Vol.5 No.2 2012

58/66

Round-table talks : Science and technology policy and synthesiology – Bridging science and values−132−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.2 (2012) and then you can step up. I think we have to install some kind of “mechanism” for that.ArimotoExactly. Something that was done in a certain place can be done in another place if the region is about the same size and has a similar social capital culture. As Dr. Hiroyuki Yoshikawa mentioned after the 3.11 earthquake, one of the touchstones for how to spread that to a wider region is perhaps by creating a fellowship system where young researchers and post-docs are sent to the various disaster areas. Maybe that will generate new ideas and insights. I think this is an important advice.KobayashiTo actually apply the prototype to society, the effort of how to express this as a study is necessary. Synthesiology started from that point of view. When Dr. Yoshikawa came to AIST, he said that Full Research where the Type 1 Basic Research, Type 2 Basic Research, and Product Realization Research are done coherently is important. Type 1 Basic Research is mostly analytical research evaluated in the traditional peer review. We were thinking about promoting research that widely selects, synthesizes, and integrates the knowledge of different fields based on a scenario centering on Type 2 Basic Research. Since we felt that there was no place to publish the results and to evaluate them as a study, we published Synthesiology. Therefore, the greatest concept is “for society,” but as Mr. Arimoto said, the most important is how to write the scenario and how to link results to implementation in society.Since this journal is an –ology or “study,” it may start from a researcher’s curiosity. However, we have the authors clearly state how the research may link to society, write the scenario, describe which elemental technologies are selected, explain the relationships among the elements and their integration, and state the future prospects, in an academic paper form. While listening to you today, I thought that your work done at JST and RISTEX seems to be similar to Synthesiology.ArimotoI think there are similarities. The “Message” for the launch of Synthesiology is very carefully written. It is important to nurture this approach as a type of discipline and to increase awareness. On the other hand, when a discipline creates its domain, it attempts to exclude others. Both Synthesiology and RISTEX, however, must create associates and communities that support them in order to help this approach grow.AkamatsuRISTEX states that it attempts to link the “observing scientist” who understands the regional demands and social issues and the “engineering scientist” who proposes the methodology and design to solve the problem, as well as linking the “actors” and “scientists” in society. I think the problems of “science for society” and how to set the career path of the people who are capable of such engineering research are closely related.ArimotoYes indeed. I feel many people who engage in “science for policies” are similar to engineering scientists. I am very concerned about their career paths.KobayashiIt is indeed “science for society.”ArimotoAIST conducted a synthesiology workshop at the annual meeting of the Japan Society for Science Policy and Research Management last year. I think it is very important to conduct activities outside of your institution. It is “co-creation” where each part maintains independence. I think this “co-creation” will be the keyword in social technology.I think this is a movement. This movement has been done individually, as Synthesiology by AIST and practice of specific cases by RISTEX. Both have arrived at the phase where the methodology could be organized by meta-phase. It is important to collect case studies. I hope we can summarize the case studies that continuously accumulate along some axis.In Synthesiology, the names of the reviewers and the discussions are disclosed, and this is very important for the development of new methodologies and the axis of evaluation. I think you are doing very well. I hope you continue.AkamatsuWhen the reviewers are selected, one is selected from those who understand the field and another is from outside the field. One of the characteristics is that it is not a peer review.You mentioned the career path of the personnel. This is a very important subject.ArimotoYes, indeed. It is the issue of human resource. At RISTEX, if there is one post-doc or a young researcher for one project, then there are nearly 100 people. One case that made an impression on me is that of a professor at Gunma University who developed a “comprehensive disaster scenario simulator for tsunamis.” He was working on activities to raise consciousness for disaster among the residents and to provide disaster prevention education to elementary and junior high students. One of his activity sites was Kamaishi which was hit badly by the 3.11 tsunami last year. He told people of the town, “Do not trust the tsunami simulation. Nature very

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です