Vol.3 No.1 2010

104/110

Round-table talk : Synthesiology on the Second Anniversary−101−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.1 (2010) (Yoshikawa)Those were the greatest objectives of the Innovation School: to actually create something by breaking the rock-hard specialism supremacy, and to have wide-ranging contact with society. It is good that they were able to learn that.(Ono)We send post-docs for a few months to companies, and have them experience corporate OJT. They become new channels for communication between AIST and the companies, and it is an important experience for us. The people of the companies that accepted the students evaluate the OJT and provide comments, and they are mostly very positive. Normally, the companies do not have the opportunity to work with young doctoral researchers, and they see it as a new opportunity and are surprised that we’ve got good researchers here.(Yoshikawa)It’s a learning experience for companies. That is good. The Innovation School is one model where one can learn while working. The students are learning that “it is not good to be fixed in a narrow field”, and also learn what synthesis is through Synthesiology. They understand that to engage in a new work is to “think”.Future expectations and prospects(Ono)How about the future expectations and prospects for Synthesiology?(Akamatsu)One of the students of the Innovation School commented: “The papers are good because the quality of the reviewers are high. To continue being a good journal, you must nurture good reviewers that can review in terms of what is ‘synthesiology’”. I felt that was important. The reviewers function as a kind of connoisseur. The reviewers are trying to bring the “synthesis” out of the papers, and we would be in trouble when we step down for the next generation if they are unable to do the same. This is a future issue.(Kobayashi)I’ve been thinking about the exact same thing. We ourselves grew up in the past two years, but I feel we must increase the number of people who share “synthesiology” as a discipline. We must do more symposia and workshops and communicate the concept through word of mouth. We must also spend effort to increase the reviewers, particularly getting people outside AIST to participate, and to raise the awareness of Synthesiology.(Naito)It is really fun to discuss various points with the authors in the process of a review, and I think the quality of both the authors and the editors is raised through this dialog. Perhaps the number of submissions may increase if we create some mechanism where the author-editor dialog is enhanced further, and if we carry on such dialog with outside people. I think we will be able to learn many things from each other if we set up symposia, seminars, and lectures as part of this activity.(Ono)My comments are the same as everyone. By doing the review, the reviewers have fun making new discoveries and getting inspiration, and I myself am surprised at how much I can understand the values of other research fields.(Yoshikawa)Since Japan’s population is small, the ratio of GNP will decrease. It is now a 9 % nation, but in 2050, it will become a 3 % nation and its presence will decline. What we have to do to avoid this is to increase the number of researchers. If the number of researchers increases within the same population, the presence will increase at least in terms of science. I call this “policy to double the number of researchers”, but it won’t be good if we simply double the number of closed, sectionalized researchers. We want to have researchers who are all-inclusive including the developers that write papers in the Technical Reports. At the same time, we need a kind of a social passage where there is a professional continuity from secluded researchers to corporate developers, and people should be able to move freely. I think Synthesiology will be a powerful tool to accomplish this, and I think it can become a kind of social movement.(Ono)Thank you very much for discussing such a wide range of interesting topics today.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です