1. Seven years since its foundation

It is almost seven years since the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) was founded. During this time, there were many things that occurred. Beginning with the integration of 15 research institutes and the drafting of the Medium-Term Plan, there were organization of research and administrative units based on new ideas, defining the functions of regional research centers, setting the headquarters management system, determination of personnel regardless of seniority, budget allocation based on a new formula, and introduction of evaluation. While respecting the long history and tradition of the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, there were continuous reforms that greatly affected the daily work of every member of the institute.

In our country, the need for reform in many areas was voiced around the end of the high economic growth in the 1990s. There was no exception either in the public domain as politics and administration or in the private companies. It applied to research institutes and universities as well. In the 1990s, I was working at a university, and there was a strong demand for reform from both inside and outside the university, and we worked on it day in and day out. Many reform committees were formed for the first time and the teaching staff was assigned to them regardless of age. I remember that receiving criticism that there were too many committees, a new committee for organizing the committees was formed, and after great discussion, only to eliminate one committee which was ironically the organizing committee itself. The work for reform was so time-consuming that there were even complaints of lack of time for the essential research and education, and a new word, "reform fatigue" was even born.

How was the seven years at AIST? The reforms at AIST were not easy as they did not stop at organizational changes but were substantial reforms with changes in awareness of responsibility to society and in operational structure. Looking back, not only were there great changes at the time of foundation, but also there followed the constant improvement by re-organizing research units, the switches of unit leaders, the change of management affiliation of each department, the alteration of assessment methods, and the formation of a new research budget distribution system. There was significant development with the research mentioned later. Furthermore, it has managed itself since as an independent administrative institution, a structure that no one had ever experienced before. There was no role model and we had to grope our way through everything. However, the new institute may not be perfect but can be said to have reached a relatively high standard. This achievement is the result of the efforts of all the members of AIST, and perhaps one can add that "reform fatigue" was not felt much during the process.

It can be said that a realization of step by step advancement has been felt during the seven years which brings about a certain conclusion. It is that reform does not mean the rebirth of something new from swiftly casting aside the ills accumulated during a long period of time and totally breaking off from the past. It is a continuous, constant process where new attempts are always made and the effects observed, and renewed attempts are made depending on the results. Furthermore, the attempts are not results of outside coercion or recommendation, but are done from subjective effect observation and self-motivated internal necessity. The integration of AIST in 2001 falls in this category as, although it seemed discontinuous, the move was a result of ideas of young researchers themselves and therefore was continuous. It is easier to understand if all the changes that follow are regarded as part of a constant process of change.

My present conclusion is that the most effective reform is the constant, continuous change brought about by the motivation of the people in charge. It is "reform on location" and it is needed for evolution. If the people in charge cannot do this reform, they are bound to perish. There is nothing more evil than compulsory reform enforced by people who have little "in charge" understanding who have ideological offhand ideas, suffocating the possibilities of efforts by the people in charge. What is forced does not have the liberty to perish, or, in other words, is stripped of the possibility of transferring into something better, has to accept reform without motive, and has to continuously live existing for the purpose of existing.

Luckily, AIST was given the possibility of reform on location and this is one of the reasons why it was able to advance reform that was of drastic change, without reform fatigue. However, the situation given was only one of the necessary conditions for reform. I think that what made reform possible under the circumstances was the realization by the workers at AIST that the basic research on industrial technology had to change according to the changes of society. This realization has become stronger during these seven years and will fuel further development in the future.

2. Unexpected events

Incidentally, last year was not a stable year. Just a year ago, there was the inadequate storage and use of radioactive materials; then the laboratory fire, the inadequate acceptance of patented microorganism deposit, the violation of the building code concerning dangerous substances, and the delay of payment. Prior to these, if the research misconduct and the violation of Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety are considered, there have been numerous serious problems that have occurred during the last couple of years. At one glance, these look as if they were unrelated. However, even if each had occurred by accident, I do not think that it is permissible to consider the problem solved once each is dealt with separately. We have to extract and correct what is behind these problems and have to prevent whatever may happen in the future.

This has something to do with the seven years that have passed since the foundation of AIST as mentioned before. If I may repeat, this was the period in which advancement was realized. Then why did such misconducts occur? Under positive, tension-filled, advancement conditions, they would not occur. One could say that these occurrences probably were exceptional, and happened outside the positive advancement process. Or that these were unexpected and not connected to us and are unrelated to advancement. However, this way of thinking is incorrect.

It is true that through these misconducts we happened to see the contortions that were hidden and that had infiltrated the organization during its long history. However, even if the causes are identified, the fact that the accidents are happening now shows that they are somehow related to the present situation. Evidently we who are striving now need to think of how to prevent such accidents.

First of all, we must realize that it is not necessarily correct to make rules and push for discipline to prevent accidents. To make an accident-prevention manual and to apply it to all activities is one method. However it is not the most appropriate way for researchers. If we are to subjectively find a solution to the problem rather than to follow a given manual or outside pressure, we who are consigned by society to do research at an independent administrative institution supported by the government need to start thinking of what it means to abide by law and to protect the safety of society.

