward turned out to
be Franz Josef Land, but it was so late in the season that we could not get through,
so we had to winter. Instead of the 3 months we were provisioned for, we had
to live through 15 months before we met with people. We built a stone hut, we
shot bears and walrus, and for 10 months we tasted nothing but bear meat. The
hides of the walrus we used for the roof of our hut, and the blubber for fuel. In
the following summer we quite unexpectedly met British people, the Jackson-
Harmsworth Expedition, on the south coast of Franz Josef Land, and came home
in their ship.

I tell you all this just to make you understand how things, that might seem
impossible, can be done when you have to do them, and how a life you may think
hard, is easily lived when you have a goal to work for. You may think it was hard
to live a long winter dug in, and on nothing but bear meat, but I can assure you
it was a happy time, for we had the spring and the homecoming to look forward to.

You may notice that in the case of these plans, as also on many occasions later
in life, I had the misfortune to have most of the competent authorities of the world
against me, declaring my views and my plans to be impossible. However, I had
had the advantage of living a great deal alone in my life, and had thus acquired
the habit of making up my mind without asking the opinion of others.

It has obvious advantages to stand alone, it makes you more independent in
your actions, and you are less apt to be misled by others. Ibsen has said that
man is strongest who stands most alone.

But this does not imply that every man who stands alone is strong, or that every
plan which competent people declare to be impossible should be attempted. Be-
ware of obstinacy and foolhardiness. For a strong man there is a great danger in
resistance and contradiction. It takes a superior man to allow himself to be
convinced in the heat of argument by the logic of another.

I think it was Montaigne who wondered whether the fanaticism which is
created by the unflinching defiance of the judge's violence and of the danger, has
not more than once made a man persist, even to the stake, in an opinion for which
— among friends and in freedom — he would not have singed his little finger.
There is certainly a profound truth there. It is the spirit of adventure, but the
reverse of the medal.

You have to take risks, and cannot allow yourself to be frightened by them,
when you are convinced that you are following the right course. Nothing worth
having in life is ever attained without taking risks. But they should be in reason-
able proportion to the results which you hope to attain by your enterprise, and
should not merely depend on luck, giving your ability to overcome the risks no
chance of coming into play. Even an animal may have that kind of foolhardiness,
and success can give you no real satisfaction if it depends on mere accident.

Let me tell you a case where, in my opinion, the risks should not have been taken.
It was the ill-fated expedition of the prominent Swede, Andree. He had formed
the project of crossing the unknown north polar regions in a balloon. It was in

218 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY

1896, before the days of dirigibles. He hoped to be able to steer his balloon to
some limited extent by means of a drag rope and a sail, and to be able to keep the
balloon up during the time required for the winds to carry it across the unknown
regions. He went to Spitsbergen in 1896, intending to start from there in his
balloon. He did not, however, think the meteorological conditions sufficiently
favorable for a start that summer. He therefore returned, and postponed his
start till the following year.

In the meantime we came back from our expedition in the Fram across the
unknown north Polar Sea, and our meteorological observations collected during
3 years in those regions were naturally of great interest to Andree. At his re-
quest I sent him a full extract of them when he was again on his way north to
Spitsbergen in the early summer of 1897. I also sent him a letter in which I
pointed out that, as he would see, the prevailing winds and the meteorological
conditions during the summer months would not, as a rule, be favorable to his
undertaking. And I expressed the hope that, as he had once had the courage
to return when he saw that the conditions were unfavorable, he would be able
to show the same courage again.

He wrote back from Tromso, thanked me for the documents and my kind
advice, but declared that he would not be able to show that courage a second
time.

On July 11, 1897, the noble Swede and his gallant companions started on their
flight from Spitsbergen into the unknown. They never returned.

This was certainly the noble spirit of adventure, which did not shrink back
before risks. We cannot but admire it, but we profoundly regret that those
splendid qualities could not have been used for a better purpose.

Why do I give these examples from the life of exploration and adventure?
Because all of us are explorers in life, whatever trail we follow. Because it is
the explorers with the true spirit of adventure we now need if humanity shall
really overcome the present difficulties, and find the right course across that
dangerous sea ahead of us which I mentioned at the beginning. Mind you,
you will all find your adventure, for even life itself is an adventure.

But try not to waste your time in doing things which you know can be done
equally well by others. Everyone should try to hit upon his own trail. Do not
lose your opportunities, and do not allow yourselves to be carried away by the
superficial rush and scramble which is modern life. The first great thing is to
find yourself, and for that you need solitude and contemplation — -at least
sometimes.

