HELGOI.

~NDER MEERESUNTERSUCHUNGEN
Helgol6nder Meeresunters. 49, 29-44 (1995)

From marine ecology to biological oceanography

Eric L. Mills
Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University; Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4Jl
Canada

ABSTRACT: Looking back from the 1990s it seems natural to view the work done in the Biologische
Anstalt Helgoland by Friedrich Heincke and his colleagues, beginning in 1892, as marine ecology or
marine biology, and that done in Kiel, under Victor Hensen and Karl Brandt, as biological
oceanography. But historical analysis shows this view to be untenable. Biological oceanography, as a
research category and a profession, does not appear until at least the 1950's. In the German tradition
of marine research, "Ozeanographie", originating in 19th century physical geography, did not
include the biological sciences. The categories "Meereskunde" and "Meeresforschung" covered all
aspects of marine research in Germany from the 1890's to the present day. "Meeresbiologie" like
that of Brandt. Heincke, and other German marine scientists, fitted comfortably into these. But in
North America no such satisfactory professional or definitional structure existed before the late
1950's. G.A. Riley, one of the first biological oceanographers, fought against descriptive, non-
quantitative American ecology. In 1951 he described biological oceanography as the "ecology of
marine populations", linking it with quantitative population ecology in the U.S.A. By the end of the
1960's the U.S. National Science Foundation had recognized biological oceanography as a research
area supported separately from marine biology. There was no n e e d for the category "biological
oceanography" in German marine science because its subject matter lay under the umbrella of
"Meereskunde" or "Meeresforschung". But in North America biological oceanography - a funda-
mental fusion of physics and chemistry with marine biology - was created to give this marine science
a status higher than that of the conceptually overloaded ecological sciences. The sociologists Durk-
heim and Mauss claimed in 1903 that, "the classification of things reproduces the classification of
men"; similarly, m science, the classification of professions reproduces the status that their prac-
titioners hope to achieve.

" T h e m a r i n e b i o l o g i s t in p a r t i c u l a r will c o n t i n u e to b e a p o w e r f u l ally to t h e

o c e a n o g r a p h e r = for, in a n y e x p e d i t i o n h e m a y u n d e r t a k e strictly o c e a n o g r a p h i c
o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e e s s e n t i a l to his b i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s . H e will. as in t h e p a s t , m a k e
i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to o c e a n o g r a p h y , a l t h o u g h e n g a g e d u n d e r t h e b a n n e r of
m a r i n e b i o l o g y " (H. A. M a r m e r , 1934. p. 34)

DEFINING OCEANOGRAPHY

V i e w e d f r o m 1992, 100 y e a r s a f t e r t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e B i o l o g i s c h e A n s t a l t H e I g o -
l a n d , it is e a s y to s e e H e l g o l a n d as t h e l o c a t i o n of a s u c c e s s i o n of i m p o r t a n t s t u d i e s in
m a r i n e b i o l o g y , w h i l e , o n l y 150 k i l o m e t r e s to t h e e a s t , i n Kiel, a n e w s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e ,
b i o l o g i c a l o c e a n o g r a p h y , w a s e v o l v i n g . But this is a facile a n d p r e s e n t - c e n t e r e d v i e w t h a t
is n o t b o r n e o u t b y h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . If w e l o o k at l a t e 19th c e n t u r y H e l g o l a n d a n d Kiel
through the historical microscope, disciplinary boundaries blur and our late 20th century

9 Biotogische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburq

30 Eric L. Mills

categories b e c o m e anachronistic, e v e n damaging, to a full u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how a n d

why professions evolved in m a r i n e sciences during the late decades of the 19th century
a n d the first three decades of our own century.
E x a m i n i n g the word "oceanography" gives us a clue about how n o t to proceed in
u n d e r s t a n d i n g the relationship b e t w e e n marine biology a n d oceanography. Let m e b e g i n
with a series of definitions or explanations of that word, chronologically ordered, with the
u n d e r s t a n d i n g that a definition is a n attempt to create a classification - that is, to make
order by categorizing events or things in the world - whether that world be of the p r e s e n t
or of the past.
In late 19th century G e r m a n science, as Paffen and Kortum (1984) have shown,
"Oceanographie", the study of the oceans, was a b r a n c h of physical geography. It is no
accident that Otto Krfimmel (whose early collaboration with Georg von Boguslawski led
to the o u t s t a n d i n g texts " H a n d b u c h der Ozeanographie" (1887, 1907, 1911), was Profes-
sor of G e o g r a p h y at the University of Kiel. A n d if we look at other books of the period
(e.g. Jilek, 1857; Attlmayr, 1883), we find that they are largely descriptive accounts of the
shape a n d disposition of the hydrosphere, often for a p p h e d purposes (the education of
n a v a l officers), a n d not accounts of oceanic dynamics. Only in Krtimmel's last volume
(1911) did dynamical physical oceanography, originating in S c a n d i n a v i a . b e g i n to
appear. Biology was not included.
The geophysical stamp is e v i d e n t also in E n g h s h - l a n g u a g e writings. W. A. H e r d m a n ,
founder of the first Chair of O c e a n o g r a p h y in the English-speaking world (in 1919) ~ and
its first i n c u m b e n t , who k n e w a n d understood G e r m a n work on the sea, wrote of
" O c e a n o g r a p h y the Science of the S e a . . . " which to him i n c l u d e d "the study of the sea in
all aspects - physical chemical and biological" (Herdman. 1923 p. 1). His successor in
Liverpool, J a m e s Johnstone, a zoologist a n d fisheries biologist (Cole, 1934) r e m a i n e d well
within the G e r m a n tradition. J o h n s t o n e was cognizant of the fact that m a r i n e biology had
contributed more to ocean science by the 1920's than had physics a n d chemistry;
nonetheless, his text "An introduction to oceanography" (1923) dealt with o c e a n o g r a p h y
descriptively, as physical geography. In a later text, "A study of the oceans" he wrote of
"... the physical geography of the ocean - that is, the modern science of o c e a n o g r a p h y "
(Johnstone, 1926 p.v.), as o u t h n i n g k n o w l e d g e of the oceans from the G r e e k s to the 19th
century explorers. But more was at stake, for in 1923 (p.xi) he had written that "... the
science [of oceanography] b l e n d s into m a r i n e biology in such an intimate m a n n e r that
two hnes of t r e a t m e n t are now quite necessary: Physical O c e a n o g r a p h y on the one h a n d
a n d Hydrobiology on the other".
In a c o m m e m o r a t i o n of J o h n s t o n e ' s career, p u b h s h e d in 1934, the A m e r i c a n tidal
expert H. A. M a r i n e r took a view of o c e a n o g r a p h y quite different from that of Johnstone.
He viewed it as "a congeries of sciences, h a ~ n g different viewpoints a n d d e m a n d i n g
diverse disciphnes" (Marmer. 1934, p. 24}, but although m a r i n e biology h a d b e e n domin-
ant in its early years, the emphasis h a d (deservedly) c h a n g e d : "the a p p h c a t i o n of
mathematics has c h a n g e d o c e a n o g r a p h y from a descriptive science into a m a t h e m a t i c a l
physical science" (Marmer, 1934, p. 28). The day of marine biology i n o c e a n o g r a p h y was
over; the time h a d come to r e g a r d "... o c e a n o g r a p h y as a geophysical science, separate
from m a r i n e biology" (Marmer, 1934, p. 33).
M a r m e r ' s s e n t i m e n t s were shared b u t not w h e r e it mattered. Reporting in 1930 a n d
1931 for the U.S. National A c a d e m y of Sciences Committee on O c e a n o g r a p h y (NASCO),
 From marine e c o lo g y to biological o c e a n o g r a p h y 31

w h i c h had b e e n established to m a k e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on d e v e l o p m e n t of the marine

sciences, H. B. Bigelow of H a r v a r d took a b r o a d e r view:

... in the further d e v e l o p m e n t of sea science the keynote must be physical, c h e m i c a l

and biological unity, not diversity, for e v e r y t h i n g that takes place in the sea within
the real m of any one of these artificially divorced sciences i m p i n g e s upon all the rest
of them. In a word, until n e w vistas develop, w e b e l i e v e that our v e n t u r e s in
o c e a n o g r a p h y will be most profitable if w e regard the sea as dynamic, not as
s o m e t h i n g static, and if w e focus our attention on the cycle of fife and e n e r g y as a
wh o l e in the sea, instead of confining our individual outlook to one or another
restricted phase, w h e t h e r it be biologic, physical, chemical or geologic. This applies
to every o c e a n o g r a p h e r : e v e r y one of us, if he is to draw the veil b a c k w a r d at all,
must think a n d work in several disciplines. He must be either so m et h i n g of a Jack-of-
all-trades or so closely in tune with c o l l e a g u e s w o r k i n g in other disciplines that all
can pull t o g e t h e r (Bigelow, 1930, p. 86).

