Vol.3 No.1 2010

102/110

Round-table talk : Synthesiology on the Second Anniversary−99−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.1 (2010) with people of an automobile manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, a power network, and others. We set up a system starting from elemental technology, and were able to draw the image of the project in its entirety. I don’t know whether this was because I was trained in synthesiology or whether because I worked at AIST, but I really felt that any research project or program must be set up with a synthetic approach.Quoting the methodology of synthetic research(Ono)Dr. Naito, you also think that “research of synthesiology” is important, don’t you?(Naito)Right now, I think it is seen merely as an extension of case study research. In the future, I think the true theory will be created when Synthesiology itself will become the subject of research, a model proposed by Dr. Kobayashi is applied, it is further developed for education and design, and we get an output in the form of some kind of design manual. I think personally this is the period where more case studies are collected, and after some accumulation, the researchers who wish to study this subject will be attracted, and the discipline as well as the education and design as its application will be ultimately formed.(Akamatsu)I want the authors to state, “the Synthesiology paper that I wrote has the same approach to some papers published before in this journal”. Dr. Naito mentioned that a third party could use these papers as subjects of research. As a research discipline, when a researcher quotes his/her own paper, he/she must take a stand such as, “My method is similar to this-and-that research approach, but is different here and there”. I feel that part is still lacking while the authors can talk passionately.(Ono)I feel the same way. I don’t know whether the researchers cannot do so because they didn’t think synthesiologically in setting the scenario or because they are unable to re-organize the actions they took as a process of synthesis.Bronze and iron experiment methodology and methodology of synthetic approach(Yoshikawa)I think it is the latter. Although I may be thinking in my favor, I believe that people who conducted and created good synthesis were thinking synthesiologically.Suppose that, in engineering, an experiment was done with some material, or in mechanical engineering, a detailed change in shape was observed with high speed, and then a theory was made. Suppose also that one researcher did it with copper, and another did it with iron. The latter can write a paper with iron in the same manner, but that would be copying the former following a superficial process. Yet, the former who did it for the first time was not superficial, but engaged in an analytical research by setting up a program of how to investigate the essence of a material. There is bound to be some synthesiological element like this in true research.(Kobayashi)When I reviewed a paper, although the author was not conscious that a synthesiological way of thinking was employed, I mentioned, “Didn’t you get to this because you made your strategy step by step in the process of strategic selection?” The author realized, “Oh, so this is what it’s all about.” That was a case of discovery through the discussion between the author and the reviewer.(Ono)Taking a deeper look, it can be said the author himself already engaged in synthesiological thinking, and that it manifested itself when he was given a chance to write this type of paper.(Kobayashi)The paper of “Study on the PAN carbon-fiber-innovation for modeling a successful R&D management” in Volume 2 No.2 was written by Osamu Nakamura and others when they saw that the polyacrylonytrile (PAN) carbon fiber, which was invented by Dr. Akio Shindo at the former Osaka National Research Institute of the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology in the 1960s, eventually developed into business. There are a few points to be raised here. It is true that the carbon fiber was originally an excellent material, but one day he was told by some American military personnel: “This has excellent mechanical strength. This can be useful.” Then, “synthesis” started in an aspect totally different from the original scenario. I think the important point here is the “meeting with people,” that the logic alone does not lead to success. It seems to finally become something through turning points including random chance.Dr. Naoto Kobayashi

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です