It has been three years now since the inauguration of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). During that time, we strove to carry out our mission as a research institute within the framework of multiple research units, each involved in "Full Research" centered on "Type-II Basic Research." The very fact that an organization encompassing thousands of researchers in disparate fields has been able to function on the basis of a shared "philosophy," as I would term it, is an accomplishment worthy of special mention. In the process, many people have worked hard to meet unprecedented challenges. Although the issues varied considerably from person to person, I would venture a guess that everyone at the institute faced such challenges and strove, through his or her own efforts, to meet them. While it is impossible to cover all these efforts here, I would like to mention a few and discuss what we can learn from them and how to proceed henceforth.

For exactly one year, from January 2003 to January 2004, AIST held 24 workshops. The topic for the first series was "Type-II Basic Research," while the second series was devoted to "The Products of Full Research."

Type-II Basic Research is the central work of AIST, which conducts research mainly with public funding. Research geared to industrial technology is important because most of the problems facing contemporary society, most notably the problem of sustainable development, can only be solved through technology, and because industry has a particularly large role to play in dealing with these issues. Furthermore, any objective assessment of the situation today will tell us that industry must change. Indeed, the changes that will be required of industry are widely regarded as comparable in magnitude to those of the Industrial Revolution some 200 years ago, and with that in mind are sometimes referred to collectively as an "industrial transformation." For this reason, today research related to industrial technology has to be research of a very basic sort, going far beyond the modification of existing technologies. We must use the results of scientific research, which is advancing at great speed today, as the raw material from which we will create new industrial technology. Unfortunately, most scientific research does not yield findings that can be put to use directly as industrial technology. To bridge the gap, we need to apply different methods from those used for "scientific research" in the narrow sense. This is a type of basic research that was not publicly acknowledged as such for many years, and it is this that we have termed Type-II Basic Research. Through our workshops, we advanced researchers' understanding of this type of research. Many low-profile research projects were unearthed and discovered to be Type-II Basic Research, as a result of which their importance became clear. Since this process involved a significant shift in the status of the research and the methods used, the directors and researchers in the units involved were doubtless put to a good deal of trouble. But this signifies an important step forward for AIST as it works to meet society's expectations.

The "Products of Full Research" workshops discussed the fact that once the findings of Full Research are released, they can no longer be assessed simply from the researcher's perspective but take on the subjective value assigned to them by society; for this reason, we have termed them "products." This means that we can no longer limit the execution and evaluation of our research to a closed community of researchers but must open it up to society as a whole. The workshops helped clarify the duties of people who conduct research supported by public funding in terms of the contract formed between society and the research community. This perspective helped participants to see that there exists in each of the diverse fields of research within AIST things that could be called products, and it facilitated a kind of dialogue between these disciplines that would not be possible where research approached in the narrow, conventional sense.

Through these discussions on Type-II Basic Research and its products, we were able to expand the potential for dialogue among disparate research fields, shed light on the form research should take within AIST, and at the same time reassess the relationship between research and society. But where should we go from here?

Since our discussions of Full Research have centered on Type-II Basic Research and its products, the natural next step is to focus on Type-I Basic Research. Some will argue that Type-I Basic Research as we have defined it is nothing more than basic scientific research in the conventional sense, a style of research that has a long tradition and has conferred on humanity a vast, systematic body of knowledge, and that as such, special reexamination within the context of AIST is neither necessary nor possible. I would counter that a consideration of Type-I Basic Research within the context of Full Research, as an extension of our examination of Type-II Basic Research and its products, is not the same thing as a consideration of basic scientific research in the conventional sense. To put it simply, we need to reexamine Type-I Basic Research from the vantage point of the product, backward through the lens of Type-II Basic Research. When we do so, we realize that what may at first appear as nothing more than conventional scientific research is actually distinguished from such research by what motivates it. The direction of one's thinking with respect to the conduct of research is naturally influenced by our consciousness of a potential product, that is, something of value to society. This is what clearly distinguishes Type-I Basic Research from conventional scientific research.