Any other approach would h i n d e r science m B i g e l o w s view by "setting us back-

w a r d to the stage of simply g a t h e r i n g and a c c u m u l a t i n g facts in u n r e l a t e d cat eg o r i es"
(Bigelow. 1930. p. 89).
The p r e e m i n e n t North A m e r i c a n o c e a n o g r a p h e r and moulder of the science was
actually a European, H. U, Sverdrup, director of the Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y
b e t w e e n 1936 and 1947. Sverdrup b r o a d e n e d the curriculum of the struggling Institution,
took its research to sea (in collaboration with state and federal agencies), and w o r k e d
with his c o l l e a g u e s Martin J o h n s o n and Richard F l e m i n g to publish the first m o d e r n text.
"The oceans. Their physics, chemistry and g e n e r a l biology" (1942). Sverdrup h ad b e g u n
his career as a meteorologist with V~ F. K. Bjerknes. Later he b e c a m e i n t e r e s t e d in ocean
circulation as a result of his e x p e r i e n c e s on A m u n d s e n ' s " M a u d " in the Arctic, 1918-1925
(Mills. 1991, pp. 261-265). He credited H e n r y Bigelow with convincing him of the need
for unity in studying the oceans. As he wrote in introducing "The oceans": " O c e a n o g r a -
phy e m b r a c e s all studies p e r t a i n i n g to the sea and integrates the k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d in
the marine sciences that deal with such subjects as o cean b o u n d a r i e s a n d bottom
topography, the physics and chemistry of sea water, the types of current, and the m a n y
phases of m a r i n e biology", (Sverdrup et al.. 1942. p. 1; see also Sverdrup, 1947. p. 78).
This was not a v i e w p o i n t he h a d b r o u g h t from Europe, where, as he said, "... t h er e has
b e e n a t e n d e n c y to draw a line b e t w e e n physical o c e a n o g r a p h y and the other m a r i n e
sciences, a t e n d e n c y w h i c h m a y be illustrated by the fact that there the term o c e a n o g r a -
phy is g en eral ly limited in m e a n i n g to the physics of the sea only" (Sverdrup, 1955,
p. 288).
Sverdrup w a s well placed to know. A n d his observation applies to m a r i n e sci en ce in
G e r m a n y long before I955. N e a r the e n d of his career. Karl Brandt, the d o m i n a n t figure
of the Kiel School from the 1880's until the First World War, s u m m a r i z e d the m a r i n e
zoological w o r k carried out u n d e r the Kiel C o m m i s s i o n b e t w e e n 1870 a n d 1920 (Brandt,
1921). In retrospect, m u c h of this w o r k qualifies as " o c e a n o g r a p h y " . But t h e w o r d does
not ap p er in Brandt's treatise, nor did he consider it relevant, e x c e p t to describe
K n i m m e l ' s t r e a t m e n t of physical data from t h e North S ea a n d the Baltic. Brandt u s e s the
g en eral term " M e e r e s f o r s c h u n g " to describe G e r m a n activities (mainly in Kiel and at
Helgoland) in m a r i n e science; it s e r v e d to unify a variety of activities, r a n g i n g from
32 Eric L. Mills

b a c t e r i o l o g y to zoology, plus the c h e m i c a l and physical sciences. Nearly 50 years later,

Gfinther Dietrich's influential text " A l l g e m e i n e M e e r e s k u n d e . Eine Einffihrung in die
O z e a n o g r a p h i e " (first edition 1957) i n t r o d u c e d " O z e a n o g r a p h i e " as a discipline that h ad
e v o l v e d from a c o m p o n e n t of g e o g r a p h y into a geophysical science, by b e c o m i n g
increasingly quantitative. In this and the second edition (1965), Dietrich m a d e a conces-
sion to biology by including a c h a p t e r (written by Kurt Kalle) on cycles of m a t e r i a l in the
sea, but biology p l a y e d a small part in his M e e r e s k u n d e . It is not that "biologische
M e e r e s k u n d e " does not exist in Dietrich's world of the oceans - rather that the proper
study of m a r i n e science is the m e d i u m itself; sea w a t e r and its properties. " O z e a n o g -
rap h i e" gives w a y to the more inclusive " M e e r e s f o r s c h u n g " ( eq u i v al en t to M e e r e s -
kunde) w h i c h

... g e h t es um d e n Stoff, n~mlich u m das M e e r w a s s e r u n d alle in i h m gel6sten u n d

s c h w e b e n d e n Substanzen, es g e h t ihr ferner u m d en Raum, d en das M e e r w a s s e r
ausftillt, u m die L e b e w e s e n , die d i e s e n Raum bev61kern, und u m die Energie, die
d e m M e e r e zur V e r f ~ g u n g steht (Dietrich, 1970, p. 9).

Stoff, Raum, L e b e w e s e n , E n e r g ie - the c o m p o n e n t s of a c o m p r e h e n s i v e s c i e n c e of the sea

- not O z e a n o g r a p h i e , but M e e r e s f o r s c h u n g or M e e r e s k u n d e .
T h e s e e x a m p l e s of definitions of o c e a n o g r a p h y {or its s e e m i n g cognates), w h i ch are
not i n t e n d e d to be a synoptic catalogue, show the futility of a t t e m p t i n g to i m p o s e strict
definitions - or any rigid c I a s s i f i c a t i o n - upon sciences that h a v e b e e n in constant
d e v e l o p m e n t and in dispute since the 1880's. T h e r e are not standard definitions or
classifications of such disciplines as " o c e a n o g r a p h y " , " M e e r e s k u n d e " , "Meeresfor-
s c h u n g " , " m arin e biology" or "biological o c e a n o g r a p h y " , nor should w e i m p o s e them.
Instead. e a c h is a nest of historical p r o b l e m s r e q u i r i n g investigation.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF T H I N G S A ND TH E C L A S S I F I C A T I O N O F M E N

This p a p e r is an attempt to outline the p a r a m e t e r s of a historical study, and it offers a

model of d e v e l o p m e n t in the marine sciences. It is b a s e d on t h e fact that t h e w e l l - k n o w n
and w i d e l y - u s e d [ate 20th century term "biological o c e a n o g r a p h y " is virtually absent
from the E u r o p e a n m a n n e science literature, and is very seldom u s e d in English-
l a n g u a g e writings on the marine sciences until after the middle of the 20th cen t u r y 2. As
my e x a m p l e s of the use of the w o r d " o c e a n o g r a p h y " h a v e shown, definitions and
classifications - any static t a x o n o m y of the m a r i n e s c i e n c e s - will not do. T h e u s a g e s are
too v a r i e d an d too d e p e n d e n t u p o n c o n te x t - or p e r h a p s u p o n w h i m - to b e satisfying. A
causal analytical a p p r o a c h is n e e d e d to resolve the forces at w o r k g o v e r n i n g how
professions in the m a r i n e sciences w e r e established, elaborated, modified a n d n a m e d .
My a p p r o a c h is to look b a c k 90 years to the w o r k of the F r e n c h social anthropologists
Emile D u r k h e i m a n d Marcel Mauss, who. in the words of David Bloor (1982, p.267)
proposed that "the classification of t h i n g s r e p r o d u c e s t h e classification of m e n " . F e w
sociologicaI formulations h a v e b e e n m o r e rigorously criticized t h a n D u r k h e i m an d
M au s s ' s hypothesis as it was first p r e s e n t e d in 1903 (see especially R o d n e y N e e d h a m , in
D u r k h e i m & Mauss. 1963) 3. But as BIoor has shown, their thesis, that definitions a n d
classifications "... e x p r e s s . . , th e v e r y societies within which they w e r e e l a b o r a t e d "
(Durkheim & Mauss, 1963, p. 66) b e c o m e s robust once it is joined with M a r y H e s s e ' s
 From m a r i n e ecology to biological o c e a n o g r a p h y 33

(1974) m o d e l of scientific k n o w l e d g e , according to w h i ch our systematic k n o w l e d g e of

the world is an i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e t w o r k of ideas and responses to nature, h e l d stable by
social conventions (coherence conditions). Knowledge, including our classification of the
external world, is neither totally socially c o n t i n g e n t nor g o v e r n e d u n e q u i v o c a l l y by facts
from nature. Instead it arises as a c o m p l e x interaction b e t w e e n natural reality, psycholog-
ical p e r c e p t u a l factors, and the bounds a n d forms i m p o sed by the societies in w h i c h we
operate. Th e result is, as Bloor (1982, p. 293) has stated, that " k n o w l e d g e is a c h a n n e l
wh i ch can c o n v e y two signals at once". Thus w e can e x p e c t scientists' classifications of
their professions to r e p r e s e n t both the natural reality dealt with by those professions and
the n e e d s an d aspirations of their practitioners. E x a m i n e d in this light, m a r i n e biology
and o c e a n o g r a p h y h a v e a good deal to tell us about the d e v e l o p m e n t of sci en ce an d its
context.

