The AIST Open Lab held on October 21 and 22, 2008 at the AIST Tsukuba was a truly significant event. Besides exhibiting the current AIST research projects to the public, in particular to people from industries in which the results might be used, this was an occasion to put in front of the world the accomplishments from our eight years of what we like to call "Full Research."

Back in 2001 when the new AIST began operations, besides carrying out a major restructuring of the organizations that existed under the former Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, we resolved to conduct Full Research in each of the newly formed research units. To this end, we created research units that integrate the functions of Type 1 Basic Research, Type 2 Basic Research, and Product Realization Research. This represented a brand new approach for researchers, who had been used to conducting these different types of research separately, while also taking the heads of each research unit into uncharted territory. Implementing this approach was fraught with problems, but everyone involved from researchers to staff of management-related divisions addressed the challenge of "Full Research" with enthusiasm. As the problems were being solved, I believe we have managed to produce solid accomplishments.

The AIST Open Lab presented an opportunity to put these achievements in public view. At the same time, it was an occasion for us to reflect on what we ourselves have been doing up to now, and to consider once again the directions to be taken as we go forward. The research units as well as the divisions and departments in AIST have had a chance to think about our future directions. Even though they have their own individual viewpoints, common to all of them is one major issue. It has to do with how we go about actually getting our accomplishments out into the society, and to industry. That has, of course, always been an issue since AIST went into operation, and in the last few years it has gradually come to be a major topic for discussion. It was also the purpose for holding the AIST Open Lab. Since the nature of the issue differs somewhat from one research field to another, its discussion cannot be summarized neatly under a single heading. Still, I believe it is necessary on this occasion for us to share it throughout AIST as a common theme across all research fields.

The reason is our recognition that the process of getting results out into the world is not a separate act. The definition of research needs to include the concept that research results are used by society based on a general understanding of them, which is an essential part of today's research. In that way, scientific research is able to acquire social significance. Put another way, the concept of "Full Research" becomes complete only when it includes the notion of having the results used by society.

This overlaps with the experience of many researchers that, even when the potential is shown in Type 2 Basic Research that new knowledge resulting from research can find actual use and become of value to society, and furthermore Product Realization Research is completed indicating a model for application to existing industry, industry still does not attempt to make use of these results. It in turn corresponds to the observation (by Ichimura, Full Research Workshop, July 17, 2008) that a fourth type of research, "Substantiating Research" is necessary.

We are already aware that there are many issues to be overcome, through our experience with applying research results to industrial use, that is, through our actual efforts to "socialize" Full Research. These include legal and institutional issues concerning public finance and patents, issues relating to corporate administrative thinking and risk assessment standards for introducing new technology, and also such issues as social practices and communication between science and society. As one would expect, the final decision of industry is made from an economic standpoint. What must not be forgotten here as well is that in this process, research results undergo a trial, through which technology becomes refined, in parallel with changes in society itself, for the sake of winning public acceptance.

In the course of these experiences, we become aware of one thing. These issues, as noted above, do not get solved within the scope of the science and technology which we are researching. The object of the researches is the achievement of science and technology, but the process of dealing with it is a social one. Laws, economy, business management, customs, and communication, are different issues from the science and technology we deal with in our researches. Accordingly, if we solve these issues not only by coming up with individual approaches matched to the special nature of each of the scientific and technological issues we handle, but also by seeking to treat them as something general, the common underlying framework must be of social science and humanities. This is where social technology makes its appearance.

In writing about social technology elsewhere,^[1] I have defined it as technology having its foundation in social science. This definition parallels the notion that "scientific technology" means technology having its foundation in natural science. If we are going to talk about the socialization of research based on this definition, we will need to go into more detail here. The reason is that we need to extract here some issues that come about when thinking about social science, which traditionally may not have had much to do with technology, along with natural science, which today has become deeply involved with technology. Both of these happen to be features of the present age, but my starting premise is that both for social science and for technology, these are not representative of their original, underlying nature. I believe, in other words, that the knowledge of social science ought to be used by actual society as technology, while as the foundation of technology, social science is equally as important as natural science.

