Soviet Oceanography Today

Reams have been written in the last five years on all phases of oceanography— research, fisheries, minerals, military applications. It has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that the future of our nation, and indeed of the entire human race, lies in the sea. We have only to turn to it to find food, recreation, and an invincible national defense. As man looked up at the stars, he was also exhorted to look down into the unexplored, unexploited parts of his own planet. Most of these promises are perfectly reasonable, though perhaps overly optimistic about the speed at which potentiality can be transformed into reality.

Concurrently with selling oceanography as a boon to mankind, it was also driven home that the United States was laggard. We were always behind—behind the pace of other sciences, behind our industrial and military needs, behind our space program. Most consistently, however, we have been behind the Russians. Catchwords such as the “wet war” and “the ocean gap” were coined to dramatize this shortcoming. Questions were asked in government agencies and congressional committees; the answers given produced, if not a flood, at least continuing gentle showers of gold into inner space.

How realistic were these answers? How much could we honestly claim to know about science in this rival nation, with an enviably efficient security system? Do the Soviets consider the oceans of prime importance? If so, what are they doing about it? Until recently, no definitive answers could be given. Relatively few marine scientists from this country had visited the Soviet Union, and those few had been stringently limited both in time and space. They were usually specialists, visiting a small group of their opposite numbers, and not primarily concerned with the over-all state of oceanography. Fearful of the unknown, we could only suspect the worst.

An opportunity for a badly-needed overview arose early in 1964 when the State Department, as part of its general program of exchanges in scientific, technical, educational, cultural, and other fields, began working toward an exchange of oceanographic delegations with the Soviet Union. Arrangements were made for the American delegation to visit first; after a number of delays, it departed on 12 September 1964, and spent a full month looking over Soviet facilities. The team was drawn from a variety of agencies: the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Smithsonian Institution, Navy, Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Weather Bureau, and the University of Washington. The technical competence of the delegates was equally well spread, with experts from most of the major marine sciences.

Quite a comprehensive tour had been negotiated. At the end of the trip, one of our hosts estimated that the delegation had seen 80 per cent of Soviet oceanography. While this figure is probably too high, at least a far better look was taken than ever before. There were obvious omissions; the tour, for example, was limited to the western part of the Soviet Union, and did not include the Pacific coast area. No military installations, of course, or other sensitive activities were on the itinerary, since the purpose of the visit was entirely scientific. Even with these constraints, considerable ground was covered. We visited the:

• Institute of Oceanology, Moscow

• Field Branch of the Institute of Oceanology, Gelendzhik

• Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Moscow

• Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Leningrad

• Marine Hydrophysical Institute, Sevastopol

• Institute of Biology, Sevastopol

• Research Ship Lomonosov, Yalta

• Hydrometeorological Observatory, Yalta

• Institute for Geophysical Prospecting Research, Moscow

• Marine Branch of the Institute for Geophysical Prospecting Research, Gelendzhik

• Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow

• State Oceanographic Institute, Moscow

• Polar Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Murmansk

• World Data Center “B,” Moscow

• Moscow State University, Oceanographic Department, Moscow

The Soviet capability for research, surveys, and applications is split among several separate, more or less independent agencies as shown on the chart. In most cases, this capability is an organic part of the capabilities of a larger agency, which it supports, such as fisheries, the hydrometeorological service, or defense, and is responsive primarily to the needs of that organization. How well the Soviets are doing their job is difficult to assess, but since very strict direction and correction can be exercised if desired, it can be assumed that their performance is generally adequate.

To co-ordinate these diverse activities, two committees exist. One is the Co-ordinating Committee for Oceanography, under the Earth Sciences Department of the National Academy of Sciences. This group co-ordinates principally basic research work, in the universities and institutions. The Committee is composed of the Directors of the major institutes and universities; the Chairman is now Dr. Zenkevich, head of the Department of Biology at Moscow State University. He has held the committee chairmanship since 1951.

At a higher level is the Interagency Committee for Oceanography, under the State Committee for the Co-ordination of Scientific Research. This group is composed of members selected for their personal scientific distinction, and membership varies somewhat. The Interagency Committee in theory coordinates only applied research, but, in fact, it seems to be quite wide-ranging, and oversees not only the government agencies but also the field of the Academy Committee.

In each case, these committees seem to be more powerful than their U. S. counterparts, our National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography and the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. This is doubtless due to the fact that the parent Soviet organizations are themselves more powerful than their U. S. equivalents. In spite of this potential or actual power, it is by no means evident that Soviet oceanography is better co-ordinated than that in the United States.

