The matters pointed out by the Advisory Board members will require some time to resolve. With the Advisory Board having come to an end, though it would be impossible to address each item they pointed out, let us consider the future of AIST bearing these matters in mind.

Among the matters explained at the AIST Advisory Board meeting are the "10 articles of AIST research management." In fact, I articulated these at Tsukuba in my message for the fiscal year 2005. I reiterate them here :

1. Remove the lid
2. People make organizations possible
3. Autonomy of research units
4. Full Research
5. Research strategies written in scientific terminology
6. Separation of powers
7. Fractal organization
8. Time constants for people and organizations
9. A network of outstanding institutions forming an innovation hub
10. Common goal: science and technology to bring about a shift of the center of gravity to sustainable industry

These are not merely ideas that someone happened to think of. They are ideas that have arisen since AIST began in 2001, and they have been debated by AIST as a whole on various occasions. For example, I first stated the principle "remove the lid" on the day AIST began, which was also my first day as President. Many research institutions place their researchers beneath a weighty management structure. In contrast, my impression of AIST was that that heavy management structure had been removed and that without that weight, researchers could be clearly seen from the outside. This was also a necessary condition in order to clarify research autonomy and responsibility. Following that, the other concepts have arisen over time in roughly the same order as the numbering of the articles. Each of them has been debated in Full Research workshops or introduced in "AIST TODAY", so I will not go into detail here. However, I will examine issues such as how these 10 articles are being implemented, whether any contradict each other, and so on.

I think that international members of the Advisory Board were particularly interested in Full Research as a unique type of research management. For example, with the understanding that innovation hubs only become possible through Full Research, questions were raised regarding how different kinds of researchers can coexist within a single unit and whether it is not excessive to have Type-I basic researchers and product realization researchers each account for one-third of the work when emphasizing the innovation hub. These are matters of great interest to us as we work to build an innovation hub through Full Research. The coexistence of different kinds of researchers is an essential issue for scientific research. Traditionally, it has indeed been considered difficult. This can be seen in the way universities in any country clearly separate organizationally science with the purpose of Type I Basic Research and engineering that emphasizes Type II Basic Research and product realization research because there are reasons to manage them separately. Furthermore, the department of science and the department of engineering are not particularly friendly to each other. Full Research, however, holds that the coexistence of different kinds of researchers is essential. This is not only for the purpose of enabling basic scientific knowledge to quickly aid industry. The separation of science and engineering and the fragmentation of those fields are in fact causing difficult problems today, and Full Research also has the purpose of attempting to correct that at the research implementation level. The former purpose is AIST's goal for the time being, but the latter purpose, including the fostering of researchers free of that fragmentation, is AIST's scholarly raison d'etre. Through this kind of discussion, the Advisory Board came to understand the meaning of Type I Basic Research and product realization research each accounting for one-third, and the question of whether Type II Basic Research alone would be sufficient was also dispelled.

There was much discussion of contact points with industry. We have developed a number of policies to bring Full Research into industry. These include individual joint research with corporations, comprehensive agreements, and patent strategies predicated on them. Items with more clear-cut outlines include the AIST industry reform research initiative, human resources development type joint industry-academia research, high-tech skilled manufacturing, and Intellectual Property integration. High-tech startups (ventures), of course, are another important policy. While we believe that these are effective measures, and that they are making steady progress, they have yet to produce the sort of major results or outcomes that will impress outsiders if we offer them as proposals.

It is difficult and time-consuming to actually apply the results of basic research to industry in a visible way. Therefore, if one evaluates the results of a research institution like AIST based on outcomes rather than on output, various problems will arise. Since one cannot put off evaluation for 10 years by saying that it will take that long for outcomes to be known, other methods must be used to indirectly extrapolate assessment of outcomes. In that sense, I think that the testing of the various policies mentioned above and the fact that many researchers are seriously involved with them are in themselves projections of future outcomes. I believe the Advisory Board members agreed with me. In that sense, these policies should not be thought of merely as experiments for a few relevant people. Instead, they should be considered issues for all researchers who aspire to perform Full Research.

A question that was raised several times during the duration of the Advisory Board is whether the research units can be autonomous while at the same time the research institution as a whole sets forth a clear mission to be achieved. In other words, the actual question is whether Article 3 and Article 10 can be balanced.

Let us consider the relationship between the two again. First, let us consider the establishment of research units. The first condition for their position is that they are established because they are necessary for the research institution as a whole to achieve its goals. The next condition, of course, is the ability to obtain necessary researchers and other research assets. Even more important are the questions of who will design a research unit that meets those conditions, and who will evaluate it and bring it to establishment.