What I would like to emphasize first of all is that for technology, the natural science and social science forming its foundation differ only in that the object of one is nature and of the other is society; inasmuch as they both share the scientific method by which they create knowledge, there ought not to be any particular difference in how their knowledge is used. In this regard, the course of history has taken some surprising turns. To take a typical example of social technology, those of us in the world of science and technology (engineering) look with wonder at how knowledge created by dialectic materialism came to form notions of actual society and find actual use in society. In fact, its use not only did not succeed but left behind major losses. To those of us in science and technology, using one theoretical system (containing no contradictions) to design actual society as a whole and applying that to society is something that not only cannot but must not be done. We know that even a highly complete theory for understanding the natural world, such as Newtonian mechanics, no matter how splendid a theory, cannot by itself be used to create actual nature. And now the issue for us is that we have come to realize the need for Full Research, a means of original knowledge production, as a process for applying scientific knowledge to reality. We recognize that in order to create existing (artificial) things, we need the type of thought that crosses different areas, called Type 2 Basic Research. Moreover, since our work inevitably involves dealing with elements that have not yet been scientifically explained, creation of new knowledge will certainly be necessary. Therefore both the creators of scientific knowledge and its users must have the humility to acknowledge that a complete solution does not exist.

An active attempt to realize this as a mechanism in society, in addition to being humble, is the information cycle,^{[2, 3]} which makes "sustainable progress" possible. What can be said about both natural science and social science is that, if they are to go beyond simply explaining phenomena and become used by actors in society and exert influence on the social situation, the producers and users of knowledge must fulfill their respective roles toward knowledge production as a whole, and must act responsibly. This can be illustrated as in Fig. 1.

Society has many actors, who impact society or nature by their actions. That impact is accepted if it does not disrupt the sustainability of society, but correction is required in case it is disruptive. These days there are many actors in society who claim scientific knowledge as the basis for their actions. If that is true, then whether their actions are good or bad depends on the underlying scientific knowledge and how it is used. This is where knowledge creators and users are joined together, and where each fulfills their roles of advising and decision-making aimed at action. The assessment of actions is carried out by observational scientists. Based on whether the results are good or not, the design scientists create new advice and send it out to society. This becomes the basis on which actors act. The information cycle functions in such a way. The cycle corresponds to the mechanism clarified by Ferdinand de Saussure^[4] by which language evolves through circulation, and the knowledge possessed by society likewise evolves by means of this cycle. This mechanism operates without anyone leading and directing the action. The mechanism is driven by the ideas and thinking of individual people. It takes place by abduction, which Charles Sanders Peirce^[5] described as central to the process by which human beings create knowledge. The result of abduction is a theory, which becomes proven by this cycle. The scientific knowledge and wisdom accumulated over the long history of mankind through this repeated cycle are assets common to the human race, on which people base their actions, rather than being instructed by specific individuals. Scientific knowledge is possessed by scientists, experts who are responsible for it, while wisdom is what everyone relies on as a guide. As a result, even though progress in some cases occurs in a leap, basically it takes place continuously, a little at a time. This is what makes possible sustainable progress, and also promises that progress will become a continuous chain.

In Fig. 1, so-called observational scientists are not limited to the natural science fields, but generally exist also in the social sciences. In fact, explaining phenomena through observation is what social science is really about. When we think about the information cycle, what we should pay careful attention to are the design scientists. In the case of natural science, this means engineers in the broad sense; but engineers are closely linked to the knowledge obtained in physical science, where observationalists play a central role. With the social sciences, on the other hand, the problem is that there is not necessarily a close link between the two. As we noted earlier, with the social sciences there is the possibility that one academic theory depicts one fixed image of society, whose realization then becomes a categorical imperative for the scientists associated with that theory. When this happens, the analytical results by observational scientists reach actors on a one-way flow, so that the effects resulting from their actions based on these analyses are never returned to the observational scientists. The information cycle does not exist; accordingly, sustainable progress is not possible.