We need to start by basically reconfirming the fact that we are researchers who have the freedom to do research and, at the same time, being free, are taking certain risks. After understanding this, we each need to think of ways to overcome the risks. These risks cannot be avoided if we are to do original research. The risks are as follows:

(1) the isolation from society as we engage in free research which is autonomous

(2) the uncertainty of actions done in a new, and not necessarily mature world of research

(3) the unpredictability of the result of research though done with careful planning

Original research demands the unpredictable, uncertain and often solitary thinking and experiment. Normally, researchers are proficient and go through the process without special attention or problem. However, one must be aware that this "normality" is not absolute. We researchers know that research is accompanied by the unawares.

Here I would like to jump and talk about my experience. The cause of the tragic criticality accident at the uranium processing plant in 1999 was the deviant behavior from the operating instructions. Poor management became apparent and it led to a criminal investigation. The management had made such an obvious mistake that Accident Investigation Committee of which I chaired had to conclude that it deserved no sympathy^[1]. However, I learned an important lesson from the incident. At the plant, the increase of productivity was imperative and the workers were making daily effort to achieve this goal. In that process, the increase of the batch was contrived, and that brought about the criticality. By scrutinizing the goal at hand, they had overlooked a more serious condition. To overlook in such special circumstances of processing nuclear reactor fuel is out of the question and there is no room for sympathy. Generally speaking, however, this is not a special situation and something similar could happen in research and activities related to it. One can easily think that, if a matter is not connected to goal achievement, then it can be suspended for the moment. To suspend it does not cause an immediate problem and as it is going to be dealt with later, it is not an unreasonable act.

We have to think seriously whether it is not unreasonable to place the matter out of one’s mind. Assume that while scrutinizing the research project, we place other factors aside. As a result, if we unfortunately deviate from the regulations, it is hard for a third person or the researcher himself to realize this as, with solitary research, most problems, with very few exceptions, are not immediately apparent. However, it is essential not only in research implementation but also in research management that it is done in autonomous, unprecedented conditions and sometimes with unpredicted results. Autonomy cannot be abandoned for the sake of avoiding deviancy.

We can conclude the following. Under our situation, there are certain risks of involuntarily violating the regulations or control limits, and to justify the negligence only by stressing the importance of research is not permissible. The risks seldom immediately cause accidents, and mostly are bypassed without anyone noticing. However, they remain implicit or are accumulated in time, and, are suddenly brought to light by chance, sometimes causing accidents. The reasons given for the cause after the accidents are often as follows; "it was overlooked as a small problem", "it was to be dealt with later and was neglected", "we did not think that it would cause an accident, and "we have always done it this way".

These latent and accumulated factors increase along with the history of an institution. It is overconfident to think that these factors do not exist because the past seven years have been charged. At the beginning, everything seemed transparent and extreme care was taken for all. However, when the advancement is accelerated, some activities become common practice and we stop paying special attention. This is familiarization and it is valid. However, one should be aware that within the process, there exists the danger of disregard, overlook from overwork, assumption, and self-conceit.

The effort to eliminate each of these is necessary, but disregard and overlook are what is apparent on the surface. It is essential to correctly understand the framework of the whole activity behind the risk in order to eliminate the problem at a deep level. Even if scrutinizing a procedure makes one forget other problems, we need to "preserve" the understanding of the total somewhere else.

If one has this preserved within oneself, there is no problem. However, we know by experience that this is difficult and I have stated in the section concerning research misconduct that it is the organization that helps the individual in such circumstances^[2]. What is needed is inter-communication amongst researchers and interaction within research units. Furthermore, the conception that the authority of the Superintendents or the Audit Office or those who are responsible in safety-keeping and law abidance is absolute needs to be fostered within our culture or the organization as a whole.

The researchers at AIST are allowed to perform autonomous research consigned by society under the assumption that the results are beneficial to society. In other words, the freedom of researchers is recognized under the condition that they have the ability to avoid certain risks that are harmful to society. Therefore, there is a pact between society and researchers and any deviant act violates this pact, and we need to be strongly aware that it would mean losing our freedom.

3. The next advancement

During the past seven years, we have learned many things. We learned that constant reform on location is important, and are convinced that the elimination of "the unexpected" is possible. With the realization of the seven year advancement in mind, let us think of what to do in terms of research during this year.

Full Research is understood not only within AIST but at universities and other research institutions, and is of high international interest. Through discussions on which fields and projects Full Research should be applied, it has become one of the identities of AIST. The new scientific journal for papers of Type 2 Basic Research which are difficult to express has been launched. It is planned to jump from an internal journal to an international one. It will demonstrate clearly the significance of Full Research by the people in charge, and will open doors to recording it.