In summary, the organization and administration of Soviet oceanography does not appear to be fundamentally different from that of the United States. The apparent directness and simplicity of the system begins to fade as the structure is closely examined and the outlines of a complex bureaucracy begin to appear. The tight control, which can certainly be exercised on occasion, may well be offset by their practice of “command by committee,” with all its well-known faults. The administrative effectiveness of their organization can only be measured over a period of years, by how well they encourage imaginative lines of research, eliminate duplication, and by judging how responsive they are to specific needs in various applications.

While it is impossible to go into the details of all these facilities, a brief look at some of the more important ones can lay the ground work for an analysis of their effort, and comparison of it with that of the United States. First, a pair of basic research laboratories, then two typical applied research facilities for contrast.

At the top of any list of Soviet oceanographic activities is the Institute of Oceanology. Under the direction of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, it is undoubtedly the heart of general oceanographic research. Under the direction of Dr. V. G. Kort, it has over 400 personnel, of which more than a hundred are of graduate level or higher. Divided among three locations in the Moscow area, the facilities of the Institute leave much to be desired. The headquarters, along with the biological, meteorological, and physical groups, are located in the southeastern suburbs in an ill- suited, 18th century country palace; the geological, chemical and instrumentation divisions are housed in equally poor quarters in the city proper.

The Institute has been most active in the physical and geological fields. While there is a large biological group, it seems to have been overshadowed by the activities of other laboratories. The marine technology division has done substantial instrument development to support the other departments. Instrumented buoys for long-term recording of temperature and current have been quite successful. An advanced package for continuous sampling of temperature, salinity, sound velocity, and depth, designed for automatic digitized recording while being lowered, is being tested now.

To carry out its program, the Institute has three branches: Gelendzhik for Black Sea and Mediterranean studies, Leningrad for Atlantic work, and Vladivostok for Pacific cruises. The Vityaz, a 5,700-ton converted cargo- transport, carrying 65 crew and 70 scientists, is available full-time for the research work of the Institute. Most recently, she has been operating in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. There are also five smaller vessels for more limited projects; the Vavilov, assigned to the Gelendzhik branch, which is a 450-ton converted trawler carrying a crew of 20 and six scientists, is typical of this class. Researchers of the Institute also participate frequently on cruises made by ships of other laboratories, such as the Lomonosov and Ob.

Another laboratory primarily engaged in basic research is the Marine Hydrophysics Institute at Sevastopol, under the administration of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. According to one story, it was located near Moscow until a few years ago, when Premier Khrushchev noted that there were five oceanographic institutes in Moscow, and asked sarcastically if there were also five seas in town. The oceanographic community clearly saw the handwriting on the bulkhead, and the Marine Hydrophysics Institute volunteered to resettle in Sevastopol. It would seem that the change was advantageous; it is now in a beautiful section of the country, with a fine climate, good quarters, direct access to the sea, and close association with a major naval establishment and other research institutes.

The Institute has approximately 250 personnel, and, although no breakdown was available, it would appear that a high percentage are of graduate level. The Institute is concerned almost exclusively with physical phenomena; special emphasis is laid on the air-water and water-earth interfaces. A little chemistry in support of the basic effort is carried out; geology is left to the Ukrainian Academy’s Institute of Geology, and biology to the large South Seas Biological Institute which is also located in Sevastopol. Much research was being done on currents, turbulence, and interface energy exchange, and the instrumentation developed to carry out this work is some of the most advanced seen during the entire tour.

The Institute has two ships of less than 100 tons for work in the Black Sea, but its showpiece is the Lomonosov. This 6,000-ton ship, built for oceanographic research, carries a crew of 65, plus 70 scientists. Although crowded, she provides the capability for a complex program. With 16 laboratories, eight winches, and 70 researchers, however, it is easy to foresee some organized confusion. The Lomonosov recently has been participating in international co-operative surveys of the tropical Atlantic, and has apparently carried out some excellent research.

Whereas the two foregoing groups are concerned with basic research, the Soviet effort in support of fisheries is almost entirely applied. The central organization in Moscow, the All-Union Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, is under the direction of the State Committee for Industrial Fisheries. It is dedicated to improving marine fisheries, and, to all appearances, is doing a very good job of it. It corresponds somewhat to our own Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, but seems to have much more direct influence over the fishing fleet. The headquarters in Moscow studies common problems, and exercises scientific guidance over dozens of regional institutes and specialized laboratories. Of most general importance are the Polar Branch in Murmansk, responsible for the Arctic and North Atlantic; the Atlantic Branch at Kaliningrad, covering the Atlantic south of Newfoundland; Vladivostok, supporting the Pacific fisheries; and Kerch, for the Azov, Black, Mediterranean, and Indian Oceans.