KIEL, HELGOLAND, A N D T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O U N C I L

By 1892 the scientific direction of m a r i n e research in Kiel had p a s s e d from Victor

H e n s e n to Karl Brandt. In 1888 Brandt a n d Carl Apstein b e g a n the l e n g t h y series of
cruises an d p l a n k t o n samples that w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y show the ubiquity an d the u n i q u e -
ness of the spring bloom and call for its explanation. But the P l an k t o n - Ex p ed i t i o n of 1889
to the o p e n Atlantic p r o d u c e d the most intriguing problems. Why, contrary to e x p e c t a -
tion, was the o p e n o c e a n more p l a n k t o n - r ich in high northern latitudes than in the
tropics? Within a few years (when he h a d r e c o g n i z e d that the spatial variations of
a b u n d a n c e o b s e r v e d in the open o c e a n h a d the same g o v e r n i n g factors as seasonal
variations e v i d e n t near Kiel), Brandt e m b a r k e d on a quest for chemical an d physical
controls of p l a n k t o n a b u n d a n c e s . Chemistry an d the n i t r o g e n cycle w e r e the keys (Mills,
1989. Chs. 2-51.
Uniting the resources of his Zoological Institute at Kiel. the Kiel Commission. and the
n e w G e r m a n commismon established to work within the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES) b e g m n i n g in 1902. Brandt and his c o l l e a g u e s had w o r k e d
out a coherent, chemically and physically b a s e d theory of the control of plankton
a b u n d a n c e in the sea by 1910. And, as Brandt's su m m ar y (1921) of his w o r k shows a lot
else was g o i n g on at Kiel. ranging from h y d r o g r a p h y to m a r i n e botany an d bacteriology.
This broad r a n g e of activities - M e e r e s f o r s c h u n g - a n s w e r e d questions ab o u t the sea.
classified m a r i n e organisms, and p r o v i d e d occupations for a r a n g e of investigators - from
hireling chemists to students, Privatdozenten. an d Professors such as Brandt himself.
Were w e anachronistically inclined, w e could call Brandt an d the Kiel School biological
o c e a n o g r a p h e r s . This would m a k e perfect sense in a m o d e r n context.
A true G e r m a n marine station h a d not existed before 1892, unless one c o u n t e d Anton
Dohrn's Stazione Zoologica in N a p l e s (a G e r m a n - b a s e d foundation est ab l i sh ed in 1872).
Nor was H e l g o l a n d a G e r m a n possession until 1890, w h e n the G e r m a n state a c q m r e d it
from Great Britain in e x c h a n g e for East African territories. H e l g o l a n d h a d m a n y virtues,
including a pnstine, v a r i e d biota quite different from that of the W a d d e n s e e and the
Baltic, a history of G e r m a n natural history exploration, an d access to t h e N o r t h Sea
fishing banks. But before 1892 - as the first director of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland,
Friedrich H e i n c k e (1896, p. 2) pointed out - G e r m a n y w as the only coastal Eurol0ean
nation l a c k i n g a p r o p e r m a r i n e station.
34 Eric L. Mills

With the support of the Emperor. the Kultusminister a n d his officials, the A k a d e m i e
der Wissenschaften, the Deutsche Fischerei-Verein (Sektion fiir Hochseefischerei), a n d
others, an advisory committee (including representatives of the Kiel Commission) com-
pleted a plan for a laboratory on H e l g o l a n d by the s u m m e r of 1891 It was u n d e r way a n d
growing a year later (Kofoid, 1910, pp. 221-222; Heincke. 1893), despite some opposition
(Werner, 1992). From the start, H e i n c k e had ambitious plans for the laboratory, which,
like the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, the Plymouth Laboratory, a n d W.C.
McIntosh's Gatty Marine Laboratory in Scotland he considered to be a m a n n e agricul-
tural station (Heincke, 1896. p.4). Using pure a n d applied biology, the H e l g o l a n d
laboratory w o u l d promote k n o w l e d g e of the G e r m a n North Sea fishery (Heincke, 1897, p.
579). Heincke's first, breathtakingly ambitious list of aims r a n g e d from research on the
production of commercial fish, to providing courses for fishermen (Heincke, 1896, p. 3).
Publication would be eased by establishing a special section of the Kiel Commissions
"Wissenschaftliche M e e r e s u n t e r s u c h u n g e n " .
The long history of the Biologische Anstalt H e l g o l a n d on the island a n d in e x p a n d e d
form on Sylt a n d the m a i n l a n d (outlined by Biickmann, 1959; Bulnheim, 1989. 1990), its
work easily characterized now as m a r i n e biology, was based on H e i n c k e ' s early aims of
a d v a n c i n g k n o w l e d g e of the North Sea fishery 4 But in the early days, success required
cooperation a n d collaboration with other agencies, such as the Kiel Commission which
was a competitor for resources such as money, ship-time and personnel. From its start m
1894, Heincke enlisted the support of the Deutsche Seefischerei-Verein a n d its President
Walther Herwig, who later b e c a m e President of the Deutsche Kommission ffir inter-
nationale Meeresforschung, the G e r m a n arm of ICES ISmed, 1990). H e i n c k e was
appointed to the Kiel Commission by the Minister of Agriculture in 1893, in a n attempt to
e n s u r e that H e l g o l a n d a n d Kiel collaborated rather than competed To a great extent this
succeeded, partly due to collaboration, a n d partly due to the different orientations
developed by the two institutions. W h e n in 1901 Helgoland a n d Kiel divided up the
G e r m a n work for ICES, Heincke a n d a colleague were responsible for the food-fishes
Brandt for the g e n e r a l biology, a n d Krfimmel for meteorology a n d h y d r o g r a p h y (Brandt,
1921, p, 78). We k n o w little of how this actually worked, but there are indications that
H e l g o l a n d a n d Kiet did not always he down together quietly; despite their division of
labour, Brandt refers to a g r e e m e n t b e i n g necessary b e t w e e n the two to avoid "splinter-
ing" G e r m a n m a r i n e research (Brandt. 1921, pp. 76-77). The Kiel Commission after all,
had b e g u n work on the Baltic fishery a n d e x t e n d e d its work to the North Sea (Mills, 1989,
Ch. 1) before the Helgoland laboratory was established. Only slowly, a n d after I892, did
the work of the two institutions diverge significantly, into what w e m i g h t n o w call m a r i n e
biology, fisheries biology and biological oceanography.
For the International Council itself, after its formation in 1902, the p r o b l e m was not
the division of l a b o u r but of b r i n g i n g the scientific work together into the synthesis
e n v i s i o n e d by its founders, They h a d stated that

... it was seen from the b e g i n n i n g that the study of the physical conditions, of the
chemical n a t u r e of the o c e a n waters, of the currents etc. was of the greatest
importance for the investigation of the problems connected with life, that on the
other h a n d . the study of the floating organisms h a d a particular worth for the solution
of hydrographic problems, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y that a sharp line should n e v e r b e d r a w n
 From marine ecology to biological oceanography 35

b e t w e e n these two main d i v i s i o n s . . . (ICES, 1902, quoted by Sverdrup et al., 1942,

p. 1).

