Vol.5 No.3 2012

82/94

Round-table talks : Creation of values and synthesis−217−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.3 (2012) Dr. Masatoshi IshikawaIshikawaWhat is lacking in science today is the world of “value creation.” The organization theories and research methodologies are processes, and these are not enough. It is necessary to think about the values that can be created beyond them.In this case, there are two issues: who will evaluate the “value” and how do we evaluate “creation.” Aside from subjective evaluation, the researcher as an individual cannot evaluate the value objectively, and he/she is not in the position to do so. It is also, in principle, difficult for the organization to evaluate the value. Therefore, I strongly state, “It is society that evaluates the value.”Considering the above, it is necessary to have the perspective of what is research that generates an outcome of which society will accept its value. It is also necessary to reconsider what is creation in a true sense, not merely as a means of catching up. Because society evaluates the value of research results, research organization must publicize to society the value in the manner that can be evaluated by society. At the same time, the organization must be able to accept the value that society recognizes, and there must be a mechanism to receive the social evaluation within the organization, but that is the difficult part. Many researchers think that if the research results are published at academic societies, they are evaluated as being valuable, but that is not necessarily true.For example, even Nobel Prizes are sometimes given to synthetic accomplishments. I think the synthetic works include the X-ray CT of Godfrey Hounsfield and Allan Cormack, and IC of Jack Kilby. I think there will be more prizes given to such works. Though there may be objections to my statement, their research did not start from a given topic, but started from “I wish I can do this” fantasy. In addition to their accomplishment of realization, we should focus on their greatness as researchers who said, “This result can be achieved. The value lies there.” This is something that must be done by any researcher, whether large or small in scale, and the “social evaluation” lies ahead. If the result is not employed despite the researcher’s defense, as long as society does the evaluation and the researcher is not allowed to evaluate, I think it is a “justifiable failure.” If it is justifiable to the point of stating something that is logically and technologically correct, and there is a potential for value creation, then the research should be done. Whether it actually has value will be judged by society, and the processes of writing the paper or filing a patent are intermediate steps. If it is transmitted to society and becomes valuable in society, it will receive some kind of acclaim, perhaps even a Nobel Prize. The researcher must understand this mechanism.Concerning “creation,” catching up is not creation. In ordinary academic papers, it will become highly acceptable for publication if one writes in the introduction, “This is what result is right or wrong? Based on what criterion should synthetic researches be evaluated? From what perspective should the reviewer evaluate it? Although these are difficult issues, we take a certain direction in doing the reviews. The value of conventional academic papers is evaluated by peer reviews. Researchers whose discipline is closest to the author’s one are selected as peer reviewers. This is because a close researcher is the only one who can see whether the claim of the author is truly novel and logically sound. However, there is a limit to the peer review system. Peer reviewers often are unable to see society as a whole. They are able to see only the workings of a small community around them. I think this is one of the reasons that separate the academia from society.We of Synthesiology call our review “merit review” because we think the people who receive merit by using research results claimed in the paper should review the paper according to the scale of the merit received. Specialists of the close fields are usually eliminated in our review system. Two reviewers, one from a related field and another from a different field, are selected as merit reviewers. We are quite surprised that such a review system can actually function properly. The names of the reviewers are publicized, and dialogues between the author and reviewers are placed at the end of the paper to help the readers’ understanding. This has been very positively accepted by the readers.AkamatsuIn the Synthesiology paper, we have people write a scenario of why the topic was selected and why the methodology was used to solve the selected issue. It is important to tell the whole story which is one fact of research, and the purpose of this journal is to accumulate such facts. I think it may help determine how research should be carried out.The whole picture may be lost if the subject is segmented and studied in the analytically and reductionist manner. We are aware of what we should do to prevent ourselves from getting stuck in the foxhole.True originality in value creation

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です