As might be expected, the central office and the branches are heavily slanted toward biological problems, and get involved in other disciplines only as they affect fisheries. Chemistry is studied mainly for a knowledge of the salinity, oxygen, and nutrients which bear directly on the biological population; physical oceanography is largely limited to current, turbulence, and temperature studies which are of practical importance. Great emphasis is laid on the prediction of these environmental factors, so that fishing can be carried on effectively and efficiently. Geological studies are limited to the determination of bathymetry and bottom sediment characteristics which affect the global distribution of fish.

To carry out this work, the fisheries institutes have, by their own claim, 60 research ships, most of which are converted trawlers. The Sevastopol, now operating in the north Atlantic, is representative of the larger ones; she is of 2,800 tons, with a crew of 66, and carries 26 scientists. The Pervenets, working for the Vladivostok Fisheries Institute, is typical of the smaller class; she is of 440 tons, and carries a crew of 23 with 13 scientists. A new class of research ship is now being built for fisheries research; the first, Akademik Klepovich, is now shaking down, and the second, Constantin Vedugin, is nearing completion. They are of 4,000 tons, each with a crew of 70 and 40 scientists. In addition to oceanographic research, these ships will conduct research on fishing gear, and will experiment with new methods of processing of fisheries products.

The Soviet researchers have considerable experience in subsurface operations, using the Severyanka, a fleet submarine converted to fisheries research. She is fitted to take limited oceanographic observations, such as temperature and water samples, but has no capability for geological work. Floodlights, portholes, and closed-circuit TV are used for observations of the behavior of undersea life and of the operation of fishing gear. Reports indicate, however, that she has not been an unqualified success. Besides being large, difficult to maneuver, costly to operate, and of limited capabilities, she is such an intrusion into the environment that fish behavior studies are of doubtful validity.

In addition to the Severyanka, there are four tethered submersibles of the diving-bell type, distributed among the fisheries institutions. These can be lowered with an observer inside to as deep as 600 meters, and have proved effective in underwater studies. A new type of small, two-man submersible is now under construction. Designed to be operated to 2,000 meters, it will have a speed of 1 \ knots, and 24-hour endurance with battery power.

The fisheries research institutes have the largest single group of marine scientists in the Soviet Union. There are probably over 2,000 personnel involved, including marine biologists, oceanographers, and fisheries experts, of whom perhaps 500 are scientists. They seem to have thoroughly sold their program; each major fishing group has an oceanographic ship, and the advice of marine scientists is accepted by the fisherman. In addition to this on-the-spot help, area studies are prepared for the fisherman. These brochures contain charts, oceanographic and meteorological data, analyses of past fish catches, and other information needed for efficient planning and operations. While the effectiveness of this support can be debated, the fact remains that fisheries oceanography occupies a secure position. It is noteworthy that in spite of the support of fisheries, fish in Russia are neither plentiful, cheap, nor particularly good.

Another agency concerned with the practical applications of marine sciences is the Hydrometeorological Service. Two components of this large and widespread organization are of interest: the State Oceanographic Institute, and the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute. The State Oceanographic Institute (which is entirely distinct from the Institute of Oceanology of the Academy of Sciences) is largely involved in engineering applications, especially in coastal areas. It has about 300 personnel, of which about a third are classed as scientists, divided between the central office in Moscow and a branch in Leningrad. In addition, it exercises technical control over a coastal network of stations which take routine oceanographic and meteorological observations. Another 200 people, mainly technicians, operate this network, and provide a tremendous mass of coastal data. To carry out their work, they have two large ships, the Voyekov and Shokalskiy, 3,600- ton converted fish-factory ships which carry six to eight scientists and are now operating in the western Pacific. In addition, the Institute has about 20 converted trawlers of approximately 500 tons, and some 100 boats of less than 100 tons, which are used principally for coastal studies.

Most of the work of this institution is in the physical and geological fields, with a minor effort in chemistry. A main task is that of providing consulting services to other groups; the Institute makes a large input, for example, to the fishermen’s handbooks. Another large section is devoted to coastal engineering, such as the design of harbor and offshore structures, and the prevention of flooding in estuarine areas. The personnel feel that they have just begun to scratch the surface in engineering applications of oceanography, and they predict a continued expansion of their organization.

The Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute at Leningrad is an anomaly in the organization, since it is allocated a geographic area, rather than a scientific field, to study. For some years it was under the Northern Sea Route Administration, but has recently shifted to the Hydrometeorological Service. It has about 250 personnel, including those in the branch laboratory in Moscow, and two full-time ships, the Ob and Lena. These sister-ships are converted cargo-icebreakers of 12,600 tons, capable of extensive long-range operations; they have been used effectively in support of Soviet Antarctic operations in recent years. A large Atlas of 500 sheets is now being prepared, compiling the results of their Antarctic studies. Icebreakers and other vessels are used as oceanographic ships of opportunity as the occasion demands.

The mainstay of the Arctic Institute, in addition to the fielding of general expeditions, has been polar ice and meteorology, which got its foothold when the Northern Sea Route Administration began to open up the Arctic coast of Russia to shipping. The Arctic Institute gave advice, assisted in ice navigation and seamanship, and provided forecasts of ice conditions along the route, and after years of experience, it is probably the equal of any group in the world in this field. The Institute has the distinction of having the only computer seen by the delegation, a Ural-2 vacuum- tube model that is used for weather and ice predictions.

With this sort of information available about Soviet programs in oceanography, it is possible to make at least an educated guess at the size and content of their total program. Setting aside the question of content for the moment, let us take a look at some factors which usually can be used as indices of size: money, men, and ships.

The funding pattern in the Soviet Union is probably of less than no help, due to a basically different approach to financial matters. None of the Institute Directors could—or would—discuss their budgets. Individual salaries are low by our standards, but this is offset in some part by the fact that there are no taxes, and that certain fixed expenses, such as housing, medical care, and vacations, are provided free or at very low cost. Also, the cost of equipment and instruments, made in an equipment production facility at Leningrad, are ridiculously low; a reversing thermometer, for example, which costs $80.00 in the United States, can be purchased for $17.00 in the Soviet Union. Funding, obviously, is not a valid criterion.

A much better indicator is personnel, and Table I shows the general distribution of oceanographic manpower in Russia. These figures are based primarily on statements by heads of institutions, filled out with a few estimates and extrapolations where necessary. It should be realized that the figures given include not only oceanographers in the strict sense, but also a substantial, but indeterminate, number of workers in closely related fields, such as geophysicists, fisheries researchers, and engineers. Verification of the total figure for scientists came independently from the Chairman of the Department of Oceanography at Moscow State University, who estimated that there were approximately 1,500 oceanographers in the country.

To support the maintenance needs of this group, and provide for expansion, the universities and institutes of the Soviet Union graduate approximately 50 oceanographers annually. About half of these are from the Hydrometeorological Institute in Leningrad, which concentrates principally on engineering; about ten are from Moscow State University, five or six from Vladivostok State University, and the remainder from other universities. This input is felt to be inadequate, and it is necessary to draw on other disciplines such as geology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics, to fill the gaps.

Students at Moscow State University are given a five-year course of 3,500 hours of lecture and laboratory work (including 200 hours of political indoctrination). In addition, extensive practical training periods on board ship or at a shore laboratory are required during the third and fourth years, and substantial special study and preparation of a thesis during the final year. Following graduation, the student is permitted to indicate a preference for type of job and geographical location, and this preference is granted if it fits in with the national needs; if not, he is assigned where needed for a period of three to five years.

The number and assignment of ships is also a good indicator of the activity within an oceanographic program. An analysis of Soviet ship assignments is shown in Table II.

Some caution must be used in dealing with these figures, however, since it is often difficult to define what qualifies as an oceanographic ship. In addition to those specifically assigned full-time to valid oceanographic programs, there is a large gray fleet which includes those doing related work, such as geophysics; those doing applied work, such as fisheries research; and those contributing as ships of opportunity, such as instrumented trawlers, icebreakers, and cargo ships. In any case, there is certainly a large group of ships working in support of oceanography and the closely related sciences. One striking fact is that the majority are conversions, principally from trawlers and cargo ships; in this respect, the oceanographic fleets of the United States and the Soviet Union are similar.