First, there is an informal preparatory proposal from any person who wants to organize his or her own research unit within AIST. In other words, any (full-time) AIST employee can make a preliminary proposal, and anyone outside AIST who wants to carry out research within AIST can do so as well with the agreement of a full-time employee who will accept responsibility for it.

Led by the Research Coordinator of AIST for the relevant field, researchers examine preparatory proposals mainly for scholarly significance, international excellence, and future potential. At that time, the positioning of the proposal within AIST, connections with other research units, and so on are fully considered. Through this preliminary examination, a formal proposal is created. Planning Headquarters supports this process. Among the researchers assigned to the Planning Headquarters, the person from the relevant field (Senior Planning Manager) is placed in charge and creates a proposal along with the person who made the preparatory proposal. The proposal is examined for practical viability in terms of sustainability as an AIST Research Unit, in other words, for its potential for Full Research configuration, for cooperation with other units, for contributions to industry and society at large, for ability to obtain funding, and for relevance to national science and technology policy and industrial policy. If the examination finds a lack of such potential, then of course the proposal may be either reexamined or rejected. Created proposals are formally proposed to and deliberated by a placement committee chaired by an AIST executive with deep insight into the target research area. Through this process, proposals are placed before the Executive Board. The main purpose of the Executive Board's examination is to determine whether the proposed research unit would be meaningful in terms of achieving AIST's goals.

The reason I went into some detail on this establishment process is that it is a practical process for realizing the second of the 10 articles, "People make organizations possible." It begins with a person who wants to carry out research and who generates a proposal. Subsequently, an external screening regarding the conditions for the research's existence takes place from a management perspective, but basically the process moves forward from a researcher perspective. In the end, however, the decision of the Executive Board is rendered from the perspective of AIST's research management, with responsibility for establishment falling to management. Although I will not go into detail here, the process for eliminating research units is similar. The establishment and elimination of research units thus take place through a tension between the proposals of researchers and the decisions of management. As specialists in their fields, researchers have the greatest judgment and foresight on which to base proposals. Managers, on the other hand, make decisions while maintaining an insightful overview of science and technology conditions in industry and society as a whole. Researchers and managers are not necessarily always in accord. Tension between them because of their differences is therefore an inherent phenomenon. At this point, it should be pointed out that these differences do not give rise to confrontation, but rather have a positive meaning for AIST. That is, the collaboration of specialist and generalist viewpoints gives AIST the needed better perspective that enables it to choose its path for the future. In order for such a situation to be practical, all AIST members must share AIST's goal as noted in Article 10. I will discuss this later. Care is given to including advice from outsiders in this process, and to improve our vision.

As can be understood from the above establishment process, researchers make proposals for the research they want to carry out themselves. Research units are established with freedom of research, as I will discuss below, because the process means that at the time they are established they have been sufficiently imbued with the mission of AIST declared by managers who take a broad view of society and industry as a whole.

The research units thus established are given research autonomy. This means that under conditions that promote Full Research, they are autonomous in how they carry out their research in terms of internal organizational structure, research management, employment of contract employees, creation and selection of research topics, adoption of research methods, use of research funds, publication of research results, obtaining of patents, and so on. Furthermore, cooperation with other research institutions and industry-academia collaboration targeting corporations are also left to the units' decision. In this process, management-related sectors provide cooperation and advice as needed. Since there are a limit to the number of AIST's full-time employees, and also a rather strict limit of the budget because of the obligation as an independent administrative agency to reduce it, the research units cannot simply do as they please even though matters are left to the decision of them. However, let us consider it as a different kind of issue than autonomy which we are considering here.

Research units are imbued with the mission of AIST when they are established, but what guarantee is there that these units will always remain effective in carrying out the mission of AIST as they perform their research with the autonomy they have been given? We must answer this question that was raised by the AIST Advisory Board. I will attempt to find the direction of that answer here.

The mission of AIST is, in short, "the creation of effective industrial technology to bring about a shift in the center of gravity from current industry to sustainable industry, contributing to the realization of a sustainable society". This is found in Article 10. Sustainable industry is industry that will be competitive in the markets of a future sustainable society, which is not possible for existing industry. Research on AIST's frontline is carried out by researchers who have autonomy but who also understand AIST's mission. Looking at individual research, sustainability is the intent, so the results can be expected to be effective. This is abstract, however, and not explanatory to the society. Even to us at AIST, it is too abstract when considering actual research strategy. In fact, clarifying the framework for diverse and autonomous researchers to realistically achieve AIST's abstract but clear mission is an important issue for AIST. We must also clarify future issues while looking back over how we have dealt with matters until now.

