Vol.5 No.2 2012

56/66

Round-table talks : Science and technology policy and synthesiology – Bridging science and values−130−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.2 (2012) a sense of crisis in the advanced nations is because they are faced with a situation where, to use the funds effectively, the current system must be changed and human resources must be recruited, as R&D money won’t increase or perhaps will decrease as the financial status declines. I’m afraid Japan does not share this sense of crisis.KobayashiIn the case of the United States, the PDs and POs are being trained as specialists at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, I don’t think there is a system that trains such people in Japan. When the Japanese economy was moving upward on an incline in the 1970s and 1980s, were such roles filled by the technology officers of the Science and Technology Agency (STA) or the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)?ArimotoI think they were doing that in large-scale projects. This could be done, even if the officers in charge shifted in one to two years, because it was a catch-up model. They simply had to copy others. However, now that Japan’s status has changed completely, it has to be done by professionals research administrators (or managers). Japan failed to respect such professional groups, or failed to train young people. That is why we are in deep trouble in this great turning point.In Japan, there is a polarization of people who do research versus people who hand out money, and even in universities, they are divided into professors and managers. We suddenly realized that we have failed to train people who can “link” the two, or the mediators. There is no mechanism where people, like the science communicators, can carry out their jobs as a stable profession.KobayashiIn Japan, the training of researchers and policymakers for “science for the science and technology innovation policy” is important for building a new policy forming process.ArimotoIn Japan, the Council for Science and Technology Policy has led the science and technology policy making. I think it will be important to establish the process of integrating the various policy analyses, designing the policy, and providing alternatives in an evidence-based manner, even though the politicians will make the final decisions. It is also important in the future to nurture the “people” and solidify the “methodology.”KobayashiIn the United States, NSF is funding the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP). Is US advanced in that aspect?mechanism for downstream values is very weak. USA is trying to create a DARPA style mechanism under various agencies, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) under the US Department of Energy is one such example.Giving examples of other countries, France set up a competitive funding organization called l'Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) a few years ago, and it gives out fairly large amounts of funds. Sweden also created the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINOVVA). Britain has traditionally the strong Research Councils. In Germany, the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. is for basic research, while the work of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, FhG is interesting as an innovation system. Other developing countries are emulating the examples and are creating their own funding systems. Funding strategy for future science and technologyKobayashiYou say “funding is important,” and that is absolutely true for us who apply for funding. We create a matching proposal and the good ones are accepted. That means how to strategically create good funding is important for the policies.AkamatsuWhat one must not forget along with the importance of funding is who reviews the proposal and how it is reviewed. I often discuss with Dr. Kobayashi, “Is it possible to do reviews of proposals that are not analysis?” If one tries to score high to get funding, the content often ends up being one that can withstand analytic scrutiny.ArimotoThat must be included in the objectives when designing the funding. If it is selected by peer review only, it tends to become conservative. In the United States, program officers (PO) and program directors (PD) have some level of decision-making authority based on their insights on the direction of the development of their specialties. The reason there is such 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