From both the ship figures and personnel summary, one conclusion stands out: The bulk of the resources are allocated to applied research, and basic science runs a poor second. Eighty-five of the ships are assigned to activities doing readily identifiable applied research and engineering (State Oceanographic Institute, Fisheries Research Institutes, and Geophysical Exploration Institute). The remaining 14 ships are divided among other activities doing, presumably, basic research. The same situation obtains in manpower; of the 1,449 scientists available, over 1,100 are assigned to applied research activities, and the remaining handful are available for basic research. Even allowing the likelihood that there is much fundamental research done in the engineering-type agencies, it is abundantly clear that the program is heavily slanted toward practical applications which can be of immediate use.

Having established the approximate size and general orientation of the Soviet program, an estimate of its content and worth are in order. To put it into general perspective, it seems that oceanography as a whole does not occupy a favored position within the Soviet structure. As one example, no oceanographer is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, although two are corresponding members—a lower level of distinction. For another, the facilities assigned to oceanographic institutions were often poor and crowded. Another sign of lack of popularity is that the output of trained oceanographers does not meet the demand, and that other disciplines are called on to contribute scientists to the oceanographic community. Finally, the fact that so many oceanographic ships are conversions rather than new construction would indicate less than enthusiastic support.

In spite of this, there is no denying that many of the customers are satisfied. The effort put into fisheries research, and the fact that commercial fishermen heed the advice of the oceanographers, attests to acceptance in this field. The practical advice given by the State Oceanographic Institute on coastal engineering is considered in planning and construction. The ice forecasts of the Arctic Institute have been used for years in guiding convoys along the Northern Sea Route. Geophysics and marine geology are accepted tools in offshore oil exploration. In sum, it seems that there is a well-merited acceptance of oceanography in the practical areas.

In the basic research programs, evaluation becomes more subjective. Certainly much good scientific work is being done, although it was the consensus of the delegation that most programs were uninspired; relatively few breakthroughs worth pursuing were noted. A frequent comment was that a program was very similar to the work of some U. S. scientists—of ten years ago. Physics and mathematics seem to be their strongest and best fields, and these have attracted the majority of personnel. Geology, bathymetry, and geophysics are spotty; although large amounts of data are being collected, little that is very startling is being done with it. Chemistry and biology appear to be routinely handled, with no great impetus except in support of fisheries.

In the final analysis, people are the key to the worth of any scientific program. The delegation had the opportunity to brush against many Soviet oceanographers and, in general, found them serious, dedicated, well-trained, and content. A substantial quantity of commendable research was being done, under working conditions which were frequently wretched. The oceanographers did not appear, however, to be individually the equal of the U. S. scientist, man for man (or woman for man, since a far larger percentage of Soviet marine scientists are women). There was not any apparent curtailment of their personal or scientific liberties. Within the over-all needs of the system, they are free to move from one laboratory to another. There is substantial opportunity to progress on their own merits and efforts and be rewarded with increased prestige, authority, and salary. Insofar as any individuals fell short, it seemed to be because of the system, rather than because of any inherent personal incapability.

To support these scientists, there is a large, anonymous group of technicians—the vital back-up personnel who never get their names on a scientific paper, but without whom one could never be written. It would seem that the Soviet oceanographer has a much higher support factor in technicians than does his American counterpart.

It had been speculated that oceanography, like some branches of Soviet science, lay stifled under the palsied hands of older scientists, who could not be questioned. It is indeed true that the senior authorities often guide the orientation of the various laboratory programs, but their influence seems usually to be based on genuine merit. Criticism was sometimes voiced by younger scientists, though not to the extent prevalent in the United States; iconoclasm in Russia is still largely aimed at religious, rather than scientific, targets.

The shape and composition of Soviet oceanography now begins to appear. In size it is the equal of that of the United States, and has surpassed the other major contenders, such as France, Japan, and Great Britain. While not yet a fully accepted major scientific field, it has grown rapidly from a relatively small base, and is still expanding. The program is strongly oriented toward practical applications, with relatively minor effort going into basic research, and in the applied fields is achieving sufficient success to warrant continued support.

Why is the Soviet program structured in this way? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What is its future? The answers to these questions are in the history of the country itself, and in the basic ideology of the Soviet government. Russia has always been land-oriented. Largely self-sufficient, it did not participate extensively in the world-wide colonial expansion which followed the discovery of the new world. The few areas it moved into were later relinquished, and no motivation existed for a large naval or merchant marine fleet. Although it has an extensive coastline, much of it is icebound, and was for years unused. Most of the remainder of their territory fronts not upon the open sea, but on inland waters such as the Caspian and Aral Seas, or on semi-enclosed bodies such as the Black, Azov, Baltic, Okhotsk, and Japan Seas. It is not at all surprising that the marine sciences got off to a late start; the surprise is rather that such good progress has been made.