Let us begin with the mission of AIST. What is sustainability? This is now being discussed around the world as the most urgent issue for humanity, so no new definition is required. Sustainability is the achievement of a satisfactory life for all the world's people while maintaining the global environment. What, then, is a shift in the center of gravity to sustainable industry? This is an AIST-conceived concept that has yet to undergo full-fledged debate anywhere else.

AIST has a Committee on Industrial Science and Technology for Sustainability comprising mainly younger researchers. It has begun research on clarifying the scientific and technical definitions of sustainable industry.⁽¹⁾ This is to clarify from a science and technology perspective the industrial technology held by all industries and to carry out scientific and technical assessment of environmental impact. The aggregation about all industry is the impact of all industry. It may be a point in multidimensional space, but it can be called the center of gravity for the impact of each industry. The research attempts to clarify how the center of gravity will shift as conventional technology is replaced through technological development. In the manufacturing industry, for example, products have individual physical processes with individual impacts on the global environment. Various elements such as types of materials, manufacturing technologies, distribution and sales, energy technology for product use, maintenance and repair, disposal methods determine impact. Work pursuing this has much in common with Life Cycle Assessment. This is not just evaluation, however; it seeks to learn whether the effects of technological change can be added to evaluation values.

Quantitative pursuit of the center of gravity will probably require an enormous amount of work. Furthermore, this is not a matter of simply trying to aggregate the scientific and technical characteristics of the industrial technologies of each industry. In the process of finding their sum, how widely products made with them are distributed and how they are consumed will be issues. It is a matter of individually forecasting the products of future society. It is a matter not only of economics, but of ultra-complex fields that include cultural elements.

What can be said clearly at this point is that this kind of effort will not become capable of providing doubt-free solutions to the question of what sort of technological development should be carried out. That expectation is too high. However, it would also be a mistake to reject such efforts on that basis. This is because the goal of AIST's research is for sustainability to point in a positive direction and move the center of gravity. This seemingly odd expression requires some explanation.

Reasons for believing that a center of gravity exists even though current science may not now be able to define or measure it are as follows. If we accept that human industrial activity has some sort of impact on humanity and ecosystems, logically it means that we are assuming an existence of a center of gravity as a precondition. Because our goal is for future industry to have a positive impact, we take the position that it exists. Thus, a center of gravity certainly exists from the perspective of the sustainability of all industry, but with the current scholarly situation, obtaining a quantitative expression all at one time is too difficult. Our tasks, therefore, are what AIST is now doing: independently contributing definite (quantitatively measurable) improvements in sustainability, and, for research that researchers intuitively believe will probably help shift the center of gravity, providing evaluation from an all-industry perspective. Who performs this evaluation? It would be unrealistic for each researcher to carry this out for his or her own research. We expect the Committee on Industrial Science and Technology for Sustainability, comprising members with a sharp awareness of the issues, to perform this task. We expect something very difficult of this committee, but in fact this evaluation will break through the abstractness of AIST's mission as a research institution. This work will continually provide concreteness and draw closer to the research of actual researchers. In other words, it will provide researchers who carry out their work autonomously with the potential to understand AIST's mission in terms of issues in their own research fields. Then, how will researchers access the mission of AIST on their own, with response to this approach?

Let us begin by considering what the research autonomy mentioned above is. Autonomy can be translated as "jichi" in Japanese. This translation is easily misunderstood, as it was in the past when the autonomy of universities was misinterpreted to mean the severing of ties between universities and the outside world. Research autonomy does not mean the severing of all ties to the outside world. Instead, it should be interpreted as obtaining a certain amount of freedom by maintaining clearly delimited relationships with the outside world. It means to live freely. An autonomous organism cut off from the outside world will die. Only through its complex and exact relationships with the world around, it can live freely.

Turning, then, to general scientific research, when one speaks of research autonomy, what sort of relationship with the outside world or society will provide it? If we consider it in principle, we come to Jean-Jacques Rousseau who considered this issue perhaps intuitively but most deeply. Rousseau said that it is the "social contract" that gives people civil liberty and property rights. That is to say, "What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses."⁽²⁾ Rousseau placed the fundamental principles forming human society in the "social contract." If we describe the research autonomy we have in mind in Rousseauian terms, we mean the freedom to perform research and the right to the results obtained. As with the social contract, there is no tangible contract involved. However, scientists definitely receive freedoms and rights. In that case, what do scientists lose in exchange?

