16 16 17 Part I. Findings and Recommendations__ Part II. Origin and Purpose of the International Biological Program (IBP). E. International Agreement on Common Principles. F. U.S. National Committee Appointed (1965)-. G. The Officers and Members of SCIBP. H. Federal Involvement and the Formation of the ICC. I. Report No. 2 of the U.S. National Committee (1967) J. Introduction of House Concurrent Resolution 273_. Part III. The Urgency of the International Biological Program C. Opportunities for Application.... E. On the Significance of the International Aspects of the F. The Role of the IBP in the Development of Needed C. The International and U.S. Organization for the IBP. D. Functions of the IBP Organization Units. E. The U.S./IBP Subcommittees, and Their Program 1. Subcommittee on Productivity of Terrestrial 2. Subcommittee on Productivity of Freshwater 3. Subcommittee on Production Processes___ 4. Subcommittee on Conservation of Ecosystems.. 5. Subcommittee on Productivity of Marine Com- 6. Subcommittee on Human Adaptability.. 7. Subcommittee on Use and Management of Bio- 8. Subcommittee on Systematics and Biogeog- 9. Subcommittee on Environmental Physiology- 12. Phenology Panel_ Part VI. Estimated Costs and Funding Problems of the U.S. IBP. A. Nations Which Are Formally Participating in the IBP.. C. The Role of Some Other Nations.. D. Methods of Funding in Two Major Western Nations.. Part VIII. Problems and Areas of Concern Figures: Figure 2. IBP Grasslands Supporting Organization. -- Appendix A. The ICSU Proposal for the International Biological Appendix C. The U.S. National Committee for the International Appendix D. Membership List of the Official Representatives for the Appendix E. Scientific Manpower and Training Statistics 1. Employed Scientists and Engineers, by Occupation.. 2. Characteristics of Ecologists... 3. Graduate Enrollment in Biological and Physical Sciences 114 6. Graduate Training in Ecology Appendix F. The Science of Species in South America Appendix G. Some Major Centers, Stations and Facilities Identified for the IBP.. 4. Earned Degrees Conferred in Biological and Physical Sciences. 115 116 117 117 121 123 PART I FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The International Biological Program (IBP) is a cooperative effort on the part of the world's scientists to understand, through new research, the environmental systems which support life on their planet. They are seeking the relationship, and meanings thereof, from man to animal, animal to insect, insect to plant, plant to water, water to climate, climate to soil-and from each to all the others. Over 50 nations are involved. The program, which is described in detail in part V of this report, was conceived through members of the International Union of Biological Sciences and endorsed by the International Council of Scientific Unions. For the past few years the program has been in something of a gestation phase. Last year, however, saw the actual birth of the IBP and the development of a definite U.S. mechanism designed to manage the American part of the effort. The latter is the U.S. National Committee for the IBP, formed by the National Academy of Sciences and which, insofar as the Federal Government is involved, is aided by a special Interagency Coordinating Committee.1 Actual operations of the program are now underway, but, for the United States, only in a very limited way. Most of the effort in this country has been, and still is, directed to planning organization, administration, and searching for support. The program, though somewhat similar to the International Geophysical Year (IGY) differs in many respects; it is not formally funded by the Government, as was the IGY; and it is expected to stretch over at least a 5-year period whereas the IGY was limited to 18 months. ** * On March 9, 1967, Chairman George P. Miller of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, introduced House Concurrent Resolution 273 at the request of the National Committee for the IBP. The text of the resolution is sufficiently brief to warrant its reproduction here: HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 273 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress hereby finds and declares that the international biological program, which was established under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions and the International Union of Biological Sciences and which is sponsored in the United States by the National Academy Membership on the Interagency Committee includes Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health, Education, and Welfare, Interior and State, plus the Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, will The Congress commends and endorses the international The Congress calls upon all Federal departments and agencies and all persons and organizations, both public and private to support and cooperate fully with the program and the activities and goals of such Committees. The resolution was put on the calendar of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development. In May, Chairman Emilio Q. Daddario convened the subcommittee for a 1-day hearing in order to take necessary testimony from IBP officials. Since no opposition to the resolution was in evidence and since it would not carry the force of a public law, it was generally expected that the matter could be handled rapidly. The subcommittee found, however, that while the resolution was simple and could be readily disposed of, the IBP and the problems it represents could not. Consequently, the subcommittee decided to extend its inquiry until it could hear from additional qualified experts who could help round out the total picture. As the hearings progressed intermittently through the summer, it became ever more clear to the subcommittee that the IBP was not just another international cooperative agreement or program. It dealt, on the contrary, with one of the most crucial situations to face this or any other civilization-the immediate or near potential of man to damage, perhaps beyond repair, the ecological system of the planet on which all life depends. At least the IBP and its U.S. segment hope to be able to contribute new information that will be useful in enabling man to understand the ecosystems in which he lives. Emphasis must be placed on the word hope at this point. For if the critical nature of the ecological problem facing the world proved to be one major conclusion drawn by the subcommittee, a second major one was that U.S. participation in and contribution to the IBP appeared to stand on shaky ground-organizationally and financially. The Case for the IPB Roger Revelle, then chairman of the National Committee for the IBP, opened the subcommittee's hearings and set the tone for what was to follow with this observation: In our times of unprecedented change, biologists are aware of the rapidly growing ability of their fellow human beings to alter the face of the earth through technology. But they are equally aware that these alterations can bring about far-spreading and often destructive changes in the web of life that is stretched so thinly over the surface of our planet. |