But as Sverdrup k n e w (see quotation earlier), in Europe this was easier to say than to
achieve. Despite the early exhortations of J o h a n Hjort and the later c o n v e n i n g of special
m e e t i n g s to relate fisheries problems to physical o c e a n o g r a p h y (outlined by Sinclair et
al., 1987, Ch. 2 a n d App. 1-4), physical oceanographers and marine biologists found it
hard to ask the same questions, or e v e n to find ways of talking the same scientific
l a n g u a g e (Sverdrup, 1951). In 1950, after decades of similar pleas, K. A. Anderson, the
President of ICES, entitled his address at the a n n u a l m e e t i n g "Cooperation b e t w e e n
biologists and hydrographers", calling for "a still closer liaison b e t w e e n h y d r o g r a p h y a n d
biology" to explain the distribution of herring. O c e a n o g r a p h e r s and biologists in Europe
still found it easier in 1950 - perhaps preferable - to m a i n t a i n their distinctiveness rather
than to form p e r m a n e n t liaisons or to fuse their interests.

OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE NEW WORLD

H e n r y Bigelow b e g a n work on the Gulf of M a i n e in 1912. T a k i n g time from his
teaching duties at Harvard, he d e l i n e a t e d c h a n g e s in the p l a n k t o n and n u t r i e n t content
of the waters, a n d little by little arrived at a qualitative description of their circulation
(Bigelow, 1926a, b). Getting the work done required m e a n s b e y o n d his own: he was
forced into a n alliance with the U.S. Fish Commission (later the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries) for ships a n d equipment. The relationship was never perfect, c h a n g e d with the
political winds, a n d frequently drew Bigelow into work that he regarded as peripheral to
his m a i n interests (Brosco, 1989). Bigelow's opportunity to release his b r a n d of m a r i n e
science from its reliance on g o v e r n m e n t agencies came in 1927, w h e n the U.S. National
A c a d e m y of Sciences established a Committee on O c e a n o g r a p h y (NASCO), chaired by
F. R Lillie of the MBL in Woods Hole. to report on "the scope, economic i m p o r t a n c e and
present status of oceanography, with r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s as to how this science m a y more
effectively be e n c o u r a g e d in America" (Bigelow, 1930, pp. 84-85). Bigelow. as secretary
of NASCO. wrote the report, much of which was published u n d e r his n a m e , as
"Oceanography. Its scope, problems, a n d economic importance" in 1931. The i m m e d i a t e
outcome of N A S C O ' s report was the f o u n d i n g of the Woods Hole O c e a n o g r a p h i c
Institution in 1930, significant grants to the University of Washington and the Bermuda
Biological Station, a n d a modest g r a n t to the Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y ,
disappointing its director, T. W. V a u g h a n .
The Scripps Institution of O c e a n o g r a p h y until i930 was, at least m n a m e . the only
oceanographic laboratory in the United States. From its b e g i n n i n g s as a modest zoologi-
cal station in San Diego in 1893 it h a d grown u n d e r the leadership of W. E. Ritter who
envisioned the d e v e l o p m e n t of a n observatory of the sea, uniting the talents a n d the
disciplines of physicists, chemists a n d biologists. Ritter's vision a n d ideal of a unified
science of the sea (aimed at putting organisms i n full context - he was a zoologist first)
was achieved only in n a m e at the Scripps Institution until the directorship of H. U.
Sverdrup from 1936 to 1947. Lack of funds, lack of suitable sea-going vessels, a n d lack of
p e r s o n n e l kept Scripps as little more t h a n the m a r i n e biological laboratories that were its
n e i g h b o u r s along the U.S. coasts for the first four decades of its existence.
 36 Eric L. Mills

Bigelow's report for N A S C O p r o v i d e d a professional raison d'6tre that w a s not only

s a n c t i o n e d b y the National A c a d e m y of Sciences but given financial s u p p o r t by the
w e a l t h of the Rockefeller Foundation. O c e a n o g r a p h y was to be a ' m o t h e r science':
" e v e r y o c e a n i c biologist s h o u l d . . , b e g r o u n d e d in the principles of g e o p h y s i c s a n d
geochemistry; e v e r y chemical or physical o c e a n o g r a p h e r in some of the a q u a t i c aspects
of biology" (Bigelow, 1931, p.4). A c c o r d i n g to Bigelow, who h a d e x p e r i e n c e d the
practical difficulty of trying to justify p u r e science to his patrons at the B u r e a u of Fisheries
(Brosco, 1989), o c e a n o g r a p h y could only grow b y the fusion a n d integration of previously
s e p a r a t e disciplines. H e c o n c l u d e d his l e n g t h y a r g u m e n t a b o u t the s u p p o r t of one
discipline b y a n o t h e r b y asserting that t h e r e was

... no n e e d to quote more e x a m p l e s to show that the different disciplines of

o c e a n o g r a p h y inevitably interlock, or to prove the intellectual n e c e s s i t y of not only
r e c o g n i z i n g but i n d e e d acting u p o n this unity, if w e hope ever to gain a t h o r o u g h
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the sea a n d its inhabitants. A n y attempts (conscious or uncon-
scious) to hold t h e m apart can result only in frustrating this high aim a n d in setting us
b a c k w a r d to the stage of simply g a t h e r i n g a n d a c c u m u l a t i n g facts in u n r e l a t e d
c a t e g o r i e s (Bigelow, 1930, p. 89; 1931, p. 263).

The "oceanic biology" that was his specialty (Bigelow w a s a zoologist) r e q u i r e d little
further justification. Classical disciplines with solid institutional foundations such as
t a x o n o m y a n d ecology, were easily i n c o r p o r a t e d into "oceanic biology". They, along with
physiology a n d bacteriology, could be b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r to build u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the
m a r i n e production cycle (Bigelow. 1931. p p 130-132). This, in turn. r e q u i r e d c h e m i c a l
k n o w l e d g e , u n d e r s t a n d i n g of circulation, a n d p e r h a p s even of the configuration of o c e a n
b a s i n s which ultimately controlled the n a t u r e of circulation a n d thus the nutrient supply
a n d the distribution of organisms. " O c e a n i c biology" took its p l a c e with the h a r d
sciences.
Before W o r l d W a r 2, only Bigelow's i n c i p i e n t project to study t h e p r o d u c t i o n cycle on
G e o r g e s Bank b a s e d at Woods Hole a n d using the n e w r e s e a r c h vessel "Atlantis" was
m o d e l l e d on t h e ideals he set out in 1930. H. U. S v e r d r u p (as m e n t i o n e d earlier), w h o s e
text "The oceans" was u s e d b y a g e n e r a t i o n of o c e a n o g r a p h e r s , c l a i m e d to have b e e n
c o n v i n c e d b y Bigelow's a r g u m e n t s of the u n i t y of biology, chemistry, physics a n d
g e o l o g y in o c e a n o g r a p h y . But the w a r a n d his return to N o r w a y s l o w e d the i m p a c t of his
e c u m e n i c a l ideas. S v e r d r u p ' s influence was r e n e w e d on the U.S. w e s t coast after the war.
b u t in a n e w context. As H. N. S c h e i b e r {1986. I988, 1990b) has shown, m a r i n e biology
b e c a m e i n t e g r a t e d into o c e a n o g r a p h y b e c a u s e of v e r y practical concerns. A m o n g these
w e r e the e x p a n s i o n of U.S. interests in the Pacific, e x p r e s s e d in a n d r e a l i z e d as the
e x p a n s i o n of the tuna fishery, a n d a t t e m p t s to u n d e r s t a n d fluctuations in California's
s a r d i n e populations. Out of t h e first c a m e the Pacific O c e a n Fishery Investigations (POFI.
1947) a n d t h e I n t e r - A m e r i c a n Tropical T u n a C o m m i s s i o n (1949), out of the s e c o n d the
California C o o p e r a t i v e O c e a n i c Fishery Investigations (CalCOFI) (1948 - see Scheiber.
1990a). All t h r e e i n t e g r a t e d biological w o r k on t h e Pacific w i t h its physics a n d c h e m i s t r y
d u r i n g the late 1940' and 1950's. T h r o u g h the a g e n c y of biologists like W. M. C h a p m a n
a n d M. B. Schaefer, b r o a d oceanic studies a n d surveys, i n c l u d i n g m a r i n e biology,
b e c a m e a h a l l m a r k of U.S. o c e a n o g r a p h y on the w e s t coast
 From marine ecology to biological oceanography 37

As Scheiber (1988, p. 226) has written, "in sum, the ' n e w oceanography' - which
involved not only its conceptual transformation but also its e m e r g e n c e as part of Big
Science in the organization a n d scale of sponsored research - had t a k e n form a n d b e g u n
to flourish". Although he credits Sverdrup with b r i n g i n g this viewpoint to A m e r i c a n
science from Europe, it seems likely to me, b a s e d on Sverdrup's own statements, that we
can look to Bigelow for the conceptual foundations a n d the programmatic outhne of
marine biology's integration into o c e a n o g r a p h y in the United States after World War 2,
b e g i n n i n g in California.
Just after the war, with the exception of the major projects in Cahfornia described
above, biologists found themselves in u n c h a r t e d waters in relation to oceanography.
According to Scheiber (1988, p. 225),
although a few p r o m i n e n t m a r i n e biologists had b e g u n to e x a m i n e the ecological
relationships b e t w e e n biological p h e n o m e n a a n d the chemical a n d physical aspects
of ocean environments, there was no real unity of ocean studies, either conceptually
or in the organization of the profession.