One can say that the freedoms and rights that people have today are obtained through the loss of natural rights, just as Rousseau said. The reason one can freely enjoy one's private space without interference and move freely in public spaces is that one has lost the right to enter the private spaces of other people. In this case, there are tangible contracts, namely, the law. Novelists have the right to write whatever they please because they have given up the right to compel others to read. Reading is a freedom of the reader, and a novelist cannot interfere with it. In practical terms, being read by readers guarantees the freedom to write. In other words, selling books provides a livelihood, enabling the novelist to go on writing. This social relationship can be considered an intangible social contract.

While there are rules and laws for practical agreements on research freedom and rights related to the results, their essentials are not decided by the law. Therefore, it is necessary that we clearly contrast the rights gained and the rights lost. What researchers gain is the freedom to perform research. What, then, do researchers lose?

These are not matters that most researchers themselves are conscious of on a daily basis, but are "unforgivable activities for scientists" not permitted within the strict bounds of their behavior. If we limit these to statements (announcing of research), they can be summarized as follows.

(1) Logic: Statements must not include logical contradictions.

(2) Demonstrability: Statements must have been demonstrated or they must be demonstrable (falsifiable).

(3) Logical consistency: All statements, including past ones, must be mutually free of logical contradictions.

(4) Permanent responsibility: One is permanently responsible for every statement one makes.

(5) Affiliation responsibility: The bases of statements must be clarified as coming from one's own inquiry or that of others.

Scientists have lost the ability to make statements that are not permitted under these rules. For example, if one publishes a research paper that includes logical contradictions or claims that are not demonstrable (falsifiable), even if it is interesting paper, one is not qualified to be a scientist. Or, if one were to state, "Diamonds do not replace silicon," one would not be a scientist. (It is impossible for such replacement to take place. One would be permitted to say that if such a thing happens one will become a monk. Though such a statement means throwing away the freedom of scientists, and imposes on them a new responsibility that scientists had never had.) Making claims about this sort of indemonstrable statement or uncertain matter is quite usual. Scientists, however, do not make them when speaking as scientists. In other words, they have lost the right to do so. This has a deep connection with research misconduct, which has recently become a problem, but I will discuss it in another article.

Through this, scientists have obtained the freedom to perform research. Society gives the scientists who have lost such rights special recognition and accepts their freedom. Moreover, the results of their research are accepted unconditionally, without the exercise of the kind of right of selection that readers exercise towards novels, for example. Those who, amidst this freedom, have the purpose of knowing truth and can act based on their curiosity without interference from anyone are the chosen scientists. These are the traditional scientists, and this is the research autonomy they have acquired through various eras.

Recently, Jane Lubchenco, former President of the International Council for Science (ICSU), has attempted to understand the freedom of modern scientists under the same principles in what she calls a "new social contract." Her interest is in the freedom to select research topics, and she discusses how to enable research on global environmental issues to flourish.⁽³⁾ Modern scientists generally carry out research at public institutions. In other words, researchers are no longer forced to sell the results of their research. People provide researchers with funds through their taxes. In effect, their expectations are sent along with research funding. As a result, scientific researchers have obtained guaranteed livelihoods from public institutions, public research funding, the ability to "freely" carry out research, and rights to the results. This is the new social contract of which Lubchenco speaks. In other words, those who use public funds for research have an intangible contract with the people who place expectations on them. Scientists thus have an obligation to eliminate that part of their curiosity that is not in accord with society's expectations, creating a new prohibition:

(6) Change in curiosity: The curiosity that drives research must not conflict with society's expectations.

The freedoms and rights in the research of modern scientists are thus made clear.

Having clarified the bases on which science and technology researchers receive rights and freedoms, we will next consider how those bases are given substance and guaranteed. The basis is that researchers themselves to understand them as the conditions of their existence. Then, on that basis, they give them substance by making effective use of them in actual research. This differs by research topic and field. One immediately understands this when one considers elementary particle research, research on physical properties, life science research, and so on. Now, our interest is in industrial technology research.

AIST primarily engages in industrial technology research through public research funding. This public research funding is provided by people today and in the future with the expectation that industry is a good thing. Using a broad definition of "industry," it is a major human activity with extremely diverse content and it plays a major role in creating affluence. People's expectations towards it are therefore diverse as well, and this is the cause of the diversity of AIST's research topics. Diversity of research topics is also connected to diversity of research methods. How, then, is it possible for an institution as diverse as AIST to act in a unified way?

