Vol.2 No.1 2009

80/88

Round-table talk : One-year anniversary of Synthesiology−77−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.2 No.1 (2009) can be combined.(Kobayashi)On the other hand, I feel that some people may misunderstand that one must have gone all the way to product realization in order to write the paper in Synthesiology. I think we should provide a place where people can write papers on their work at different stages of synthesis.(Yabe)Yet, I think the company people respond better to success stories. I think they become very encouraged when they read about some methodology on how to overcome the valley of death, or stories of “we succeeded because….” I feel that the journal can deliver a positive message to such people, and it will be accepted readily into society from this perspective.(Yoshikawa)I think the main readers of the journal are those who wish to read success stories, but I think it is extremely valuable for people who study “What is synthesis?” if there are papers written with no prominent results. When the discipline of synthesis is established, it will a subject onto itself, so we should always keep this in mind and be keenly aware of what Dr. Yabe has mentioned.(Ono)The points of this journal are scenario writing and synthesis. Most of the authors can recall the scenario made and can even revise it. But I have found that sometimes they have trouble with writing about synthesis. Personally speaking, I can scarcely recall why I made certain decisions or took a certain process of synthesis.(Yoshikawa)I’ve being studying that process. I’ve studied the thought process of design, but I have failed entirely. I have totally forgotten what I’ve been thinking. The abduction does not remain in memory. The greatness of the editors of Synthesiology is that they started by asking the authors to write objectively what happened to them, regardless of the logical synthesis. I think that this is the correct way, and one can only write what he/she remembers. The process of ideation is very difficult.(Ono)Ideation occurs not only by one person thinking, but from ideas arising during discussions with others or when visiting someone else’s laboratory. Good research groups, I think, provide such places. I believe there are many creations of synthesis, or highly productive research groups at AIST.(Yabe)I think how to analyze and incorporate the writing in Synthesiology is an issue challenging us. I think the process of analyzing and proposing the common methodologies for overcoming the “ valley of death” will become very important, including topics such as why I did this for what purpose, for example to improve economy, to maintain environmental acceptance, or to reduce societal risks.(Akamatsu)In conventional Type 1 Basic Research, simply writing a paper is contribution to science, whereas the paper of Synthesiology must show the necessary capabilities in actually utilizing technology in society. By writing such papers within the company, one can appeal that he/she is a connoisseur or a human resource capable of integration, and should be able to move up to a better position. It should be used in such way.Getting a patent only proves the capability of creating elemental technology. One should not just file patents or write papers on elemental technology, but should write papers that show he/she has the capability to integrate. The person should then be treated with respect in society for this capability as a result of writing such papers. We must create a science and technology society that allows that. I think creating such a social system is lacking in the science and technology policies.(Yoshikawa)In the old days, there was a sort of harmonic hypothesis in that if one wrote a research paper on Type 1 Basic Research, it could lead to a patent in some cases, and the society will absorb and use the new ideas which were presented randomly. That was innovation as stated by Joseph Schumpeter, but modern innovation won’t be realized unless we act swiftly. If we do not reduce carbon dioxide levels, global warming will progress and the humankind may become extinct. We must have a keen objective of how we can create the new technology to overcome the situation.Therefore, company people should read this journal keeping in mind innovations are urgent issues on which they must work. The journal can serve as a guideline that shows how something like basic research, which seems to be floating in the air, can travel all the way to socialization. Researchers must realize that the motivation for writing papers in Dr. Akira Yabe

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です