Vol.4 No.4 2012

51/62

Round-table talks : Systems and synthesiology−241−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.4 No.4 (2012) AkamatsuI think it is the matter of how to create “the ability to think systems” rather than the “thing”. In traditional science and technology, the scholarship was considered to be the manufacturing of “things”. What is truly important is how to “think about things”, and it is necessary to position this as part of the discipline. The “ability” part of the discovery ability is important. OnoWe would like to advance friendly competition of discovery ability with private corporation researchers. KuwaharaThat will be great. My proposal is for us to cooperate and set a path to summarize “how it is actually done”, and to consider together what must be further enhanced and what the academic positioning is in the future.AkamatsuWe would like to work on that. Thank you very much for today. (This roundtable discussion was held at Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on May 9, 2011.)Article contribution after the roundtable discussionThe Editorial Board asked the participants to contribute articles on subjects that could not be covered in the roundtable discussion and they are as follows.Hiroshi Kuwahara:Speeding up the development of systems technologyIt is commendable that the stance of placing importance on the relationship of science and technology and society, such as the returning the results of science and technology R&D to society and promoting R&D with consideration for the outlet, is gaining acceptance.The contact points of science and technology with society is all systems in the field of industry. They include extremely wide ranges from simple systems (such as home appliances) to large-scale complex systems (nuclear power plants, various smart systems, etc.). However, it is regretful that not much effort has been spent on R&D in this field, and it is an urgent issue considering the progress of Japan. Then we must ask, “what a system is” and “what the system building technology is”. Although these are important basic understandings that are essential to the future systems related R&D, their analyses are almost untouched, and it must be done immediately. When people understand these points correctly, only then can we move to the next step. At this moment, it is reckless to start theoretical building right from the initial stage.As someone who has somewhat deeper experience in systems building, I shall attempt to set a bold hypothesis as follows. I would like to see a discussion.Typical procedure for systems buildingStep 1:Clearly define the objective of the system.Step 2:Seek the essence of the system. Investigate what principles are expected to be processed and how they are applied in terms of physical, chemical, or social sciences, for the system.Step 3:Widely gather the findings, knowledge, and research results that may be necessary for building the system based on Step 2.Step 4:Extract the necessary items, or if some item is missing, assume new technology that is desired and is realizable. Then design several system building plans.Step 5:Evaluate them quantitatively according to the objective, and the related parties convene to evaluate and discuss them. Make any additions if necessary, and determine the final plan. In this case, price and realizable time scale must be raised as important evaluation items.I think many people, including researchers, have gone through similar experiences in the past. As people bring their experiences to the discussion, I hope the form of what we are pursuing will take shape. I fear that unless the discussions start from actual experiences, it will end up as a hollow theory.I had a valuable opportunity to engage in discussions with the people of AIST, and it was extremely significant. However, I also felt that both parties will be hardened into their own ideas and the investigations will go off into different directions if they are left as they are.There is a momentum now where various activities are starting up, such as the investigations of systems technology at CRDS, at AIST, and at the Transdisciplinary Science and Technology Research Group (Federation and Committee), as well as the emphasis on systems at the Council for Science and Technology Policy, consideration of systems at the Council on Competitiveness Nippon (COCN), and others.The mutual collaborations of these activities and the activities that may arise in the future are important and significant, and I hope the industry-academia collaboration will bring about wonderful results.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です