What s e e m e d clear, however, to m a r i n e biologists, was that the post-war expansion

of o c e a n o g r a p h y was passing them by, both financially and professionally.
This viewpoint was supported by high-level committees e x a m i n i n g the state of
o c e a n o g r a p h y in the United States in the first d e c a d e or two after the war. A n e w NASCO
(unrelated to the first) was c o n v e n e d in 1949 to review the post-war status of A m e r i c a n
oceanography. The committee predicted a modest e x p a n s i o n of American o c e a n o g r a p h y
that should b e b a s e d on institutional c h a n g e s in laboratories and universities a n d on
increases of funding. "Marine biology" was a special problem.

For several years it has b e e n difficult to obtain the necessary financial support for
marine biology, as the outcome of such investigations has b e e n uncertain. In the
past, data a c c u m u l a t e d so rapidly that m u c h of it was only superficially e x a m i n e d
a n d reported upon. This was due to the slow a n d crude methods both at sea a n d in
the laboratory. N e w and more quantitative m e t h o d s are necessary. New gear for use
at sea while a vessel is u n d e r way is m the d e v e l o p m e n t a l stages, and n e w laboratory
procedures to replace the older t i m e - c o n s u m i n g methods of counting a n d identifying
the various species are b e i n g tested. With the n e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g of water move-
ments, it will be possible to formulate the problems more exactly a n d thus obviate
m u c h u n n e c e s s a r y collecting of data. In short, w h e n funds become available, m a r i n e
biology should m a k e greater strides than have b e e n possible in the last fifty years
(NASCO/NRC. 1952, p. 11).

In 1951, more t h a n half the financial support for oceanography came from the U.S.
D e p a r t m e n t of Defense. The result as the NASCO report concluded, was that, although
some aspects of o c e a n o g r a p h y had prospered (physical oceanography geophysics and
acoustics were examples), others h a d not, a n d that " u n d e r the present system of
g o v e r n m e n t s u b s i d y m o c e a n o g r a p h y some Lrnportant scientific problems tend to be
neglected" (NASCO/NRC. 1952, pp. 17-18). Due to the i m b a l a n c e of funds directed to
applied problems, including defense-related oceanography, pure science was put at a
disadvantage; m a r i n e biology in particular was difficult to support unless it h a d some
direct relevance to the fisheries. Using the terms for the first time in their report, the
38 Eric L. Mills

NASCO m e m b e r s r e c o m m e n d e d that biological o c e a n o g r a p h y be given special funding,

because, as they stated, it, with chemical oceanography, presented " m a n y of the most
c h a l l e n g i n g problems of the sea" (NASCO/NRC, 1952, p. 27).
A decade later the same complaint was voiced by a third NASCO, w h o s e report was
p u b l i s h e d in 1959/1962 after a decade of truly astonishing growth in o c e a n o g r a p h y 5.
Study of "the ways of life in the sea" ("biological oceanography" was not m e n t i o n e d ) was
still u n d e r - f u n d e d , but the kind of m a r i n e biology described in the committees' report
had b e g u n to shift. Earlier reports had described the m a r i n e biology applied to the open
oceans as a k i n d of conglomerate, variously composed of taxonomic work, ecological a n d
zoogeographic studies, m a r i n e physiology a n d microbiology. In 1959, a n e w mode of
doing oceanic biology appeared, u n d e r the h e a d i n g of "Ocean-wide surveys" (NASCO/
NRC, 1959, 1962, Ch. 9, pp. 5-6).
The ultimate objective of a biological survey must be to obtain as clear a picture as
possible of the communities of living marine organisms, population sizes, and
productivity. M e a s u r e m e n t s should be m a d e of the fertility a n d primary productivity
in different ocean areas on a seasonal basis and specimens for taxonomic and
zoogeographical studies should be collected.

The e x p o n e n t of this kind of programme, already u n d e r way in Hawaii a n d Califor-

nia. was Gordon A. Riley, then a m e m b e r of the Bingham O c e a n o g r a p h i c Laboratory at
Yale University, a n d m e m b e r of the third NASCO. His career shows that more than
f u n d i n g was at stake in the success with which m a r i n e biology and other ocean sciences
came together.

G. A. RILEY AND BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

Gordon Riley b e g a n his scientific career as an embryologist. As a n e w graduate
s t u d e n t at Yale in 1934 he met the limnologist a n d ecologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson, whose
personality, work a n d ideas p e r s u a d e d Riley to leave embryology for limnology. Towards
the completion of his doctoral thesis in 1937, he w e n t to sea for the first time on Woods
Hole's research vessel "Atlantis". Riley discovered that he liked working at sea. a n d that
the quantitative approach to lake ecology he h a d developed with H u t c h i n s o n ' s encour-
a g e m e n t could be applied to a bigger a n d more varied e n v i r o n m e n t than lakes. During
the next 10 years, interrupted by the war, Riley b e g a n the d e v e l o p m e n t of statistical, t h e n
analytical models of production processes in the sea (Mills, 1989, Ch. 10).
Riley's early work was not readily accepted, nor did it fit into a comfortable
professional niche in A m e r i c a n science. Riley a n d H u t c h i n s o n r e g a r d e d t h e m s e l v e s as
y o u n g Turks, b r i n g i n g quantitative reform to ecology, which in the U n i t e d States
a p p e a r e d to have d e g e n e r a t e d into a fruitless search for unifying principles without any
philosophical basis u p o n which to base t h e m (for a review of A m e r i c a n ecology, see
Kingsland, 1991). H. A. Mariner, e v e n with his monochromatic view of oceanography,
h a d identified the p r o b l e m during the 1930's:
... the compilation of a body of k n o w l e d g e represents only the p r e l i m i n a r y stage in
the d e v e l o p m e n t of a science. It is only w h e n the various groups of facts in this body
are correlated a n d interrelated t h r o u g h generalizations of wider r a n g e that we may
 From marine ecology to biological o c e a n o g r a p h y 39

properly s p e a k of it as a science. This latter stage of d e v e l o p m e n t in o c e a n o g r a p h y

has t e n d e d to limit its scope, and more especially, has shifted its focus from marine
biology (Marmer, 1934, p. 28).

But there was an example to be followed from within ecology - m a t h e m a t i c a l

population biology of the kind developed by Raymond Pearl and A. J. Lotka, Vito
Volterra a n d G. F. Gause, which attempted to use rigorously mathematical t e c h n i q u e s to
describe, if not to explain, population growth a n d the competitive relations of organisms
(Kingsland, 1991, pp, 7-10). It was in this sense, in 1952, that Riley defined biological
o c e a n o g r a p h y as "the ecology of m a r i n e populations". He agreed that m u c h of oceanog-
raphy was overly descriptive but that,

there have b e e n attempts to go further, to u n d e r s t a n d the geographical a n d seasonal

variations of populations in terms of basic e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors, to follow the
transfer of matter a n d energy through the food chain from green plants to successive
trophic levels of animals and back to the reservoir of the e n v i r o n m e n t , and to
u n d e r s t a n d the physiological processes a n d feeding habits that m a k e this transfer
possible. These are some of the aims of biological o c e a n o g r a p h y (Riley, 1952, p. 80).

