sector as regards not only program content, but priorities and funding. A system which depends on program approval or judgment of relevance by the National Committee, but which is then followed by independent action on the part of the Government agencies or other participating institutions is to be avoided.

Recommendations for Long-Term Action

With reference to long-range planning for the IBP, the subcommittee recommends:

(1) A firm commitment by the U.S. Government to support the IBP to the maximum feasible extent and for the full 5-year term, longer if necessary. This should be done both through Executive expression and legislative resolution.

(2) A determination, agreed upon with the Bureau of the Budget, as to the best method of future financing. This may be handled through a single annual line item in the budget of one agency, such as the National Science Foundation, or through the budgets of several agencies. Full exploration of the possibilities should be made. Whatever method is reached, however, should be one that can be depended

upon.

(3) Support by the IBP, the Government, and the academic community for the development of research leading to a theoretical ecology. At the present time almost no such discipline exists; yet, according to testimony, a real understanding of planetary ecosystems is dependent on the development of such theory. The situation appears comparable to that which existed in the 1920's and 1930's when a need for the development of theoretical physics was prerequisite to the emergence of atomic energy.

(4) That all appropriate Federal agencies support and participate in the IBP by providing use and assistance in the use of their facilities in the United States and abroad. Federal agencies should also continue to review, reorient, and support those in-house research projects which are consistent with the aims and objectives of the IBP, as well as appoint their most responsible and knowledgeable biologists to the various IBP organizational committees or units, as required. Conclusion

Evidence of growing congressional concern over ecological problems is clearly at hand. For the most part such evidence has shown itself in relation to seemingly isolated problems-pollution, food resources, wilderness conservation, water use, etc.-rather than with total eco-systems. But recognition of the fact that the Nation will eventually have to deal with the latter in order to handle the former is growing. One good example is the introduction of the bill last year (H.R. 6698) by Mr. Daddario for the establishment of a Technology Assessment Board to aid the Congress in determining how technology may best be used to help solve the Nation's major problems-as well as assist in avoiding the dangerous side effects of misapplied technology. Another is the legislation offered by Representatives Dingell, Matsunaga and Tunney to create a Council of Ecological Advisers. As Mr. Tunney points out: "The understanding of our ecology is essential if we are to make the various individual programs in our Government relate effectively to one another." 13

13 Congressional Record, Sept. 27, 1967, p. 12604.

But the point the subcommittee wishes to emphasize here is that ecological understanding is both an international and a national problem. Because it is, the Federal Government has a definite responsibility to support the IBP-one which cannot and should not be left to lesser Government units or to private institutions and foundations. At the same time the subcommittee believes that the problems with which this report deals are everybody's problems. Local and State governments have a strong stake in the outcome, as does the industrial complex of the nation, the academic community, the private foundations and philanthropists, and the individual. They, too, should help support the U.S. effort in relation to the IBP by tailoring their programs, their research, their facilities and personnel toward IBP goals whenever possible. They should also, the subcommittee believes, help finance the IBP-perhaps by contributing as much as a third of the amount needed to carry out a successful American program.

PART II

ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL

BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM (IBP)

For many years biologists have recognized the need for collecting certain kinds of biological data before the rapidly changing conditions of the world irreversibly alter or destroy the areas and phenomena of importance. It was also apparent that many types of ecological surveys could be conducted adequately only through a major international collaborative effort. The pace of informal discussions of these matters increased as the rate of environmental transformations become more quantitatively acute and the resources of soil, water, and air appeared to be in jeopardy. There developed a growing concern for the welfare of man, and scientists around the world were soon ready to consider seriously an international program in the ecological aspects of biological science.

A. EARLY DISCUSSIONS (1959)

Formal discussion of the idea of planning and organizing an international biological program first occurred several years ago in the U.S. National Committee of the International Union of Biological Sciences. There was also a discussion in February 1959 between Sir Rudolph Peters, President of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and Professor Montalenti, President of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). This discussion was followed up officially within the structure of ICSU and IUBS. Meetings in the Hague (October 1959), in Moscow (May 1960), in Neuchatel (October 1960), and in Lisbon (October 1960), culminated in a preliminary proposal for an International Biological Program. The proposal was approved by the General Assembly of IUBS in July 1961 in Amsterdam, and 2 months later was also approved by the Ninth General Assembly of ICSU in London. It was resolved that planning for the IBP should begin immediately and a planning committee was established under the chairmanship of Professor Montalenti. Seven American scientists served on the committee's subcommittees, two of whom, E. H. Graham and G. L. Stebbins, were also members of the planning committee.

