PART III ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES APPEARING BEFORE (OR FILING STATEMENTS WITH) HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Dr. Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., Deputy Director, Office of Science and Technology. Dr. W. Franklin Blair, member, Ecology Committee, the Ecological Society of America. Dr. T. C. Byerly, Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior, for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Dr. Harve J. Carlson, Director, Division of Biological and Medical Sciences, National Science Foundation. Dr. Sidney R. Galler, Assistant Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Dr. David M. Gates, director, Missouri Botanical Gardens. Dr. David Keck, Division of the Biological and Medical Sciences, National Science Foundation. Dr. Bostwick H. Ketchum, associate director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. John Olive, executive director, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Prof. J. R. Porter, president, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Dr. Carlton Ray, assistant professor of pathology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Roger Revelle, director, Harvard Center for Population Studies. Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Frederick E. Smith, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan. Dr. Theodore Sudia, associate director of American Institute of Biological Sciences. THE URGENCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM 1 A selection of witness views on key areas: A. THE NEED FOR ECOLOGICAL STUDIES The need to define existing conditions (Bennett) (p. 30): It is urgent that studies be undertaken to define existing conditions, to understand the mechanisms that control the components of so-called ecosystems, and to comprehend interactions among ecosystems. An "early warning system" for unwanted consequences (Bennett) (p. 29): The excellent publication issued by the subcommittee last year, entitled "Environmental Pollution: A Challenge to Science and Technology" epitomized the general problem: 1 Statements selected from U.S. House of Representatives, 90th Cong., 1st sess.; Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, hearing on the IBP June, July, August 1967. Considering the powerful forces for ecological change which are at man's disposal, admitting the impossibility of complete foreknowledge of the consequences of many activities, and granting that a highly technical, overpopulated world must continue to take risks with natural resources, an "early warning system" for unwanted consequences is extremely important. It is the sheer magnitude of the problems generated by today's technology that makes the acquisition of better understanding a matter of global urgency. In order to walk the tightrope of technological change and human ecology, we must learn to look beyond the conventional statements of this, that, or the other environmental problems in an attempt to survey systematically the sum of individual actions and interactions Support by the Office of Science and Technology for the ecological sciences and field study (Bennett) (p. 31): * ** I can summarize the feeling in the Office of Science and Technology by saying that we feel very strongly that at the present time we are very much space age men in a physical world and stone age men in the biological world * * * For those two reasons, the nonspecific reason that international scientific programs form a neutral portal to international understanding, and for the specific thrust of this program in the direction of ecological sciences and field studies as opposed to sitting down in a quiet corner and thinking about problems, the Office of Science and Technology reaffirms its strong support of this program and of the resolution under consideration by the subcommittee. The need to develop and apply ecological knowledge to problems arising from technological advancement (Cain) (p. 97): Our concentrated attention to physical technology with quick profitable pay-offs has worked-up to a point-but we are now appreciating that our relative neglect of systems in nature, especially the vastly more complicated systems of biology and culture, have given us the urgent critical problems of our time. IBP is really the world's first organized effort to face up to this class of vital problems that deal with the limits of natural productivity in various ecological systems. The possibilities of human management of such systems extends before us new frontiers that can be reached if we develop and apply ecological knowledge * * * The record is not all black. Ecological knowledge has been put to work in many cases with great success, and the payoff has been important. Better fundamental knowledge of biological systems to serve as the basis on which applied findings may be derived is a second source of return from the IBP investment. The need to define priorities-the urgency of studying the earth around us (Gates) (p. 155): My next point is one of priorities in science. Why do we do those things first which are less urgent than others? When will we realize that soon it will be too late to study relatively undisturbed plant and animal communities? Is it more urgent to study the galaxies, the stars, the planetary systems, which will be here a thousand years hence than it is to study the biota of the terrestrial habitats? The terrestrial ecosystems are most susceptible to destruction. The aquatic systems-the oceans, the lakes, the rivers, are next. They have a little longer time constant, particularly the oceans *** I am not saying let us not sudy the stars and the galaxy and the nucleus-we must. But if there has to be a choice, if there is a matter of urgency, the terrestrial system, the surface of the earth on which we are living, the thing that surrounds us on all sides *** This is where the big changes are. This is where the impact of man is occurring. The time has come for ecology (Revelle) (p. 11): The problem is we do not know enough about ecology in most cases to know what to do about it or even to be able to estimate the facts. Ecology has been a science which inevitably tended to lag behind the laboratory biological sciences because it was necessary to get basic information at the molecular level and the cellular level and the organ level in many respects before it was possible to attack the whole organisms and their relationships to each other ** The time has come for ecology. This is a device for pushing ecology and for formalizing our support and our interest in ecology among all the scientists of the United States. Few remaining opportunities to study undisturbed conditions (Ripley) (p. 59): Potentially, or actually, the conservation section, for example, of the International Biological