Vol.4 No.4 2012

49/62

Round-table talks : Systems and synthesiology−239−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.4 No.4 (2012) OnoWe tell the authors that a Synthesiology paper is requested to describe two things, i.e. a scenario to reach the goal and elemental technologies to be integrated. The scenario includes why the authors wanted to do the research and what the authors thought at the beginning of the research. The elemental technologies include materials and parts for the authors to select to do the research. However, since most researchers are just familiar with Type 1 Basic Research, they have a hard time writing. Even though they are the ones who actually did the research, they often say, “I don’t recall how I came up with my own scenario.”KuwaharaThat’s the point. They’ve got the answer, and they must think about how they arrived at the answer. I have experiences where I come up with a hint for a system when I am hanging out with people unrelated to my work, or in my leisure time. I think various input lay behind scenario building.OnoI think so, too. It may seem to be a flash thought, but even a flash thought will not come to you unless there is a base. So, I ask the authors to write what their bases are. That is quite difficult, but I wish to gradually systematize this process. KuwaharaWere the papers of Synthesiology about this?OnoThe point might not have been clear. I guess that insufficient communication between the editor and the author is the excuse. KuwaharaBefore going on to the scenario, it may be useful to do a breakdown of “what knowledge you have, and which other knowledge you poured in to achieve the objectives” Such efforts are important for system generation, and I support such efforts.Another thought I had was that the researchers are almost always evaluated by their papers, but perhaps that may not lead to an outlet emphasizing policy. Type 2 Basic Research is fine as is, but the assets of systems are the discoveries that result into patents. I think additional value should be placed there. OnoConventional papers were of analysis and breakdowns, weren’t they? One wrote about taking a watch apart and described what came out. We didn’t have a paper that described the act of assembling the parts to make a watch.KuwaharaYet, when we ask the researchers to do Type 2 Basic Research, they will do it if it is the development of the Type 1 Basic Research in which they were involved. The researchers will never do it from someone else’s Type 1. Japan will not be able to achieve innovation in this way. To break this is my primary request to AIST.OnoThat is the best part about AIST’s Type 2 Basic Research. At AIST, we encourage the researchers to get out of the “octopus hole” or of the compartmentalized way of thinking to transcend the framework of segmented scientific academies and to look at things with a bird’s eye view.Mr. Kuwahara mentioned, “Systemic thinking does not always create outlets, but systemic thinking is essential to obtain a solution for objectives.” I totally agree. I think it is the same for joint researches. The point is that doing joint research is not of value itself, but that we have to do research jointly because one cannot realize societal values alone. Therefore, we must consider the scenario for a system.While the levels of the systemic thinking and scenarios may differ in corporate minds and with those of the AIST researchers, I think good joint research will evolve by sharing common factors. I think we had not been enthusiastic about sharing a scenario until now because our attention was paid to details of technology. If corporate people would discuss scenarios a bit more, I think we can talk about what are different in the scenarios, what are the same, and what we can share. I expect such talks will take off from there. What do you think?KuwaharaAs one example, there is the seawater desalination system. Currently, the seawater is filtered through the reverse osmosis film. When I hear the explanation on its principles, I am surprised that there are many things that are done without knowing the exact basic principles about water, salt and others. The researchers should clarify and understand basic principles first, and then try out what would happen if this or that film is used or if some biological treatment is applied, or if certain intermediary treatment to the sea water is applied. Various options should be studied for achieving competitive systems. This is currently being done as a JST project. We are working to make this Japanese desalinization process technology overwhelmingly competitive in three, or if not, five years.We do not have organized thoughts about the principles or laws, and many people in the academia do not know about systems or synthesiology. To find common grounds for our respective fields, I think it is important for us all to study “what system generation is”. We are starting a study session for systems technology in a project of the Center for Research and Development Strategy. I hope people of AIST will join us. Basically, joint work will be the best solution.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です