 No.8
Spring 2003 |
| Contents List | Message | Topics | Feature | Research Hot Line | In Brief |
Message from President "Full Research and Social Contract" |
|
Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President
|
In recent years, public expectations for science and technology are rapidly growing. Since the enactment of the Basic Law on Science and Technology in 1994, the Japanese government has been injecting enormous amounts of funds into research on science and technology in the framework of the first and second Basic Programs for Science and Technology, regardless of the severe economic depression. The amount of the invested money indicates high degree of public expectations. It is evident that the nation is hoping for a recovery of the near-term economic conditions and also for Japan's cultural development in a longer term. In fact, research on science and technology in Japan seems to be developing steadily to fulfil such expectations by producing substantial results. As the basic science and technology research is financed largely by public funds, it should be considered that those who are engaged in such research activities are obliged to meet these social expectations. Lubchenco1) defines this relationship between science and society as "Social Contract for Science". She points out that environmental issues are to assume the highest priority for mankind in the 21st century. She argues the necessity to confront these challenges by laying down a new contract, whereby the role taken by scientific knowledge is clearly recognized between the scientists and society. This is a prerequisite to conduct any research on science and technology. In view of the subsequent changes in science communities originated by this view, it can be said that her "new contract" is more than a theory and is actually controlling. The following facts will provide grounds for this assumption. In 1987, the Brundtland report presented at the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development, known as "Our Common Future2)" suggested that two contradicting needs, i.e. rapid improvement of living standards in the developing countries and preservation of the global environment can be met simultaneously in spite of considerable difficulties. The report confirms with conviction that the progress in science and technology will pave the way to achieve this aim. This is certainly a question posed by the world of politics to the scientists. In the meantime, "Declaration on Science" was issued as a pronouncement of scientists at World Conference on Science in Budapest3) in 1999. In sum, the declaration states that the practice of scientific research should no longer be conducted for purely academic purposes but should aim at acquiring exploitable knowledge which benefits society in terms of progress, peace and development. In other words, science is a social function that serves society. This is not a direct response to the question cast by Brundtland. However, reviewing the major achievements represented by the Earth Summit during the twelve years since the introduction of the concept of sustainable development, the declaration should be regarded as a response from the scientific communities. Thus, Lubchenco's idea has appeared in concrete form. The social contract on science has been closed by the scientists' affirmation of their commitment to conduct science and technology research that will promote the welfare of humankind and of the global environment. Type-II Basic Research Workshop Two years have passed since the inauguration of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. Although there were some minor disruptions due to changes in the organization and management system, it can be said that duties are performed according to initial objectives. In terms of the research framework, full research centering on type-II basic research has surfaced. This concept proposed as an effective model for research on industrial technologies involves the question of the contract between scientists and society as described later in this article. "Type-II Basic Research Workshop4)" has been held for eleven times since January 2003. The experiences during the workshop may provide a good example. Type-I basic research is an endeavor to elucidate the nature of an existing phenomenon by analyzing the subject from a certain perspective, yielding new knowledge. Principles and theories are constructed based on this knowledge. Whereas type-II basic research pursues universality of a process to create a new entity or product through applying those principles and theories in multiple fields. The latter is essential to achieve the AIST's goal. The attempt to create the social benefits or wealth is composed of the following processes: 1) creation of scientific knowledge, 2) coordination of existing knowledge whereby a subject product is fabricated, and 3) establishment of the actual manufacturing process. These three processes correspond to type-I and type-II basic research, and product development, respectively. Hence, type-II basic research involves the process of "synthesizing" multiple scientific fields that represents the difficulty inherent to this research. Although this point conclusively differentiates type-II research from type-I basic research, the process is not fully recognized. Type-II research often sinks into obscurity. In spite of the demand for greater efforts, it is not easy to accumulate experiences or deliver tangible results in this type of research. As a result, it is less likely to be granted sufficient research funds. This may be a period of "nightmare" for researchers caught in between the “dream” offered by type-I basic research and the “reality” of product development 5). However, in order to serve the purpose of industrial development, we must lose the sinister illusions and make a great leap forward to reality. There is a period of "nightmare" before any scientific discovery or innovative technological idea bears the fruit of social wealth. Hence, it should be considered that the commitment as a public research institute is to take the role and face these challenges. The Type-II Basic Research Workshop was organized based on this proposition. Through the workshop, it was made clear that a number of type-II research projects were in progress at AIST. The following are some of the examples. There had been high expectations on the completion of ceramics gas turbine (Ohji, AIST Chubu) for its overwhelming power. However, it was extremely difficult to assure the long-term reliability of the components and thus it dit not come to fruition. It is foreseen that the creation of a new theory of compound materials will provide a breakthrough. However, steady efforts in theoretical research will be required to achieve this difficult goal. Thermal conductivity hydrogen sensor (Murayama, AIST Chubu) is moving toward realization as the improvement of structural controls at the nano-level. In this project, the process of coordinating knowledge from different fields has been formulated. The effort should be considered as a typical example of type-II basic research. Optical disk based on near-field optics (Tominaga, AIST Tsukuba) is finally approaching completion after four generations since the start of its theoretical research. Dr. Tominaga suggested that a keen "sense of smell" was required for the theory to evolve into the present state over generations. Interestingly, this remark shows an essential aspect of type-II basic research. Voltage standard systems using Josephson junction arrays (Shoji, AIST Tsukuba) marked a notable achievement after the failure of the long-term research on applied computing systems. This project can also be categorized as type-II. The significant success demonstrates the essential elements for a successful type-II basic research. The needs for nano bio-device (Baba, AIST Shikoku) is acknowledged commonly in the science communities and vigorous competitions have been observed for the fabrication of the device. This is also to be achieved by combination of the existing technologies and application of a vast range of knowledge that may involve the discovery of innovative scientific findings as in the other type-II basic research projects. Nano length standards (Nakano, AIST Tsukuba) can be called a full research. The project progresses, producing required new knowledge through state-of-the-art research endeavors based on a prepared scenario. In the research on fusion of nano and biotechnologies (Yumoto, AIST Kansai) , the development of the world's smallest motor is an immediate goal. It is expected that the process would require the discovery of a great deal of innovative knowledge and may open a new sphere of research on biomoleculer movement. This can be seen as a model of type-II basic research. Inherent Difficulties
Apparently, it is understandable that the aforementioned research projects have these problems. The researchers engaged in other projects are also striving to overcome similarly demanding tasks. However, as history has shown, the more challenging the problems are, the more there is to gain once these obstacles have been eliminated. The achievement here may include the creation of innovative products, drastic improvement of the product’s performance, significant reduction of the environmental loads and considerable cost reduction. These are the merits to proceed with any research. A type-II basic research is inevitably associated with the above mentioned difficulties. Another mission is to explicitly present the universally applicable solutions to such problems through research activities. This is why it is called "basic" research. It is not quite sufficient to surmount various obstacles and bring dreams into realization although this is certainly an admirable attainment. The process of overcoming problems must be "scientifically" recorded for use in future type-II basic research. It is expected that these records will eventually form the system of "knowledge for application" in the type-II basic research framework, comparable to the system of "factual knowledge" in type-I basic research. The system will be created by the researchers in the type-II basic research field. It may be difficult to provide a pertinent answer to the question whether knowledge for application can exist unrelated to factual knowledge. Furthermore, there is a doubt about the existence of knowledge that is liberated from the categorization of the subject matter. However, the possibility of the existence of such knowledge has been indicated by the author's ongoing research, "Mathematical Theory of establishing academic disciplines", that aims to verify the presence of knowledge for application. The details of the research will be published elsewhere. Next Leap The workshop provided an opportunity to recognize that a number of type-II research projects are presently advancing at AIST. To make a further leap forward, it should be noted that some issues require improvement. Firstly, as mentioned before, more efforts should be made in the "basic" research to extract the methods to solve the problems for future reference. It is undeniable that type-II basic research involves difficulties entirely different from those in type-I basic research. Some are approaching the solution. Those who are working on such endeavors are by all means type-II basic researchers. However, they do not