and focus. It was clear that there is great variability among the 29 programs and there is a shared responsibility among NSGO, Sea Grant institutions, and SGRP to work assiduously to not only achieve uniformity, but more importantly, to increase the average program-wide quality. The committee's recommendations aim to ensure not only an improvement within NOAA, but also an enhancement of the quality at the state level. It is the view of the committee that when such responsibility is recognized and shared, the original goals and current aspirations for the program will be achieved.

The following two chapters of the report present the critical issues and related findings identified by the committee (Chapter 2) and the recommendations that the committee developed to help Sea Grant and NOAA respond to these issues (Chapter 3). Following the major recommendations, additional subordinate recommendations are discussed.

The committee found that Sea Grant has played an important role in supporting high-quality strategic research of local and national significance and has transferred research results to the industrial and environmental communities. The committee recognized that the present emphasis on strategic research throughout government, which emphasizes links to societal problems and provides economic opportunities to industry, has been the operating philosophy of Sea Grant since its inception. Accordingly, the committee's recommendations suggest ways of improving an important program. It is the unanimous view of the committee that Sea Grant is too important to be allowed to founder. NOAA and the Department of Commerce (DOC) should either recognize Sea Grant's importance to the states and industry or risk the loss of a very visible program. The committee was informed of apathy and hostility toward Sea Grant from many within NOAA and DOC. The committee was surprised by these attitudes given the importance of state-federal partnerships and focused strategic research.