This is where we encounter the "piecemeal engineering" pointed to by Karl Popper in his critique of historicism.^[6] Popper criticized the tendency of historicism to offer policy proposals that are holistic and utopian. He stressed that the only way of bringing meaningful results to society, such that people's behavior is beneficial to real society as a whole, is by exerting effort in improving existing technology, which is the method actually adopted by engineers. While listening to criticisms from outside and keeping people's welfare as the major goal, this approach does not try to come up with policies that will solve all problems at once.

The reason for bringing Popper into this discussion is that he called this approach incremental "social engineering," or social technology. His definition of social technology is not necessarily identical in all respects to our definition, which we shall talk about later, but has many points in common. In criticizing those who interpret social technology as a holistic application of social theory, he points to something that is important to us as well. He insisted that the technology in social technology, as well as the technology in scientific technology, should have a characteristic incremental nature. What Popper was saying already in 1957 is today considered anew as having important meaning. In the following, I would like to look briefly at some matters that are necessary for making use of the concept of social technology.

When thinking, for example, about installing railways, fundamental to this is railway technology. The making of various facilities and selecting locations where they can be installed are things that can be done with scientific technology. While these are necessary conditions, however, when it comes to deciding whether or not to go ahead with the installation or what kind of railway to install and where, such matters are decided based on social conditions. In deciding the specifications for building the railway, it is necessary to think in detail about such matters as how to use the resulting railway, how to make it useful for society, and how to create economic benefits. What is necessary for this analysis is social scientific knowledge. As this example makes clear, the knowledge from scientific technology is a necessity for the construction, and social scientific knowledge is the sufficient condition. Accordingly, the issues cannot be treated accurately if these are considered in juxtaposition. For the sake of strictly analyzing these issues, let us give some thought to the following classification, even though it is somewhat different from what we are used to.

A classification of scientific knowledge based on Peirce is shown in Fig. 2. Peirce noted that the phenomena, the objective reality from which knowledge is extracted, are divided into physical existence and human existence in science. The examples here are actions; the customs to be followed, and the materials used when making things, are taken up and abstracted by means of description, classification, and nomology. The abstract system of customs is called psychical science, while the abstract system of materials is called physical science. Although each of these makes up an independently complete science, in reality they are deeply interrelated. Peirce does not use this example, but let us think about a knife and fork. There are certain manners decided for their use, and these manners are the object of sociology. Manners are a kind of language, and more fundamentally they no doubt have a psychological base. As for the making of knives and forks, this is done by forging and polishing, which are methods having their foundation in material properties. The methods are based on description, classification (chemistry), and nomology (physics). In such a way, technology exists historically independent of science; but the basis of its existence becomes rationally valid by means of science as abstracted general knowledge, with this abstraction being in accordance with Peirce's approach. Technology thus backed by scientific knowledge is the technology of today. According to Peirce, psychical science and physical science become metaphysics through a process of convergence, and knowledge becomes complete when it arrives at mathematics; but for now we shall stop short of considering the metaphysics or mathematics of knives and forks.

Of interest here is the fact that, when we attempt to offer actual technological results created using modern technology and what we earlier called abstracted knowledge, both knowledge belonging to psychical science and that belonging to physical science become necessary at the same time. Even in my, not Peirce's, simple example of a knife and fork, in order to provide these correctly to users, we need to make them using manufacturing technology, and also teach people how to use them. For a more refined provision, theories of physics and psychology might be used. Inasmuch as this provision is a social phenomenon, the technology on which basis it rightfully takes place can suitably be called social technology. In this way social technology is seen as technology with its foundation in both psychical science and physical science. To make this correspondence clear, here we are using the term psychical technology to refer to technology having psychical science as its foundation, and physical technology to refer to technology with a physical science foundation. In general parlance, however, the former may be said to correspond to "policy technique" and the latter to scientific technology.

In this way, social technology (within the scope of a linear analysis) can be understood as a merging of psychical technology based in psychical science and physical technology based in physical science. A conceptual drawing is given in Fig 3.