There was large development with the innovation hub concept as well. As a result of various attempts to industrialize achievements of Full Research, Innovation architect has been born, creating a new image of AIST toward industry. With universities, not only are there comprehensive agreements, but the interaction is expanding to a three-dimensional one with AIST research units being placed within university campuses. These are essential qualifications for Network of Excellence and it shows that we are evolving toward it. The AIST Innovation Center for Start-ups has completed its period as a research center under the Special Coordination Funds for Promotion of Science and Technology, however, the experience was great and the effect it had on the management of AIST as a whole was immeasurable, and its further activities are expected as a new center.

The third series of the Research Strategy has been published which has become crucial for the institute, creating its self-awareness, contributing to strategy planning of each researcher, and sending an important message to the outside world. Strategic collaboration with other institutions is also to be followed in the future.

Gender equality is a large objective within the research work site but it is still insufficient, and is unsatisfactory especially in the field of industrial technology. The unique efforts of Gender Equality Office are widely recognized and such future activities are anticipated.

Regional research centers are in the process of becoming national centers of specific fields not only working with local industry but also functioning as international centers of research. Our future assignment is to create an ideal environment through personnel interaction amongst the centers including Tsukuba, contributing both regionally as well as internationally.

The development of human resources is the official mission of AIST. We have started new efforts to further develop the effective environment formed through various training programs and daily research activities. As part of the efforts, there is a plan to build a school-like structure within AIST tentatively called "AIST School".

These changes have come about through reform of constant change, without following the precedent while fully recognizing the efforts and results of the past. Some changes have been microscopic and others have been in leaps. Whichever the case, they are of continuous advancement, and are not forced but of autonomous activities which are open to society. This is based on the autonomy of the research unit but that is not all, as is evident if one looks back on the discussions at the eighty workshops on Full Research that have been held in the last seven years. Researchers and research administrators of different ages and of different fields got together and discussed the style of research to be done at AIST. The issues gradually evolved and not only were the problems shared but new discoveries were made.

Here, if the "unexpected incidents" are again viewed, one would realize that we already have the basic framework to retain the understanding of the underlying structure of the whole if we scrutinize the research issues. I have stated that what makes the retainment possible is the communication between researchers and the interaction within the research units. The discussions that have continuously been held in the past seven years on what research is to be carried out have firmly established the formula within AIST. Through discussions on the safety and compliance under the formula, we would like to find the path of liberation from the nightmare of "unexpected agony".

4. The leap forward of this year

Under the assumption that we will continue to constantly make advancement in all, what will be the leap forward of the year? I am sure that many can be expected as dreams to be realized of each of us, but "service science" can be named as one area that is being shaped within AIST.

The concept of service is nothing new, and as there is a classification of service industry, its definition has become generally known. However, there are reasons why service has suddenly become the center of attention. One is that the ratio of the service industry within industry as a whole has become large mainly in the advanced countries, and its productivity being low, its progress is widely anticipated to have great influence on the economy. The interest in service industry is accelerated especially because the productivity of the manufacturing industry has become more advantageous for the developing countries where the wages are low. More specifically, as a result of sciences such as life science, medicine, neuroscience, information science, behavior science advancing rapidly making clear their outline as science, the expectation for the reasonable improvement of productivity of service industry has increased. It is as if a replay is expected of the progress in productivity of the manufacturing industry brought about by the various technologies based on physics and chemistry. As a result, many academic fields started handling services. As service is complex including many elements, this move should be welcomed. Here I would like to point out the importance of doing research on service industry at AIST which holds research of industrial science as its objective.

The reason is because service science has a high priority in manufacturing industry. In the 1980s I pointed out that these two are not in conflict and that service industry includes manufacturing industry^[3], and I have consistently denied the approach that the advanced industrial countries should inevitably shrink the manufacturing industry and should shift to service industry. What is meant here is that the progress of the manufacturing industry supports the advancement of the service industry, and therefore, these two industries need to advance keeping a strong relationship. Therefore, it is incorrect to discuss the improvement of productivity independent from the manufacturing technology, and it is necessary to study harmoniously the research development for the advancement of the manufacturing technology and the productivity improvement of the service industry.

With this reasoning, the setup of service industry research by integrating research of life science, information science, and human science with basic research for manufacturing is underway at AIST. In addition, according to the agreement with the Service Industry Productivity Council, our ties with the industry are established and we can anticipate a large step forward. Of course, cooperation with the universities is essential.

This step forward is not a denial of the past, but shows that AIST which has produced many results from development research of basic technology for manufacturing industry has, consistent with its past, begun research of service science as part of its constant evolution.

References:

[1] "Uranium Processing Plant Criticality Accident Investigation Report", Atomic Energy Commission, 2000.1
[2] Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, "Thoughts on 'Pathology of Research'", AIST TODAY, 2007. April issue, May issue
[3] Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, "Advanced Technology and Mankind", Sekai, 1988, January issue, Iwanami Shoten