Generally speaking, basic scientific research is internally motivated by the researcher's own curiosity. Conventional wisdom has it that when the researcher is influenced by outside circumstances, the research is no longer "pure," and it is unlikely to lead to truly creative and original work. There is no doubt that creativity is likely to be stifled if the researcher is forced to adopt certain thought processes. But this is not the case when external factors merely influence the impetus behind the research. In this case, the outside influence is manifested simply as a change in some aspect of the researcher's curiosity; it does not affect the independence and freedom of the researcher's thought processes. This sort of influence is inevitably felt to some degree in all basic research. In today's society, basic research is invariably carried out within the framework of a particular existing academic discipline. Within this framework, the factors motivating research are distinct to each field, which means that a researcher's curiosity is based on considerations that pertain only to his or her own field.

Seen in these terms, the Type-I Basic Research carried out in the various research units of AIST is basic scientific research fueled by a curiosity that is motivated by factors relating to the goals of each unit. If the goals of the unit are creative and original, then the Type-I Basic Research carried out there has the potential to be far more creative than basic research carried out within the framework of traditional disciplines. And assuming that a new brand of knowledge will be needed for the coming industrial transformation, the role of Type-I Basic Research within Full Research is bound to be an important one.

What does such Type-I Basic Research look like? How does it vary from one area to another? This question raises an issue we have not yet examined: the effect different motivations for Full Research have on the thought processes of the researchers involved in Type-I Basic Research. It seems to me that this would be an appropriate theme for our third series of workshops.

The overarching goal of AIST is to raise the technological level of Japanese industry. Advances in technology can improve the competitiveness of industry. At the same time, they promise to contribute to the achievement of one of the key tasks facing humankind, the challenge of sustainable development, which is also a necessary condition for the realization of a stable world order. Keeping these larger goals in mind, on what should we focus our research? This was the focus of our discussions on "area strategies." These took the form of consideration of proposals by the research coordinators, as well as frequent discussions among the unit heads at their meetings.

Even if the overarching goal of the institute is clear, the question remains-What should its researchers research? The role of area strategies is to lead us closer to answers to this question. In other words, area strategies support the overarching goal of the institute as a whole and provide researchers with objectives specific to each area. The substance of these strategies is doubtless something that must be carefully constructed while simultaneously focusing on the goals of the institute and considering the desires and abilities of the researchers currently attached to it. Nor can this be done mechanically or automatically.

Rather, these strategies must be a synthesis of the dreams of the individual researchers and an understanding of goals of the institute, crafted with the help of inspiration and intuition. We dubbed these creations dogmas.

A good example is the "Materials Reconstruction" initiative, the result of two years of tremendous effort by Trustee Naohiro Soga. This is something that the researchers created themselves with the aim of achieving "Full Research," working on the premises that (1) the basis for making a discrete field of the science of materials has been undermined by the emergence of nanoscience, (2) it has become clear that materials have a wide variety of functions, and (3) the emphasis on materials within industry has changed. The process of developing this initiative should take its place as an important chapter in the annals of this institute. Now the formulation of comprehensive strategies is under way in other research areas as well. In the area of life science, planning is focusing not only on such existing industries as health care and pharmaceuticals but also on the emergence of new industries. In the information field, deliberations have included the concept of a virtual time machine. Strategies are also being developed in the areas of energy, the environment, geology and marine science, and measurement and standards. I look forward to their completion. Together, these area strategies should form the backbone for the next medium-term plan, to begin in 2005.

What exactly do we mean by "strategy"? Let me offer some ideas based on the example of energy research. Some organizations might proceed by drawing up a graph showing the anticipated change in the contribution of each energy technology to total energy demand through 2030, lay plans in accordance with those anticipated changes, and call that their "strategy." To my mind, however, this is not a strategy. To begin with, there is no way to determine each technology's future contribution based on its potential. Moreover, to blindly follow such a projection as something authoritative would be counterproductive. A projection of this sort should be treated as nothing more than an approximate forecast. A strategy, to the contrary, should be focused on the best future we can imagine while honoring humanity's common goals and restrictions and taking account of our own capacity and potential. A strategy must support our dreams, not circumscribe them.

Honoring humanity's shared goals and restrictions is another way of saying "achieving sustainable development." This means, first, achieving continued development in Japan while reducing the burden on the environment, and second, providing the energy less developed regions need for development without adding to the environmental burden.