Program calls for a very sophisticated attempt to document what are known as biotopes; that is, particular types of environment, and to set aside sample areas throughout the world, either in the polar regions or in the tropics, for future study. This is of vital importance, because by the time we really get to it, if we do not hurry up, many of these areas will have ceased to exist. There will *** be no opportunity for us to study relatively undisturbed conditions in the world environment which still remain and to tabulate and document the contents of those environments and to derive certain kinds of formulas which may well have to do with applied problems for humankind, ranging from health to various sorts of environmental conditions which tend to provoke stress. Summary of our environmental status and of the IBP (Ripley): With respect to his cultural evolution man is like an invading species encountering little competition in a favorable new ecosystem. The ecology of invasions usually involves geometric growth in population, overshooting the capacity of the new system to support the exploding population, and eventually the achievement of population regulation in a modified ecosystem. In his book, "Limits of the Earth," Fairfield Osborn documents his thesis that the great periods of history are intimately identified with favorable relationships of man to his natural resources and that apparently indestructible empires dissolved when the land lost its productivity. We have now reached the limits of the earth The scientific community is rising to the challenge of this Although the IBP program is to run for 7 years, beginning in 1967, it must be considered as the impetus for a lasting effort to understand human ecosystems, rather than a program that will solve our problems of imbalance. The future of environmental improvement can be enhanced by an effective IBP, and I would therefore urge strong support of the program by scientists, the Federal Government, private foundations, and the general public. Achievement of steady states in man's ecosystems before irreversible damage occurs may well depend on our accomplishments during the IBP. I call for support of the IBP because it is evident during the present planning stage that we are not giving it the full attention and funds required to accomplish the objective so vital to us all.2 Our primitive knowledge of the threat to health created by our new way of life (Dubos): 1 The most spectacular advances in health during the past 100 years have come from improvements in the interplay between man and his environment. Better sanitation and nutrition, shorter working hours, less exposure to the inclemencies of the weather, and immunization against a few of the most destructive agents of disease are among the changes that have helped modern man to cope successfully with his environment. In contrast, knowledge is incredibly primitive with regard to the biological effects of the threats to health created by the new ways of life. Crowding, environmental pollution, indirect and delayed effects of drugs and food additives, constant exposure to a multiplicity of new physical and mental stimuli, alienation from natural biological rhythms, are but a few of the aspects of modern life which certainly affect the well-being of man, and even probably the future of the human race. Yet environmental biology is an almost nonexistent scientific discipline: hardly any effort is being made to develop it, either in universities, research institutes, or medical schools.3 2 Dr. S. Dillion Ripley's, description of the IBP and appeal for its support as quoted here was not given before the committee. These paragraphs were taken from the Future of Environmental Improvement reprinted from Environmental Improvement: Air, Water and Soil, U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 1966. 3 Dr. Rene J. Dubos' statement was not made before the committee nor was it made in connection with the IBP. It is used here because of the relatedness of environmental biology and the IBP. The paragraphs were selected from a speech entitled "Opportunities and Pitfalls, in "Research in the Service of Man: Biomedical Knowledge, Development, and Use." A conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Frontiers of Science Foundation of Oklahoma held October 1967. Our dangerous practice of altering our environment without understanding the impact on the ecology of the region (Gates) (p. 154): Mankind is living incredibly dangerously. We are living with and disturbing, disrupting and attempting to manage the earth's surface without understanding. We fight a war in the tropics little understanding the complexity of the tropical environment. We attempt to supply food and technology to underdeveloped nations without knowledge or understanding of their natural habitats. We dam canyons in the arid west; we divert whole watersheds and often we do not understand the impact of this on the ecology of the region. B. BASIC ECOLOGICAL DATA The establishment of a branch of theoretical ecology for predictive power (Gates) (p. 157): * The ecologists need to work as a team and to use * Ecology cannot do this today. It has relatively little predictive power because of lack of strong theoretical foundation, lack of good mathematical models to work with in order to carry through the complex order of things to the predictive stage. Our inability to predict the results of new or proposed engineering developments (Ketchum) (p. 106): We do not understand well enough the ways in which the ecosystem works to predict the results of new or proposed engineering developments. By hindsight we can evaluate what man has done in the past, as stated in the report of this subcommittee on "Environmental Pollution" and I quote: "Since man is very much a part of the biosphere, the living environment, he has always been changing and using the natural resources for his own benefit. Mistakes have been made and consequences have not always been foreseen, but civilization has advanced by taking risks which were largely overshadowed by obvious benefits." Our obligation to study the characteristic processes of the earth (Ray) (p. 191): In determining whether this is a worthy cause, I am reminded of Charlton Ogburn's book, "The Winter Beach, William Morrow, 1966," pages 16-17, which reads: "Without being one who delights in illustrations of man's puniness in the limitless cosmos, a traveler may yet find it easier to bear the spectacle of the monumental ugliness we have wrought from the spoil of our countryside, the trash with which we have defaced it, the suppurating encrustations that our cities have become, by reflecting that the earth through its characteristic processes can, and one day, doubtless will, shrug it off in favor of a fresh start." 90-267 0-68- -3 |