A n d these were Riley's own aims, realized in his quantitative models, a n d promoted
in a l e n g t h y series of publications (including, especially, Riley, 1953). For Riley, biological
o c e a n o g r a p h y originated in ecology, but although it could not be divorced from ecology,
the flaws in ecology (including n o n - q u a n t i t a t i v e marine biology) required reorientation
from a g r a b - b a g of semi-defined concepts to clear, stepwise analytical approaches to
variation in nature. O c e a n o g r a p h y provided the appropriate home for this kind of
science, rather t h a n ecology, b e c a u s e of its quantitative n a t u r e 6. The order in which he
listed the foundational disciplines of o c e a n o g r a p h y was not random:
O c e a n o g r a p h y m a y be roughly defined as the application of certain basic disciplines
- mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology a n d geology to any a n d all oceanic
problems (Riley, 1960. p. 20).

W h e n Riley wrote these lines, marine biologists had b e g u n to have financial success
in hitching their wagons to the harder ocean sciences as biological oceanography. The
U.S. National Science F o u n d a t i o n (NSF) (created in 1950 - see Lomask, t976; England,
1983) first d e s i g n a t e d biological o c e a n o g r a p h y a "critical area" in 1960 (appointing an
"Ad Hoc Committee" on the subject the same year), a n d by 1970 had created a special
programme in biological oceanography within its Division of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Sciences.
Marine biology r e m a i n e d b e h i n d in the Division of Biological a n d Medical Sciences,
where the two subjects previously had coexisted 7, Riley's solution addressed a problem
that was more professional than financial: how to conduct a quantitative ecological
science u n d e r a discredited b a n n e r . Biological o c e a n o g r a p h y provided the a n s w e r to
both problems (Riley, I960, p. 20).

THE C ~ S S I F I C A T I O N OF SCIENCES AND T H E C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF MEN

By the late 1960~s t h e t e r m " b i o l o g i c a l o c e a n o g r a p h y ' was m c o m m o n use m t h e
United Statesi finding its way into generaI publications (e g. U.S: Naval H y d r o g r a p h i c
40 Eric L. Mills

Office, 1967) a n d b e i n g defined exphcitly in a w a y that gave identity a n d prestige to the

kinds of science - a n d kinds of scientists - supported from the public purse. As a newly-
constituted third NASCO wrote:
biological o c e a n o g r a p h y . . , is c o n c e r n e d primarily with marine organisms as part of
the total oceanic system a n d with the ocean as a habitat for hfe. It seeks to
u n d e r s t a n d the interactions of organisms with their e n v i r o n m e n t a n d with each
other. It seeks to u n d e r s t a n d how oceanic e n v i r o n m e n t s affect the distribution,
behaviour, evolution, a n d life processes of the organisms and how the organisms
modify the environment. It is particularly c o n c e r n e d with the flux of e n e r g y a n d
matter through the marine biosphere (NAS/NRC, 1967, p. 52).

To m a r i n e biology and m a r i n e biologists, the sea was secondary (NASCO used the
word "incidental") to its organisms; to biological o c e a n o g r a p h y a n d to biological
o c e a n o g r a p h e r s the sea came first, u n i t i n g the various sciences that were n e e d e d to
u n d e r s t a n d it.
As I have shown, any attempt to u n d e r s t a n d the relationship b e t w e e n m a r i n e biology
a n d biological o c e a n o g r a p h y is destined to fail if it is b a s e d only u p o n definitions of those
scientific disciplines. This is so b e c a u s e definitions provide only a fixed point of refer-
ence: my essay has shown that only a historical examination of the relationships of the
marine sciences can explain the realities of our current classifications of professions in
them. Definitions c h a n g e b e c a u s e they reflect more than the realities of n a t u r e : they are
built in response to c h a n g i n g n e e d s a n d aspirations. It is in this sense a n d this context that
D u r k h e i m a n d Mauss's hypothesis applies not just to h u m a n ordering of the natural
world but to the way professions fall into relation one to the other.
I have s h o w n that "biological oceanography" arose a n d was first useful primarily in a
special context, the United States of the 1950's a n d 1960's. where a n e w system of
f u n d i n g science was growing rapidly. Marine biologists a n d ecologists, who h a d contri-
b u t e d i n o r d i n a t e l y to the origins of oceanography, felt neglected, not just as scientists,
b u t especially in the extent to which they could find m o n e y for their research. Their
liaison with o c e a n o g r a p h y as biological oceanographers provided not only a satisfying
increase m the b r e a d t h and depth of their work, but an increase in their ability to find
research funds. Increased status, m o n e y a n d scientific power came with m a r i n e biology s
marriage to o c e a n o g r a p h y as biological o c e a n o g r a p h y during the 1950's and early
1960's.
F u n d i n g was not the only imperative. M a r i n e ecology, though successful, was not
particularly highly r e g a r d e d i n the hierarchies of A m e r i c a n science b e t w e e n the 1930's
a n d 1960's. Mathematical ecology was a way out for those like G o r d o n Riley, who
r e g a r d e d t h e semantic excesses of A m e r i c a n ecology with scorn. The mathematical
ecology of the oceans, to Riley, was biological oceanography.
These p r o b l e m s a n d their solutions are not a p p a r e n t i n Europe n o t a b l y n o t in
Germany. In G e r m a n universities like Kiel, a n d i n m a r i n e science institutes like the
Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, m a r i n e biology a n d the other m a r i n e sciences fitted
comfortably into professional a n d institutional settings devoted to M e e r e s k u n d e . or,
stressing the h u m a n actors involved, Meeresforschung. M e e r e s k u n d e lot Meeresfor-
schunq) p r o v i d e d an u m b r e l l a u n d e r w h i c h the m a r i n e science disciplines could cluster.
Hierarchies certainly existed, b u t given the relatively e v e n - h a n d e d distribution of state
 From marine ecology to biological o c e a n o g r a p h y 41

and federal funds to the marine sciences in G e r m a n y until at least the 1960's, and their
concentration on applied problems like the fisheries, competition and the sense of b e i n g
at a d i s a d v a n t a g e a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n at a m i n i m u m in that setting. Biological o c e a n o g -
rap h y was not n e e d e d .
If in G e r m a n y M e e r e s k u n d e or M e e r e s f o r s c h u n g provided an u m b r e l l a for all the
m a r i n e sciences, biological o c e a n o g r a p h y in the United States was a fusion of ecological
and physical sciences. Marine biologists a t t e m p t e d to better their positions - and
certainly s u c c e e d e d financially and professionally - by incorporating m a r i n e chemistry
an d especially physical o c e a n o g r a p h y into their reconstituted realm of study during the
late 1950's and early 1960's. Biological o c e a n o g r a p h y was the result, an d a l t h o u g h the
n a m e was not n e w it held n e w significance to a group of professional marine scientists in
the United States b e g i n n i n g in the 1960's. T h e n a m e stuck for good reasons an d has since
s p r e a d well b e y o n d its original bounds. Biological o c e a n o g r a p h y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e
realities of life in the o c e a n - but it also reflected the status, financial, professional and
scientific, that marine biologists w o r k i n g on oceanic problems hoped to achieve.

