and who have not gone back in many cases because the opportunity and the challenge for research was not there. We hope that in some instances at least this program will identify opportunity and challenge in those countries and that their trained people will do their work there. No alternative to international action (Daddario):

It (IBP) does give us greater opportunities for international participation. Other people, other scientists and their leaders must recognize that this is one place where there is no alternative but for international action.

F. THE ROLE OF THE IBP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEEDED SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER

The critical shortage of ecologists (Gates) (pp. 160, 164):

There is a critical shortage of ecologists in this country as well as throughout the world *** The demands for ecologists will go up steeply as awareness and recognition develops. It will go up by university, by government, by industry, by city planning, by highway construction, almost every way we turn as the problem of the environment and the impact of man develops *** suddenly there is going to be a demand for astute advice among agencies of

*

many types
* Training of young scientists for field projects in-

volving measurement and analysis, data handling-this
occurred during the IGY. Suddenly, because of the IGY we
had the urgent need for many scientists to man stations
throughout the world including Antarctica. We had a crash
program of training for personnel in Antarctica in that case.
Every one of those persons has a good job since. The training,
the growth of the number of people in geophysics began to
create the demand and it has been a very interesting thing
to look back on, the self-stimulation that occurred within the
geophysics profession because of stimulus that the IGY gave
it and the same thing I am sure will happen here. * * *

*** There are quite a few institutions that could handle the training of ecologists for the next few years very effectively and of systematists. The institutions exist. Some of the manpower exists. It would stretch us some. We would be very hard pressed in certain areas, but we could undertake, straightaway, if funding were available, the appeal, begin to attract young people into the field and train them at a number of our great centers in this country (p. 166).

(Daddario) When you talk about the need for theoretical ecologists, what do you envisage? (P. 166):

(Gates) I envision quite a new thing that has not existed, and that is people trained in ecology as it now exists with strong fundamental work in biology, but in addition good training in physics, and good training in mathematics and the use of computers. By theoretical ecology, I mean those people who can take the data that is accumulated in the field from observation and bring it onto their desk and organize it and derive from it causes and effects and out of

this, theory. Hypothesis and theories really pull all the
threads together into a coherent fabric which will give
ecology a real body.

The critical shortage of ecologists (Galler) (p. 175):

There exists a very serious shortage of trained scientists to carry out the research project for the IBP. I refer particularly to the need for experienced ecologists and systematists. Both are in very short supply. The IBP offers the best hope for training young competent, highly motivated, scientists who will be in a position to carry on the research projects initiated under the IBP. Unless we all recognize the urgent need for developing effective training programs, I fear that the great hopes and expectations for the IBP will not be fully realized.

Training must be basic component of IBP (Revelle) (p. 3):

Only a relatively small number of biologists are skilled in the use of modern methods of field research or in studying the interactions among organisms in large ecological systems. The training of young scientists, particularly those from less developed countries, must be a basic component of the entire program.

IBP is a vehicle for training (Daddario):

We have not developed a national capability to assess consequences. And the IBP gives us a vehicle through which we can accelerate our capabilities in the training of personnel and in the development of the average. Serving this purpose, it would naturally leave as a residue a capability which would find its way, we would hope, into the structure of our governmental and private life.**

*

*** So we will be better able as a nation to assess those problems which are disturbing the fabrics of our society. Training is prominent and necessary feature of IBP (F. E. Smith) (p. 49):

A contribution is *** [the] effect of the IBP on ecologists, rather than on ecology. There is, even now, a worldwide shortage of ecologists with modern training. The IBP adds to this problem, since the full implementation of all of its projects requires a doubling of the world's population of ecologists. Training is a prominent and necessary feature of the IBP. Interest in ecology has been increasing steadily among graduate students in biology, and the opportunities offered by the IBP will hasten this growth.

Model IBP training programs (Galler):

I point to the efforts in the United Kingdom, as a model training program; it is essentially an on-the-job training program. As the IBP projects are activated, young people become associated with these projects as field and laboratory assistants and advance their academic training. In point of fact similar kinds of training programs were activated during the IGY. Graduate students were brought in to assist and ultimately become deeply involved, committing themselves to academic careers in geophysics.

