Administration of the National Sea Grant Program

Many Sea Grant projects appear to have only limited application and to be of little benefit to the identified user community. A followup evaluation appears to be needed to determine if the federally supported Sea Grant projects are meeting expected goals. The major problem with programs which foster applied research in the marine field is finding a way to get the practical information out of the laboratories and scientific journals and into the hands of those who could use it. The marine advisory services was established by Congress to communicate the results of research to the user groups. The services are also an important source of information and guidance for the Sea Grant institutions, providing feedback on users' concerns to program administrators and researchers. Marine advisory personnel in several States were concerned about the lack of applied research, lack of ability to get Sea Grant institutions to address specific problems or matters of concern to the local community, and lack of project assistance to those who were to be serviced by the advisory services.

Sea Grant directors stated that the principal investigators generally work only on projects that interest them, most projects are an extension of the investigator's existing area of research interest and the principal investigator usually saw himself as the sole originator of project ideas. The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere stated that Sea Grant projects should be of low cost, and aimed at prompt and practical results. A project evaluation system for completed projects has not been established, and the Office of Sea Grant does not have procedures to gather data for a followup analysis of completed projects. There are presently no procedures to evaluate project performance and measure project accomplishments in relation to initial criteria and objectives. Specific measures should be established to improve the program, which serves to further the state-of- the-art in marine-related research and education. In reviewing future projects for approval, a concerted effort must be made to evaluate the merit of proposed projects from the users' perspective. Special attention should be paid to projects that may be rejected solely because the principal investigator cannot, or elects not, to perform research in a specific area. An evaluation system, including appropriate followup procedures to regularly assess project results, would improve the management of the program.