Vol.2 No.1 2009

77/88

Round-table talk : One-year anniversary of Synthesiology−74−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.2 No.1 (2009) Re-appreciation of the “importance of writing”(Akamatsu)We created a journal from zero, and I think it was good opportunity to carefully consider, “What is a paper?” and “What is discipline?” In a conventional journal, there is a set writing style, but we suffered because we did not have one. On the other hand, because we did not have a style, we were able to rethink what “writing,” style was most appropriate and were thus able to more deeply appreciate the “importance of writing.”We often engage in verbal discussions about Type 2 Basic Research, but it is important “to write them down properly” in prose. “To write down properly” here means to express the important points without insufficiency or excess, and only by writing, can one see what is insufficient and what is excessive. As I review papers, I am beginning to gradually see what are the insufficiencies and excesses.“Visualizing” research to overcome the valley of death at AIST(Yabe)I have always told the people outside AIST, including those from companies and the mass media, “We can overcome the valley of death through Type 2 Basic Research,” and I think now we are able to allow people to “visualize” this process through the journal. For the first time, I was able to demonstrate Type 2 Basic Research and Full Research to people outside AIST.There is substantial impact whenever I visit companies with the results. I tell industry-academia-government collaboration coordinators in various organizations who are working to revitalize small and medium businesses, “To overcome the valley of death, development in this area of technology is necessary.” They respond surprised, “I thought the valley of death could be overcome if we put in enough money in.” Last year, I was able to present the process convincingly. It was quite significant.Reviewing is reading the logic(Ono)I totally share the opinions of the four of you, and I am reminded that we’ve been working toward certain goals. Personally, I have been thinking: “What is science?” “What is research?” “What is a researcher?” Since we became AIST, I have been thinking “What is Full Research?” I feel that Synthesiology provides significant answers to those questions, and I think it has been very successful.I also encountered something unexpected, I surprised myself at being able to “read and understand” research papers of different fields. Of course, I do read books and articles on research conducted in other fields, but I have never read the original research papers written by researchers of other fields. Even at academic meetings in my own field, I didn’t understand anything presented in a different divisions, and even in the same division, I could scarcely understand what was being presented if I walked into a different session. This time, I was surprised “I could understand” the research papers of other fields, and was even more surprised “I could make comments as a reviewer.” This surprise also lead to joy. I discovered this accidentally through working on Synthesiology, but I feel it was inevitable.(Kobayashi)It was also a great surprise for me that I could read and review papers from different fields. It was possible only because we discussed, shared, and accumulated what we have been trying to achieve. On the other hand, I can see the authors are struggling with great effort as they try to follow the submission guidelines. Rather than putting Type 2 Basic Research as the final goal, I would like authors to reflect carefully on the originality of the synthesis process and what is different from Type 1 Basic Research, or upon “What is synthesis in Type 2 Basic Research?”(Akamatsu)The ability to review papers is the ability to understand the underlying logic. Assuming that the details of the experimental method had been reviewed somewhere else in the context of a paper on Type 1 Basic Research, then, I just have to read and understand the logical threads and their combinations to reach the conclusion. Logic is the root of science. The age when modern science started and when René Descartes was alive almost coincided. Descartes pondered on how to understand the truth. I think this lies at the foundation of scientific methodology. In current Type 1 Basic Research, the logic to prove correctness is established, but in Synthesiology, the form of logic to be used must be considered carefully and the writer must think of how to build up the logic. Science-oriented people are good at logical thinking, and that enables reviewing.Writing the logic of synthesis rather than the logic of a proof Dr. Motoyuki Akamatsu

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です