NOTES

1. H e r d m a n ' s Chair. established in 1919. was o c c u p i e d by him for only one year; he was
s u c c e e d e d by J a m e s J o h n s t o n e (1920-1934L Th e first chairs of o c e a n o g r a p h y any-
w h e r e w e r e created in Paris in 1906 by Albert the First of Monaco. They w e r e
incorporated into his Institut O c e f i n o g r a p h i q u e w h e n it was formally i n a u g u r a t e d m
1911.
2. For example. "biological o c e a n o g r a p h y " is u s e d in a variety of contexts by H e r d m a n ,
1920 p. 3: W. E. Allen, 1927: Harvey, 1928. p. 3; K n u d s e n et al.. 1950 Riley, 1952.
p. 79, 1960. p. 20; and only fleetingly or indirectly in N A S C O / N R C , 1951 and N A S C O /
NRC 1959/1962. The G e r m a n hydrobiologist Ernst H en t sch el u s e d the term
"biologische O z e a n o g r a p h i e " in a r e c o g n i z a b l y m o d e r n way in a lecture to the
Officers Mess on "Meteor" in S e p t e m b e r 1926. My thanks to Prof. H j al m ar Thiel for
this information and for s h o w i n g m e the outline of H en t sch el 's lecture. In 1989 I
imposed the term upon all the m a r i n e r e s e a r c h i n v o l v i n g plankton dynamics from
Victor H e n s e n ' s first work in the 1880's t hr o u g h the 1960's (Mills. 1989; see esp. pp.
1-6).
3. Bloor's elaboration of Durkheim and M a u ss in support of an interests m o d e l of
scientific k n o w l e d g e has b e e n no less contentious: see the e x t e n s i v e c o m m e n t a r v
following his paper.
4. H e i n c k e ' s early scientific contributions h a v e b e e n eclipsed (at least in the English-
s p e a k i n g worId) by his directorship at Helgoland. S ee Sinclair & Solemda] (1988).
5. T h e 1952 N A S C O c o m m i t t e e p r e d i c t e d modest growth in the funding and p e r s o n n e l
of o c e a n o g r a p h y . Their rep~rL almost quaint in retrospect, could not h a v e foreseen
U.S. responses in science to t h e C o l d War. the l a u n c h i n g of t h e first Soviet "Sputnik"
(1957), an d A m e r i c a n euphona':(scientific and political] w i t h the Success of their own
space p r o g r a m m e b e g i n n i n g in 1958 (Kitsos, 1988; King & Jen n i n g s, 1988). For the
status of A m e r i c a n o c e a n o g r a p h y b e t w e e n the two N A S C O reports, see F l em i n g 1957
and 1968. The scientific and political context of the third N A S C O is d e s c r i b e d bv
W e n k (1972, pp. 39-45)
42 Eric L. Mills

6. A c u r i o u s t r a n s i t i o n a l p u b l i c a t i o n i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s p o i n t is t h e " T r e a t i s e o n m a r i n e
e c o l o g y a n d p a l e o e c o l o g y " . V o l u m e 1 ( H e d g p e t h , 1957). C o n c e i v e d of p a r t l y as a
m o d e r n i z a t i o n of t h e b i o l o g i c a l s e c t i o n of " T h e o c e a n s " , it c o v e r e d all t h a t w o u l d l a t e r
be called biological oceanography, was used by oceanographers, and contained a
d i d a c t i c c h a p t e r o n statistics i n e c o l o g y a i m e d a t r e s o l u t e l y n o n - q u a n t i t a t i v e p r a c -
t i t i o n e r s of m a r i n e e c o l o g y .
7, T h e b e s t g u i d e to t h e i n t r i c a c i e s of U.S. g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g of t h e m a r i n e s c i e n c e s
t h r o u g h N S F a f t e r W o r l d W a r 2 will b e Dr. T o b y A p p e l ' s f o r t h c o m i n g a c c o u n t of t h e
U.S. N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n ' s s u p p o r t of m a r i n e b i o l o g y a n d r e l a t e d s c i e n c e s , I
a m g r a t e f u l to Dr. A p p e l for l e t t i n g m e r e a d p a r t s of t h e m a n u s c r i p t a n d for d i s c u s s i o n s
of t h i s p a p e r . A s k e t c h of d e v e l o p m e n t s a t t h i s t i m e f r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t of a n
o c e a n o g r a p h e r ( n o n - b i o l o g i c a l ) is K n a u s s (1988). V i e w s f r o m i n s i d e t h e p o l i t i c a l
p o w e r s t r u c t u r e a r e g i v e n b y W e n k (1972), a n d P r i c e (1965, pp. 2 0 9 - 2 6 9 ) s h o w s h o w
c o m p l e x w a s t h e g r o w t h of U.S. o c e a n o g r a p h y i n p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p o l i t i c a l t e r m s
d u r i n g t h e 1960's.

LITERATURE CITED
Allen. W. E., 1927. Pressing needs in the field of biological oceanography. - Bull. Scripps Instn.
Oceanogr. INon-tech. Set.) I3, 1-t5,
Attlmayr, F. lEd.), 1883. H a n d b u c h der O z e a n o g r a p h i e und maritimen Meteorologie. K.-K. Hof- &
Staatsdr.. Wien. I-2. 1-990.
Bigelow. H. B. 1926a. Physical oceanography of the Gulf of Maine. - Bull. Bur. Fish.. Wash. 40 (2),
511-1027
Bigelow. H. B.. 1926b. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine. - Bull. Bur. Fish., Wash.
40 (2), 1-509.
Bigelow. H. B.. 1930, A developing view-point in oceanography. - Science N.Y 71, 84-89.
Bigelow. H. B.. 1931 Oceanography, its scope, problems, and economic importance. Houghton
Mifflin. Boston. 263 pp.
Bloor, D.. 1982. Durkheim & Mauss revisited. Classification and the sociology of knowledge. - Stud.
Hist. Phil. Sci. 13, 267-297.
Boguslawski. G. yon & O. Krfimmel, 1887. H a n d b u c h der Ozeanographie. II,: Die B e w e g u n g s f o r m e n
des Meeres. Engelhorn Stuttgart, 592 pp.
Brandt. K. 1921. Die zootogischen Arbeiten der Kieler Commission 1870-],920. In: Festschrift der
Preussischen Kommismon zur wissenschaftlichen U n t e r s u c h u n g e n der d e u t s c h e n M e e r e zu Kiel.
Lipsius & Tischer. Kiel. 76-194.
Brosco J. P.. 1989, Henry Bryant Bigelow, the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. and intensive area study. -
Soc. Stud. Sci. 19. 239-264~
Bfickmann. A, (Ed.), 1959, Die Wieder6ffnung der Biologischen Anstalt Helgoland auf der Insel
Helgoland. - Helgol~nder wiss. Meeresunters. 7, 1-50,
Bulnheim, H.-P., 1989. T h e Biologische Anstalt Helgoland - some historical events. - Dt. hydrogr. Z
Erg.-H. (Reihe B), 21, 99-110,
Bulnheim, H, P., 1990. A century of m a r i n e zoological a n d ecological research a r o u n d Helgoland
Island. Dt. hydrogr. Z. Erg.-H. (Reihe B) 22, 84-93.
Cole, F. J., 1934. "J,J." A biographical note. In: J a m e s J o h n s t o n e memorial volume. Ed. by R. J.
Daniel. Liverpool Univ. Press. Liverpool, 1-11.
Dietrich, G., 1957. Allgemeine Meereskunde. Bomtraeger, Berlin, 492 pp.
Dietrich. G. (Hrsg.), 1970. Erforschung des Meeres. U m s c h a u VerL Frankfurt, 318 pp.
Durkheim. E. & Mauss. M., I963. Primitive classification. C o h e n & West, London, 96 pp.
England, J. M., 1983. A patron for pure science: the National Science Foundation's formative years.
1945-57. National Science Foundation, Washington, 443 pp.
 F r o m m a r i n e e c o l o g y to b i o l o g i c a l o c e a n o g r a p h y 43

F l e m i n g , R. H., 1957. P r e s e n t s t a t u s a n d f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t of o c e a n o g r a p h y . - Proc. Pacif. Sci.