For a more precise discussion, we need to consider additionally life-science technology having its foundation in life sciences, as indicated in Fig. 3; but here for the sake of convenience we shall think of life-science technology as being included in physical technology.

Assuming that social technology is the convergence of psychical technology and physical technology, what is its status in reality? To start with the conclusion, since physical science has progressed too far out of balance with psychical technology, the situation today is that a proper social technology has not been established.

Here we have used a rough definition of psychical technology as having its foundation in psychical science. Accordingly, what we are calling psychical science includes such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology, as given in Fig. 2, and is thus science dealing with the psychical side of human beings. It has a long history and has had major accomplishments. What we notice here, however, is that when we look at physical technology as constructional activity based in physical science, and psychical technology as constructional activity based in psychical science, the two differ in terms of the relationship between their foundation and constructional activity. Constructional activity based in physical science, that is, the production of significant physical artifacts, at least historically has brought safety and abundance to the human race. On the other hand, when we look at constructional activity based in psychical science, which would be the creation of psychologically significant psychical artifacts grounded in psychical science, it is more difficult to come up with abundant examples of things in general use. Educational psychology is a field whose systematization has progressed; but compared, for example, to progress in physics resulting in highly advanced materials technology, we have to admit that educational psychology has seen only limited use in the classroom. Interestingly, we are more likely to think of things like hypnosis, opinion manipulation, ethnic cleansing or other abnormal misuses. Ideologically based social revolution, mentioned earlier, also fits in this category. This is not how it was supposed to be. The increase in knowledge was supposed to bring good things to the human race. In looking for the cause, perhaps we need to think about whether there are basic problems in the way knowledge is used. I would therefore like to proceed with an analysis based on the following approach.

We all have experience with industrial products being accepted by society and going on to become progressively advanced in their performance. Industrial products are artifacts created by physical technology having its foundation in physical science. They are able to bring safety and affluence to human beings because the loop of sustainable progress is working. Industrial products, in other words, appear on already established markets and are selected by consumers. Ordinary industrial goods are characterized by having markets that are sufficiently mature, having gained public consent, and being recognized as economic mechanisms. The processes by which consumers select products and by which products are used are made clear by surveys of sales performance, consumed products and so on. This information is sent to the designers of industrial products, and is fed back into design changes and new products. This is sustainable progress.

Does sustainable progress also occur in the case of the "products" created by psychical technology based in psychical science? For the sake of convenience, we shall here call these "cultural products," which can include education, learning assistance, expert advice, psychological care, artistic works, entertainment and the like. We need to consider whether there is for these cultural products, as with their industrial counterparts, an "information cycle driven by piecemeal abduction." My conclusion is that in the case of these cultural products, it is still underdeveloped.

Thinking, for example, about attempts to assess the quality of education provided at the university level, it cannot yet be said that evaluation by public mechanisms making continuous efforts matches the evaluation as seen by those receiving education. University rankings and the like are also one-sided. Evaluation in elementary and secondary education is difficult. The markets that play the important role of driving the cycle in the case of industrial products are underdeveloped in the education field. Even so, we must not be fooled by silly proposals like the voucher system that try to imitate the industrial product evaluation system. That would be the folly of making education subject to economy, and would be a problem also for economy. In education, based on the full awareness that the results will appear in society as a whole many years down the line, a specifically designed evaluation is needed in cooperation between educators and learners (or their guardians), while receiving the support of society. This has nothing to do with economy. Educational economics is of course necessary, but this must not be tied to the assessment of individual educational efforts. Reform based on this evaluation must be carried out not according to a complete theory, but piecemeal by participation of the people involved. Moreover, a condition of reform is that it must be proposed by the participants, that is, by abduction. I will not go into further detail here, but none of these conditions can be considered as having been adequately met.

The immaturity of cultural products is evident not only in terms of the evaluation that is central to a selection mechanism and important for sustainable progress, but also from the standpoint of piecemeal action and abduction.