The socialist revolution of this century led to a basic change in outlook. The old, self-centered, inward-looking philosophy was fundamentally incompatible with the concept of world-wide influence. The new regime necessarily turned its attention outward and, in addition to the other land areas, also became aware of the oceans.

The orientation and composition of the program, too, follow from the basic tenets of Communist ideology. A continuing emphasis on immediate utility and production is dictated by their general materialistic and pragmatic approach. Basic research, being not of immediate material value, is necessarily given a back seat. Similarly, creature comforts and personal consideration for the individual are secondary to the needs of the state.

As with the entire national “get well” program of the Soviet government, this approach has produced some startling results. It has been done, however, at a price, some of which has already evidently been paid, but much more left due for the future. As a most fundamental consideration, the subordination of the individual to the state has surely contributed to the manifest shortage of imagination and initiative. Failing a sense of deep personal involvement, there is no credible incentive for anything beyond routine performance. The bee faithfully and routinely carries out its tasks as part of the colony, and never dreams of being an individual. There have been no major improvements in beehives in recent years.

It is also clear that slighting basic research is most shortsighted. It may well be that this short-range approach merely follows the general planning pattern; everything is done by five-year or ten-year plans. Practical applications, however, must follow after breakthroughs are made in fundamental science. Breakthroughs come seldom and erratically; it can only be said that their occurrence will be proportional to the size and soundness of the program. Based on the criteria of ship and manpower distribution, less than 20 per cent of the Soviet effort is devoted to basic research in oceanography; for comparison, the United States, over the last five years, averaged more than twice that figure. The Soviet Union is now relying largely on the accumulated knowledge of other countries and the data of past years, without adequately building for the future. This lack of foresight will sap the strength of their program, surely and soon.

It would obviously be desirable, as the climax of this discussion, to make a direct, definitive comparison of the Soviet and U. S. efforts. Any such attempt however would largely be an idle exercise, because of the fundamental difference in philosophies. It is probably more useful to highlight specific strengths and weaknesses, and note general trends. Oceanography in the Soviet Union has come from very nearly zero to its present high level very quickly. There is every reason to believe that this rate of growth will continue, and that existing faults will be recognized and overcome. It can be said that the Soviet capability for the routine collection and publication of data is the best in the world. The Soviet Union’s inherently stricter program management—the ability to dictate the texture of its program, and order ships, money, and personnel to support it—is no doubt highly effective. Soviet efficiency in putting scientific knowledge to practical use is certainly enviable. In spite of this, the submergence of the scientist to the state and of basic research to cook-book applications will, if not corrected, lead to stagnation.

What can we learn from comparison of our efforts with those of another leading country? Clearly, there are certain fields in which we excel; basic research, instrumentation, and facilities, for example. These should be accentuated, and our obvious shortcomings corrected. It appears that in the United States the following areas need particular attention:

Vehicles. It is axiomatic that to study the ocean one must go to sea, yet the U. S. oceanographic shipbuilding program has already slipped badly. More consideration also needs to be given to the use of other platforms; aircraft, buoys, satellites, deep submersibles, ships of opportunity. Without the basic vehicles for surveys and research, the entire effort will be hamstrung.

Personnel. In spite of long recognition of the problem, there are still widespread shortages in all categories; scientists, engineers, and technicians. Further effort is needed to expand our educational and training programs in oceanography, and to encourage good scientists from other fields to participate.

Applications. An optimum balance must be found between basic research, on one hand, and applied research, development, and engineering on the other. Optimally, it would seem that the proportion accorded to fundamental scientific studies should be substantially higher than that allocated by the Soviets, but perhaps less than the percentage supported by the United States, at present. Perhaps even more important, there needs to be better communications between the two sides of the house to speed the conversion of research into useful applications. Otherwise, there may well develop a justifiable reluctance to continue the funding of research, without a reasonable number of practical payoffs.

Beyond these internal improvements, however, lies an even greater challenge. We have, along with the Soviet Union and other world leaders, a clear obligation not only to carry out good and productive programs, but also to use them to foster international amity and understanding. The oceans surround and join all nations. Oceanography, spreading over the vast expanse of the world’s seas, is truly an international science. On the sea, all countries can work together to solve their mutual problems; indeed, the very scope of the task makes such co-operation almost mandatory. The United States cannot evade either part of this dual challenge. Our past history, our present capabilities, and our future goals all dictate that we meet the challenge, and maintain our traditional position of leadership at sea.