have records on the process of solving these problems. Considering the difficulty in keeping this kind of records, it is important to provide motives to encourage documentation. This indicates the fact that AIST currently lacks the system that rightfully evaluates such records. There is an urgent call to establish an evaluation system for type-II basic research. Secondly, most of the type-II basic research projects presented at the workshop were no more than individual researchers' activities. This type of research will have a coherent plot : a researcher obtains new knowledge in his type-I basic research, creates a marketable product based on this knowledge and finally succeeds in manufacturing the product. Type-II basic research may be more understandable if explained along with the time course of one researcher's project. Having said that, as seen from the stated difficulties inherent to this kind of research, most of the projects require the combined efforts of a number of researchers in multiple fields. It is not common that a project is carried out “linearly” by an individual researcher. It is no doubt that more promising results are obtained from a type-II basic research project which is conducted under a common goal by a group of researchers who belong to different research categories: type-I, type-II and product development. In this sense, type-II basic research offers a pivot of research unit organization at the AIST. Researchers who engage in type-I, type-II or product development make up a research unit under a common research theme, achieving coherency of the activities. This relationship does not follow a time-shift, beginning with type-I, type-II and completing in product development. On the contrary, it has a nature of concurrency that can be demonstrated as an interaction of research of these three categories. This is the model of a full research. The important issue to be addressed is the reorganization of each research unit in accordance with this model. Let us return to the original question of the social contract for science. Currently, the Second Basic Plan for Science and Technology is ongoing. The formulation of the next Basic Plan has started aiming at its launch after 3 years. The most important issue in the third Basic Plan will probably be the requirement of a system to evaluate profits returned to society from the 10-year investment in basic research. Tangible results should by all means be actively publicized. However, it is difficult to produce a recognizable result in basic research. If venturing an evaluation of any basic research project, the process to reach a result should be of focus. A full research centering on a type-II basic research offers a promising candidate for industrial application based on the newly discovered knowledge and simultaneously, creates the universal knowledge for its utilization. The Third "Basic Plan" will define such endeavors as the activity that is conducted observing consciously and proactively the social contract for science. Hence the research projects progressing at the AIST take an important role to fulfil the social commitments of science. The contract is not limited to the arrangement between the investors and practitioners in Japan. Given that this contract has a global nature, as suggested by Lubchenco, it is important for each member of the AIST to realize a scenario to enable sustainable development in the world by achieving economic prosperity in Japan. Future Issues
The primary strategy involves the selection of a target field of research and an industry. This can be called "Field Strategy". Although a number of research projects are currently in progress in such fields as system development, materials, biotechnology and information, admittedly, the vision may lack clarity in respect to industrial applications of such research outcomes and the effects on the sustainable development of humankind. As a matter of fact, there are difficulties deciding partner industries even within Japan. In a full research which requires autonomous operation of each research unit, it is essential to advance a research project effectively in accordance with a well-prepared scenario that may include a proposal for renovation of the existing industrial structure. This is essential to fulfil the social commitment. The second strategy concerns the autonomy of AIST in employing the "field strategy" for the implementation of a full research. The autonomy or freedom of basic research should be reviewed from the standpoint of a national budget and a policy of the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry. As a pioneer of independent administrative agencies conducting research activities, this issue should be carefully considered. Finally, the question of evaluation should be discussed. The autonomy of an independent administrative organization directly influences the system of evaluation. For the past two years, an enormous effort has been made to establish the AIST's unique evaluation system. However, it is expected to set up a new evaluation procedure with a firm basis of a clearer vision which is applicable to type-II basic research. In principle, this system extracts the most significant research results to be evaluated so that the burden caused by the evaluation procedure can be minimized. There are a number of urgent tasks. Most importantly, an effective system and method should be introduced to enhance the fruits of the efforts of the past two years. Any obstacles against development must be eliminated. Under the common goal to establish a framework of full research, it is expected to nurture a shared recognition of the fundamental needs for research activities.
|
 back |
> 