Looking beyond education to such cultural products as works of art and entertainment, the establishment of social mechanisms for the proper advancement of arts and entertainment has not taken place and we await mechanisms specific to each.

One more thing needs to be pointed out. It is my view that the technology enabling the markets that are an important factor toward sustainable progress of the industrial products mentioned above belongs not to physical technology but to psychical technology. Accordingly, the completion of the markets results from psychical technology. We noted that the market for cultural products, which are the result of psychical technology, is still underdeveloped. Yet the market for industrial products, which are the result of physical technology, is mature even though the market itself is based on psychical technology. There is much we can learn from this point.

Since social technology is the convergence of psychical technology and physical technology as discussed in section 3, what we need to do next is to extract the issues for social technology from both their statuses. What we can say based on the discussion so far is that the maturity of psychical technology is far below that of physical technology. Let us consider next what the resulting problems are for social technology and how these can be solved.

We have not yet come to the point of talking about social technology in general. I believe the only way is to clarify this through the process of solving the issues that we face. Looking back over history, we find other examples of engineering that developed through a similar process, with the theory becoming completed as real problems were solved, and the technology becoming systematized. This development approach can thus be taken here as well. Accordingly, rather than immediately thinking about a systematic "social engineering," we shall apply our thought here to social technology based on actual examples such as its form, effects, and elements; and if possible, we shall think about a general systematization in parallel with this analysis.

A reality-based issue here is the socialization of Full Research, as noted earlier. Through Full Research, we created sciencific and technological knowledge usable by industry. But we also realized that it would not be easy to go beyond the stage of simply meeting the necessary condition of usability and fulfill the sufficient condition of bringing about actual use by industry. The point of our discussions here is the idea that these necessary and sufficient conditions can be created by social technology. Physical technology is used to meet the necessary conditions, and psychical technology is used to meet the sufficient conditions. In fact, the two are not independent but intricately related. For the sake of simplicity, however, we shall use the following analysis.

Let us assume that the research results of AIST are based in physical technology. Since ours is Full Research, by no means is it limited to just the physical side of things. We are thinking about actual application to industry in Type 2 Basic Research and in Product Realization Research, and we are also already considering various psychological aspects. However, since in the socialization that follows Type 2 Basic Research and Product Realization Research the main aspect can be said to exist in psychical technology, there is a broad tendency (by thinking linearly) to lump psychical technology and socialization together. One result is that the contents of all our researches are not clearly known; not only that, we are faced with the issue of achieving socialization by means of a psychical technology that is immature also from the standpoint of sustainable progress.

Here we need to remind ourselves that the market for industrial goods has become mature thanks to psychical technology. We have been calling the fruits of Full Research "products," but are these industrial products or cultural products? Here we come up against a logically difficult issue, so let us put off discussing it for now. In either case, the important thing to note here first of all is that products resulting from Full Research are new artifacts, and at the very least there is no established market for them of which society is aware. The fate of arriving on a market that is not yet recognized is unavoidable given the intrinsic nature of Full Research with its quality of newness, like nothing that has come about before.

From this we can draw our conclusion. Namely, the socialization of Full Research has the same kind of problem as that of offering to society cultural products for which a market has not yet been established. Moreover, this must be a piecemeal process and done by abduction.

Simply put, the socialization of Full Research will not take place by an existing, general approach, which only has to be followed to succeed. Rather, the approach must be created in each individual case. This is the kind of effort already being made today, not only by researchers but in cooperation across industry, academia, and government, and by research-related departments dealing with intellectual property, venture capital and so on. The problem, therefore, is that those efforts as individual, special undertakings are not cumulative, but are destined to evolve as they are carried out on each occasion. To enable success, we need to understand the nature of the problem, establish a method for accumulating efforts, and create a realistic organization. This is a process that needs the participation of all AIST members.

Considering that service engineering is a typical example of social technology, I believe the Center for Service Research established last year is particularly called upon to play an important role toward the socialization of Full Research. If we were to neglect this important and most immediate issue we face and simply pursue a broad range of external social issues, we would end up making the same mistake as the former Center for Technology and Society.