B. THE EDINBURGH REPORT (1963)

A little over 2 years following appointment, at its final meeting held in Edinburgh in November 1963, the planning committee drafted its plan for the IBP. In the same month, the "Edinburgh Report" was approved in principle by the executive committee of the IUBS and by the Tenth General Assembly of ICSU as the basis for an International Biological program.

Although the IBP was not formalized until July 1964, when it was approved by the First General Assembly of the IBP, the identified worldwide problems, objectives, guidelines, and topic areas for sectional structure, as presented in the Edinburgh Report, remained

essentially intact. In recommending that there be an International Biological Program the report emphasized

1. The rapid rate of increase in the numbers and needs of the human population of the world.

2. The demands of this population on the natural environment.

3. The rapid rate of changes taking place in all environments throughout the world.

C. OBJECTIVES OF THE IBP

As a consequence of these developments the report urged greatly increased biological research with the objectives of insuring—

1. A worldwide study of organic production on the land, in fresh waters, and in the seas, so that adequate estimates may be made of the potential yield of new as well as existing natural resources.

2. A worldwide study of human adaptability to the changing conditions.

These objectives are reflected in the seven sections which the planning committee recommended as a basis for the further development of the program. The international section areas were

Productivity of Terrestrial Communities.

Production Processes.

Conservation of Terrestrial Communities.

Productivity of Freshwater Communities.
Productivity of Marine Communities.

Human Adaptability.

Use and Management of Biological Resources.

D. SCOPE OF THE IBP

The report mentioned only two very broad definitions of scope for research conducted under the program; IPB research "shall be limited

to:

1. Basic biological studies related to productivity and human welfare which will benefit from internatioal cooperation.

2. Studies that are urgent because of the rapid rate of the changes taking place in all environments throughout the world."

It was this general outline for the IBP approved by IUBS and ICSU, which was received in Washington in early December 1963.2 Six weeks later a story of the proposal was published in "Science" (January 31, 1964) and the entire proposal was published in "Bioscience" in April 1964. As a result, biologists and other scientists who

The U.S. subcommittees, established somewhat later, correspond to the international sections and employ the same titles, except for the section on Conservation of Terrestrial Communities. The U.S. equivalent of this section is called the Subcommittee on Conservation of Ecosystems. Also, the U.S. program includes two additional subcommittees and two panels: Subcommittee on Systematics and Biogeography, Subcommittee on Environmental Physiology, Biometeorology Panel, and Aerobiology Panel.

2 The Proposed International Biological Program. An Evaluation by an Ad Hoc Committee of NASNRC of the United States of America. June, 1964. (See appendix B.)

3 See appendix A for the complete ICSU proposal for the IBP.

were reading these two journals had an opportunity to become acquainted with the proposed program at approximately the same time the National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Committee on IBP was conducting its review of the proposal.

The NAS-NRC committee, selected for the purpose of examining the ICSU program, held a series of 2-day meetings from December 1963 to May 1964. During this time the committee surveyed the opinion and interest of about 300 U.S. biologists and officers of national biological societies and other appropriate national societies.

This task of formally evaluating the proposal and obtaining the reaction of American biologists who wished to respond to it fell to the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council because that body is the scientific organization in the United States adhering to the ICSU and its member unions involved in the IBP. The Academy not only needed to decide whether to establish a U.S. national committee to provide for the participation of American scientists but also to prepare a U.S. delegation for a general meeting of scientists from all parts of the world for a critical examination of the plans for IBP which ICSU had called for when it approved the "Edinburgh Report." The Ad Hoc Committee found sufficient American interest in an IBP to recommend U.S. participation in a final program which could be developed within the framework of the ICSU proposal. A U.S. delegation under the cochairmanship of T. C. Byerly and S. A. Cain was sent to the first general meeting for the IBP in Paris, July 23-25, 1964, with a substantial list of changes to be negotiated in the IBP proposed by ICSU. Many of these changes were adopted at the meeting where more than 100 scientists from 30 countries labored with the details of the revised program.

E. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON COMMON PRINCIPLES

One set of modifications had to do with "common principles which apply to all sections of the IBP." It was important that agreement be reached on certain fundamentals. They were stated as follows:

(a) The fundamental approach.-Although the simplest way to study resources is to carry out investigations on the resources themselves, it is also of great importance to make fundamental studies of the processes in the production of these resources. The program will set out to obtain internationally comparable observations of the basic biological parameters.

(b) Urgency. There is an urgent need to bring all parts of the program into operation, not only because of the steadily growing pressures of human population on renewable resources, but also as many of the situations, both biological and human, are changing so rapidly, and many will soon no longer be available for scientific investigation.

(c) Methods.-There is a widespread need for elaboration and intercalibration of, and for agreement on, suitable

The IBP proposal was, of course, offered for study to the adhering organization of the other member countries of ICSU. See app. B.