In fact, lurking within this basic agenda is an exciting scenario. The only way to meet the challenge facing our own country with regard to sustainable development is to increase our dependence on renewable energy sources. As I suggested above, we should not impose limits by deciding in advance whether solar power, wind energy, or some other source should play the leading role. Hydrogen also holds great potential as an energy source. As Japan pursues renewable energy sources, it will naturally wean itself from its dependence on oil, thereby breaking free from the extreme dependence on energy imports that has long characterized this country's economy. Well, then, why not let our imaginations soar and consider the possibility of Japan's becoming an energy-exporting country? The ability of the world to meet the pressing challenge of development in the less-developed countries will depend heavily on energy technology. This is not something that can be achieved without cooperation from the industrially developed nations. Why couldn't we use Full Research to develop diverse energy technologies designed to meet various natural and social demands? Of course, a comprehensive scenario for sustainable development would be highly complex, depending on numerous factors relating to international affairs, existing industries, and national cultures, and we do not have the capacity to consider all of these factors in detail. However, as researchers entrusted with the task of using science to develop new technologies, we do have the ability to write a scenario concerning the emergence of a new energy industry with the potential to become a Japanese export industry; moreover, we are the only ones with that ability. Adopted as a pillar of the energy area's strategic research plan, this scenario could produce a truly exciting strategy.

We have learned much over the past three years, and we must put what we have learned to work in the framework of the next medium-term plan. I have discussed Full Research and area strategies. These are supported by some crucial organizational concepts, including the Board of Trustees as executive, the principles governing the emergence of organizations from groups of people, the establishment of the Research Institute and Research Center as our main units, the "flat" structure of units, unit autonomy, systematic evaluation and incorporation of the results of the evaluation in the organization, and the reorganization or elimination of units on the authority of the Board of Trustees. All of these reforms were new experiences for us, and no one would claim that their implementation has been problem-free, particularly when it comes to integrating them all harmoniously. However, I do believe that, thanks to the spirit of inquiry and constructive effort demonstrated by all those attached to AIST, these organizational reforms have accomplished their purpose and enabled the institute to take a giant step forward despite the difficulties encountered along the way. Now might be the time to consider some of the challenges that have emerged during this process.

One issue raised was the fact that when various autonomously operating units of equal rank were evaluated independently of one another, high walls sometimes grew up between those units owing to intense competition. Although units are autonomous entitiesÅ\or rather, precisely because they areÅ\they cannot be isolated from one another. Any autonomous entity that cuts itself off from the environment will perish. If indeed such a situation arose, then the units that erected these walls need to give more thought to the concept of autonomy, and if the evaluation process encouraged this state of affairs, then we need to reconsider our methods of evaluation. The fact that the area strategies had not yet been developed may have contributed to the situation as well. What we need to do now is move on to the next step while examining these factors in relation to one another. In any case, the crucial task of preserving both competition and close cooperation among units is something we must continue to address.

Where management of the units is concerned, it appears that the principle of autonomy has been accepted. That said, autonomy is surprisingly tough to deal with. It was particularly difficult for the unit directors, who are responsible for the entire operation. I said in the past that the unit director should be an autonomous thinker. In truth, the object of this autonomous thinking extends from the substance of the unit's research to overall management and the training of young researchers. A complex and busy job with wide-ranging duties thus awaited the unit directors. All of them rose courageously to the challenge and accomplished the work required of them. Now we look forward to receiving constructive suggestions from the unit directors on how to go about refining this approach.

Another issue, which may not have been pointed out before, is whether AIST offers a good environment for young researchers in terms of advancing their careers. I do not know if I have an answer to this question. I imagine this depends to some degree on the area of research and also on the individual characteristics of the unit directors. In any case, I certainly think it is something that we should discuss from various angles henceforth.

In terms of our external relationships, I would like to see AIST broaden its international activities. Domestically as well, there is much to be done. Although we have already seen some results in the way of cooperation with universities, venture strategies, tie-ups with medium and small businesses, and comprehensive partnerships with large corporations, greater effort will be needed if we are to move such activity to the next level.

Everything that has been undertaken in AIST over the past three years has been a valuable experience, and we have learned a great deal from all that has happened. Now we must fully digest these lessons and build our second medium-term plan on the achievements of our first period. That job, centered on the Planning Headquarters, is already under way, but I hope that everyone here at AIST, while carrying on their research, will also participate constructively
in this critical task.