C o n g r . 8 (3A), 1 1 7 7 - t 1 9 6 .
F l e m i n g , R. H., 1968. T h e history of e d u c a t i o n in o c e a n o g r a p h y . Dept. of O c e a n o g r a p h y , Univ. of
W a s h i n g t o n , Seattle, 14 pp.
H a r v e y , H. W., 1928. Biological c h e m i s t r y a n d p h y s i c s of s e a w a t e r . C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press,
C a m b r i d g e , 194 pp.
H e d g p e t h , J. W. (Ed.), 1957. Treatise on m a r i n e ecology a n d p a l e o e c o l o g y . Geol. Soc. Am., N e w
York, 1, 1-1296.
H e i n c k e , F., 1893. Die Biologische A n s t a l t a u f H e l g o l a n d . - Bot. Zbl. 54, 139-142.
H e i n c k e , F., 1896. Die Biologische A n s t a l t a u f H e l g o l a n d u n d ihre T/itigkeit im J a h r e 1893. - Wiss.
M e e r e s u n t e r s . (Helgoland) i, 1-33.
H e i n c k e , F., 1897. Die Th/itigkeit der Kgl. B i o l o g i s c h e n A n s t a l t a u f H e l g o l a n d . - Wiss. M e e r e s u n -
ters. (Helgoland) 2, 537-579.
H e r d m a n , W. A., 1920. O c e a n o g r a p h y a n d t h e sea-fisheries. - Rep. Br. Ass. A d v m t Sci. 88, 1-33.
H e r d m a n , W. A., 1923. F o u n d e r s of o c e a n o g r a p h y a n d their work. Arnold, London, 340 pp.
H e s s e , M. B., 1974. T h e s t r u c t u r e of scientific inference. M a c m i l l a n , London, 309 pp.
Jilek, A. (Hrsg.), 1857. L e h r b u c h d e r O c e a n o g r a p h i e z u m G e b r a u c h e d e r k.k. M a n n e - A k a d e m i e .
K.-K. Hof- & Staatsdr., Wien, 298 pp.
J o h n s t o n e , J., 1908. C o n d i t i o n s of life in t h e sea. C a m b r i d g e Univ. Press, C a m b r i d g e , 332 pp.
J o h n s t o n e , J., 1923. A n introduction to o c e a n o g r a p h y , w i t h special r e f e r e n c e to g e o g r a p h y a n d
g e o p h y s i c s . H o d d e r & S t o u g h t o n , L o n d o n , 351 pp.
J o h n s t o n e , J., 1926. A s t u d y of the o c e a n s . Arnold, L o n d o n , 215 pp.
King, L. R. & J e n n i n g s , F. D., 1988. T h e e x e c u t i v e a n d t h e o c e a n s : t h r e e d e c a d e s of U n i t e d States
m a r i n e policy. - J . mar. Technol. Soc. 22, 17-32.
K i n g s l a n d , S., 1991. D e f i n i n g ecology as a science. In: F o u n d a t i o n s of ecology. Ed. by L. A. Real &
J. H. Brown. Univ. of C h i c a g o Press. C h i c a g o , 1-13.
Kitsos T. A.. 1988. C o n g r e s s a n d t h e o c e a n s : s h a p i n g m a r i n e policy for t h r e e d e c a d e s . - J. Mar.
T e c h n o l . Soc. 22. 33-49.
K n a u s s , J. 1988. A c a d e m i c o c e a n o g r a p h y : h o w w e got from t h e r e to here. - J . Mar. T e c h n o l . Soc. 22
5-11
K n u d s e n . V O., Redfield, A. C. Revelle. R. & S h r o c k R. R.. 1950 E d u c a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g of
o c e a n o g r a p h e r s . - Science N.Y. 111, 7 0 0 - 7 0 3
Kofoid C. A.. 1910. T h e biological stations of Europe. U.S. B u r e a u of E d u c a n o n . W a s h i n g t o n , 360 pp.
Krfimmel. O.. 1907. H a n d b u c h d e r O z e a n o g r a p h i e . B d h Die r / i u m l i c h e n c h e m i s e h e n u n d p h y -
s i k a l i s c h e n Verhfiltnisse d e s Meeres. E n g e l h o r n . Stuttgart, 526 pp.
Kriimmel. O. 1911. H a n d b u c h der O z e a n o g r a p h i e . Bd. II: Die B e w e g u n g s f o r m e n d e s M e e r e s .
E n g e l h o m Stuttgart. 766 pp.
L o m a s k . M.. 1976. A m i n o r miracle - an i n f o r m a l history of t h e N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n .
N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , 285 pp.
M a r m e r . H. A.. I934. T h e s c o p e of o c e a n o g r a p h y . In: J a m e s J o h n s t o n e m e m o r i a l volume_ Ed. by R. J.
Daniel. Liverpool Univ. Press. Liverpool. 22-34.
Mills. E. L.. 1989. Biological o c e a n o g r a p h y . C o r n e l l Univ. Press. Ithaca. 378 pp.
Mills. E. L.. 1991. T h e o c e a n o g r a p h y of t h e Pacific: G e o r g e F. M c E w e n H.U. S v e r d r u p a n d t h e origin
of p h y s i c a l o c e a n o g r a p h y on t h e w e s t c o a s t of N o r t h A m e r i c a - A n n . Sci. 48, 241-266.
N A S C O (National A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Councill. 1952. O c e a n o g r a p h y 1951
N a t i o n a l Acad. of Sciences W a s h i n g t o n , 36 pp.
N A S C O (National A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Council/, 1959-1962. O c e a n o g r a p h y
1960 to 1970. N a t i o n a l Acad. of S c i e n c e s , W a s h i n g t o n , 240 pp.
N A S C O {National A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Councfl), 1967. O c e a n o g r a p h y 1966.
A c h i e v e m e n t s a n d opportunities. N a t i o n a l Acad. of S c i e n c e s . W a s h i n g t o n , 183 pp.
Paffen. K.-H. & K o r t u m . G., 1984. Die G e o g r a p h i e d e s M e e r e s . - K i e l e r Geogr. Schr. 60,1-293.
Price. D. K. 1965. T h e scientific estate. H a r v a r d Univ. Press. C a m b r i d g e , 323 p p .
Riley, G. A., 1952. Biological o c e a n o g r a p h y . In: S u r v e y of bioloclical Droclress. Ed. b y G. S. Avery.
Acad. Press. N e w York. 2. 79-104.
Riley, G. A, 1953. T h e o r y of g r o w t h a n d c o m p e t i t i o n in n a t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n s - J. Fish. Res. Bd Can.
10, 211-233.
44 Eric L. M i l l s

Riley, G. A., 1960. Education and m a n p o w e r problems in oceanography. In: Papers: 8th Conference
on Scientific Manpower. National Science Foundation, Washington, 20-24 (Publ. NSF 60-34).
Scheiber, H. N., 1986. Pacific ocean resources, science a n d the law of the sea: Wilbert M. C h a p m a n
and the Pacific Fisheries, 1945-1970. - Ecol. Law Q. 13, 381-534.
Scheiber, H. N., 1988. Wilbert C h a p m a n a n d the revolution in U.S. Pacific Ocean science a n d policy,
1945-1951. In: Nature in its greatest extent. Ed. by R. MacLeod & P. F. Rehbock. Univ. of Hawaii
Press, Honolulu, 223-244.
Scheiber, H. N., 1990a. California m a r i n e research a n d the founding of m o d e r n fisheries oceanogra-
phy: CalCOFI's early years, 1947-1964. - Calif. coop. oceanic Fish. Invest. Rep. 31, 63-83.
Scheiber, H. N., 1990b. Pacific fishery studies, 1945-1970, oceanography, geopolitics, a n d m a r i n e
fisheries expansion. - Dt. hydrogr. Z. Erg.-H. (Reihe B) 22, 417-421.
Sinclair, M., Loder, J. W., Gascon, D., H o m e , E. P., Perry, I. & S a n d e m a n , E. J., 1987. Fisheries n e e d s
for physical o c e a n o g r a p h i c information within the Atlantic zone. - Can. tech. Rep. Fish. aquat.
Sci. I568, 1-166.
Sinclair, M. & Solemdal, P., 1988. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of "population thinking" in fisheries biology
b e t w e e n 1878 a n d 1930. - Aquat. living Resour. 1, 189-213.
Smed, J., 1990. Walther Herwig: the first p r e s i d e n t of the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea (ICES). - Dt. hydrogr. Z. Erg.-H. (Reihe B) 22, 323-329.
Sverdrup, H. U., 1947. N e w international aspects of oceanography. - Proc. Am. phil. Soc. 91, 75-78.
Sverdrup, H. U., 1951. Some r e m a r k s on the place of h y d r o g r a p h y in fisheries research. - Rapp. P.-v.
R~un. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer. I3I, 7.
Sverdrup, H. U., 1955. T h e place of physical o c e a n o g r a p h y in oceanographic research. - J. mar. Res.
14, 287-294.
Sverdrup, H.U., J o h n s o n , M W. & Fleming, R. H., 1942. T h e oceans. Prentice-Hall, E n g l e w o o d Cliffs,
1087 pp.
U.S. Naval O c e a n o g r a p h i c Office, 1967. Science a n d the sea. U.S. G o v e r n m e n t Print. Office,
Washington, 80 pp.
Wenk, E., 1972. T h e politics of the ocean. Univ. of W a s h i n g t o n Press, Seattle, 590 pp.
Werner, P., 1992. A n t o n Dohrn u n d die G r i i n d u n g der Biologischen Anstalt Helgoland. In: Hi-
s t o r i s c h - m e e r e s k u n d l i c h e s Jahrbuch. Ed. by W. Lenz & B. Watermann. Reimer, Berlin I, 45-54.