Vol.5 No.3 2012

83/94

Round-table talks : Creation of values and synthesis−218−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.3 (2012) of AIST or the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) were all successful. Because we cannot talk about our failures to others and try to clean them up within our tiny logic, we lose our ability to step up to the next stage. There is the danger that people will shuffle around only in their small worlds.AkamatsuI think the idea of “justifiable failure” is good, but I think there is the problem of how to judge whether something is a failure. Positive or constructive things do not come out from analyzing failures, and I think there is a danger that people may offer justifications with small arguments that “ultimately the product could not be made because this and that went wrong.” How can we overcome this?Ishikawa“Justifiable failure” here applies only to research that is original in its claim and has undergone a proper research process. The failure in the research process is nothing else but lack of ability. People with ability can always produce some kind of outcome if they engage in research. Until now, all research that produced outcomes was successful, but that is no longer true. When the outcome is presented to society and if there is a mismatch with the social evaluation that is yet to come, it is a “justifiable failure.” Here, originality must be maintained, and justifiable failure has the potential of generating value with accumulation. After some years, it may be revived. Therefore, we must spend effort to make sure that the accumulated results may someday become valuable in the ever-changing society. On mismatch with society, coincidence or trend of the time may be influential, and the mismatch in this situation must be tolerated because it is a world where originality and fantasy are separated by a thin line.How to link research to societyAkamatsuWhat do you think about the extent to which the researcher should be involved in the process where a research result which is successful is accepted into society? I feel that there are many researchers who take the stance, “I did good research and produced good results, and the rest should be done by others.”IshikawaI work on high-speed image processing, and I create systems that can be understood by society, not just the device and theory. In addition to nurturing the elemental technology, for example, I make a batting robot using this high-speed image processing. The majority of the researchers think that once a paper is written, someone will pick it up, and once the patent application is filed, someone will understand it and buy it. As long as the researchers think so, no new field will emerge. society deems necessary. The other researchers did these researches but they are flawed. To cover the flaws, I used this new method to solve them, and achieved better performance.” However, it is apparent that this is nothing more than solving a given topic and it is “catching up” from the perspective of new value creation, and there is no originality in such papers. I think a truly original paper, for example, says, “I think this is valuable but society does not recognize it yet. There is no other paper to make a comparison. But I think this can be accomplished, and I’ve already done part of it.” The researcher should write such a paper. In reality, an excellent paper may fall somewhere in between, but the perspective of how to evaluate the ability to pioneer the future demand and market is a major issue that faces future science and technology. The presentation of a result in the form of a paper is, as mentioned before, only midway in the process of being evaluated. Therefore, if there is a justifiable and original statement at that point, it should be given full score of 100 points, but if society does not evaluate it positively after some years have passed, the full score should be retracted to 50 points. However, the activity of the researcher is justified. This is justifiable failure. Of course, if society recognizes the value, it should be given full score or even 200 points.I think Japan must shift to a process where society properly recognizes “creation.” This is easily said than done. To aim for “innovation” is a mere copy of the American innovation policy, and it is rather paradoxical to place this in the center of “original” science and technology policy. Creation is to go left when others say they’ll go right. Originality stands only a step away from fantasy, and the point is how the organization or society recognizes this. Synthesiology says, “There is a theory and it is not just fantasy,” and I think it is an interesting attempt. However, it is not about seeking quick answers, and it is necessary to have an attitude that how a research result will be evaluated by society is unknown. If it is known, it is just a catch-up research.Evaluating “justifiable failure”OnoAs time changes, a certain technology may come into spotlight, and we do not know which technology will become the best as society changes. Therefore, I think we should accept all of them although this might be very generous.IshikawaIf you accept that there are many justifiable failures and the future path will be determined by society, Dr. Ono’s argument is great. However, if you assume that something that is not accepted in society is nothing but failure, then that argument is not right. OnoI see. It is not necessarily true that the research projects

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です