PART IV

THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE IBP

In the sense that U.S. participation through the National Academy of Sciences is a well tested operational device, the U.S./IBP has come into being and will be managed in a fashion similar to other NAS sponsored international scientific programs. There are differences in detail, but program content and operations in the IBP will in principal follow the patterns of other such programs. Some of these

are:

The International Geophysical Year.
Global Atmospheric Research Program.
International Hydrological Decade.
International Years of the Quiet Sun.
Upper Mantle Project.
World Magnetic Survey.

World Weather Watch.

A. THE IGY AS A MODEL

Using the IGY as a model with which to compare the IBP, there are both similarities and differences in management structure.

In both programs, the National Academy of Sciences, based on (1) its membership in the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and (2) its role in the U.S. scientific community, established national committees. The National Committee for the IGY established 20 technical panels. The National Committee for the IBP has established nine subcommittees, two panels and six integrated research programs and has recognized that additional major programs will be approved as program definitions, personal commitments and sources of support are developed. The activities of the US/IGY technical panels are generally comparable to those of the US/IBP subcommittees, panels and integrated research programs.

Generally, however, administration of the US/IGY was more centralized than that now planned for the US/IBP (p. 411). For example, although the size of the administrative and scientific staff of IGY at the Academy varied as the program evolved, decisionmaking and operations ultimately required a fairly large group of individuals in a central office. Between 1954 and 1958 some 92 appointments were made to the Academy's IGY staff.' In contrast, the IBP staff at the Academy now consists of three of four full-time people, and no considerable increase in this complement is anticipated. This

Report on the U.S. Program for the IGY-July 1, 1957, to Dec. 31, 1958. IGY Report No. 21, November 1965 appendix 3 (p. 905).

difference in degree of central coordination between these two programs rests upon "three valid reasons":

1. The physical scientists participating in the IGY were generally unified in identifying the problem areas for research. In contrast, probably the greatest problem of the IBP has been concerned with this identification. It has proceeded (1) from a broad statement of IBP purpose by the International Council Scientific Unions to (2) a broad statement of purpose by the U.S. National Committee to (3) broad statements of program goals within functional areas by the US/IBP subcommittees to (4) the development of integrated research programs and individual research proposals. This entire effort, by no means yet complete, has been voluntary on the part of many well recognized scientists, both of the U.S. and of other nations. It is logical to center the coordination involved in each US/IBP major program under the control of the director of that program.

2. Funds supporting the US/IGY were handled and controlled quite differently than they now are for the US/IBP. Like the IBP, the total IGY effort was comprised of (1) coordination of on-going work (e.g., Weather Bureau, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Navy, Air Force, Army, and many others) (2) reorientations of that work as recommended by the NAS/USNC/IGY and (3) new research initiated by the NAS/USNC/IGY. The "new" money requirement for the IGY was primarily for this third category. The Congress appropriated funds for these purposes and they were specifically identified in the budget for the National Science Foundation. Disbursements of these funds were in general, at the request of the Academy USNC/IGY technical panels. Evaluations and decisions supporting these disbursements were made by these panels.

In contrast, financial support to US/IBP and projects will be provided, if available, directly to the proposal originator by the appropriate granting agency on the basis of evaluations and decisions made within the agency. Integrated research programs accepted and funded by granting agencies, will include provisions for the administrative staffs required for program support.

3. The operational phase of the IBP is considerably longer than that planned for the IGY, which had a formal operational period of 18 months (July 1957-December 1958), with a low-key extension of one more year (1959) of normal work in participating countries, no new funds or programs being involved. Although several other international programs developed on the model of the IGY; e.g., IQSY, the World Magnetic Survey, the International Indian Ocean Expedition, and others, the IGY itself concluded its work on schedule and dissolved. The IBP is expected to generate a significant number of successive international programs lasting many years. The flexibility of decentralized control seems advantageous toward promoting the complex program goals of the IBP (p. 411).