While recognizing the diversity in our research, we agree on a single common principle for action that transcends that diversity. This is Full Research. It is the basic form of industrial technology research. It uses the basic scientific and technical knowledge obtained through discovery and invention and is the basic shape of scientific or research management that creates new wealth in society regardless of the research topic. Through various measures such as the industry reform research initiative mentioned in Section 3 above, it provides actually effective technologies to industry.

What we should examine here is whether this principle for action enables the research units to fulfill AIST's mission as a research institution. It is easy to understand that they serve to promote industry, but one does not know what to say on the question of whether they fulfill AIST's mission of shifting the center of gravity of industry as a whole towards sustainable industry. In other words, Full Research is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Figuratively speaking, Full Research and the innovation hub prepare the "container" for the research needed to carry out the mission. It must fulfill the sufficient conditions by the research content that fills the container

At AIST, we are currently seeking methods for judging whether the content of research currently underway is accelerating the shift of the center of gravity towards sustainable industry. This is included in the FY 2006 revised edition of the "Second Term Research Strategy" being prepared under the leadership of the Planning Headquarters. Details will be published later, and I cannot touch on them here, but it is an attempt to use "indexes" to judge whether the fruits of each research topic are part of a competitive sustainable industry and contribute to shifting the center of gravity for all industry when they are effectively provided to society. The indexes are written in scientific terminology, and researchers who continually evaluate their own research in terms of the indexes can adhere to Article 5, "Research strategies written in scientific terminology." This will be significant not only in terms of the ability to clearly describe research plans and roadmaps, but also because it will enable us to judge whether each piece of research is in harmony with the goals and mission of AIST, which are comprehensive in terms of society and affiliated institutions, yet still abstract.

In this way, researchers in the research units will be able to continue their research while judging whether they are in harmony with the mission of AIST. And, researchers will be able to draw nearer to the mission of AIST.

Five years have passed since AIST was launched as an independent administrative agency. It may seem strange at this point to once again ask what industrial technology is. By asking the question now, we may be criticized for carrying out five years of research without knowing something so basic. However, this has a new significance. Namely, we know what industrial technology is by "denotation" through our own specialties, but now we seek "connotative" expressions to describe industrial technology. As noted in the previous section, the concept expressed in connotative terms sets future industry and the industrial technology to support it as AIST's goals. It is an essential, radical concept when AIST's researchers consider how to meet the goals. The raw material for this concept already exists in the form of the research actually being carried out at AIST. This raw material is already written denotatively in the Second Term Research Strategy. However, as one will realize from reading the strategy, it is not easy to express a connotative definition that includes everything but is not overly abstract. It includes almost all scientific fields, from basic research to application, as well as many factors that consider relationships to society. I think a sense of this difficulty was common in the statements of AIST Advisory Board members as well. In the future, in order to express AIST's goals more clearly to society and to deepen our own internal discussions, the definition or connotative expression of industrial technology will probably become important. Here I will only point out the importance of the topic, and I will end this article by touching on a matter that I think is relevant to its examination.

That is "skilled manufacturing". Skilled manufacturing is considered a characteristic ability of Japanese industry. Not only did it support Japan's period of high economic growth in the past, it is an ability that has been preserved and is likely to be important to the nation's future. However, it is not far behind industrial technology as a term that is difficult to define. Because it centers on highly-skilled technicians, their shortage is considered a problem, and Total Quality Control (TQC) is considered important. Furthermore, Japan's culture and traditions are often brought up. The importance of having skilled technicians on-site is often indicated. These are all correct, yet somehow they do not seem to capture the essence of the term. As a result, the policy on skilled manufacturing is difficult to draw as an attractive form. Currently, I am considering measures to define industrial technology by clarifying the meaning of skilled manufacturing. What can be said with certainty about skilled manufacturing is that there are people who use an accumulation of the most advanced scientific and technical knowledge most skillfully, and that those people constantly look to those responsible for the unique progress of that knowledge. The users are technicians, engineers, managers, and so on, while those responsible are science and technology researchers. Skilled manufacturing is creative intellectual work carried out on the frontier between human beings and knowledge by users and those responsible. If we are to try to say what industrial technology is, I believe it may be necessary to do so by clarifying the essence of skilled manufacturing. However, I will take some other opportunity to address that question more fully.