I tell you deliverance will not come from the rushing noisy centers of civiliza-
tion: it 'will come from the lonely places. The great reformers in history have
come from the wilderness.

My friend Knud Rasmussen told me a remarkable story about a medicine man,
a conjurer of the primitive Eskimo of the "Barren Grounds" in northern Canada.
I should like for your benefit to repeat it here. This simple savage who had
hardly ever seen a white man, said to his friend and colleague Rasmussen: "The
true wisdom is only found far from men, out in the great solitude, and can only be
attained through suffering. Privation and suffering is the only road to wisdom —
and they alone can open a man's mind for that which is hidden to others."

I think those words of a savage show more understanding of the secret of wis-
dom than you will find in a great many people in our countries. He went on to
describe how in order to become a sage, i.e., a medicine man or conjurer, a man
has to fast for 14 days in an unheated snow hut at the coldest time in the middle of
winter. Then comes another medicine man with a drink of hot water and a little
raw meat. And after that the man has to go on fasting again as long as he pos-
sibly can. He should never finish his struggle for wisdom, but most people are
satisfied too soon, and that is the reason why there is so little wisdom in the world.

This is the true spirit of adventure, which must always press on. It makes one
think of those lines by Tennyson:

"This grey spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought."

These are questions well worth thinking over, but I tell you there are many
people who do not get time even to think over what they themselves hold to be
the purpose of their lives. What is the purpose of yours? Are you, all of you,
certain you have the answer ready?

Are you out for happiness? Well, many people are. But believe me, my
friends," you need not look for it. The great thing is to do your best and to be

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY 219

independent of all other "necessities." Dear me, how perfectly unnecessary
many of those "necessities" really are:

"And if by chance of circumstance

We have to go bare-foot, sir,
We'll no! repine — a friend of mine

Has got no feet to boot, sir.
This happiness a habit is

And life is what we make it,
See! There's the trail to Sunnydale!

Up, friend! and let us take it."

Are you poor? What luck! No time lost in looking after your belongings
There is always so much trouble with property. And you cannot really be poor
on this earth. Let me tell you what your great poet Wergeland once said:

"Have I no heaven because it is full of drifting clouds,

fairylands of the sun?
Complain not under the stars of the lack of bright

spots in your life!
Ha! are they not twinkling as if they would speak

to you?
How Venus sparkles to-night! Have the heavens

also spring?
What riches for a mortal!"

My dear young friends, let me give you one warning based on long and sad
experience: Do not let your flight be clogged by all those trifles which are now
considered necessities of life. Mind you, by making your baggage train longer
you clip your wings.

Ah youth, youth, what a glorious world! Unknown realms ahead of you
hidden behind the mists of the morning. As you move on, new islands appear —
mountain summits shoot up through the clearing mists one behind another,
waiting for you to climb, dense forests unfold for you to explore, free boundless
plains for you to traverse.

You are "foot loose and heart free" to sail beyond the sunset, and to roam the
universe.

What a joyous thing to see the day dawning and know that you are bound on a
voyage to new realms. "Your soul bounds upward on beams of light to the
vault of heaven." You laugh at the risks and smile at the dangers, youth's
buoyant faith and self-trust is in command. The storm cannot reach you.
And lo! far ahead, above the mist and the scud, rises your Land of Beyond!
We all have a Land of Beyond to seek in life — what more can we ask? Our part
is to find the trail that leads to it. A long trail, a hard trail, may be — but the
call comes to us, and we have to go.

Rooted deep in the nature of everyone of us is the spirit of adventure, the call
of the wild — vibrating under all our actions, making life deeper and higher and
nobler.

"Have you known the Great White Silence?
Have you broken trail on snowshoes? Mushed your

huskies up the river.
Dared the unknown, led the way, and clutched the

prize?
Have you suffered, starved, and triumphed,

grovelled down, yet grasped at glory,
Grown bigger in the bigness of the whole?
'Done' things just fordoing, letting babblers

tell the story ....
Have you seen ....
The simple things, the true things, the silent men

who do things —
Then listen to the Wild — it's calling you.
Let us probe the silent places, let us seek what

luck betide us,
Let us journey to a lonely land I know.
There's a whisper on the night wind, there's a star

agleam to guide us,
And the Wild is calling, calling ... let us go."

o