Vol.4 No.2 2011

Round-table talks : Third anniversary of Synthesiology−127−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.4 No.2 (2011) Dr. Takeshi KomaiDr. Motoyuki AkamatsuWhat was gained from writing the paper?AkamatsuI think the common experience is that the authors look back on their studies and realize that they were actually following some story or scenario. I am interested to know whether this realization has been useful in conducting your other studies.NakamuraIn case of standards, the focus tends to fall on the development and provision. Now, I can say to other people in the lab, “You must think of the scenario for how the standard will be diffused after it is provided”. AkamatsuThat means that the process of actually diffusing the product was not shared among the researchers. I get a similar impression for geology. WakitaAfter writing the paper, for Phase 3, the project called the next-generation seamless was created, and collaboration with JIS and national standardization led to expanding utilization in the GEO Grid system. I feel the ripple effect in that, in collaboration with the information technology field, the user-orientation of how geoinformation can be utilized became clear among researchers including many young researchers.KomaiThe starting line is the desire to develop a methodology that will ultimately become a national standard, and that this is incorporated into the legal and social systems. How to diffuse it in society, while appealing to the ministries and agencies, solving the contamination problem without spending much money; these are the hard-and-fast rules of risk management.However, I am having a lot of trouble now. The product realization was done and the social system started spinning, but things stagnated due to the “cost and risk” relationship. We plan to develop an economic model in Phase 3, but I feel that we’re hitting the second “valley of death”.KinoshitaWe tried to conduct academic research and technology transfer concurrently. It seems this brought about cases where a great burden was imposed on the researchers involved. We did not want to be narrow minded, i.e., we did not want to think only about academic research nor to seek only for industrial values. Because of that, there were some cases where some researchers felt overloaded.AkamatsuI think the scientists may be thinking that the sociological methodologies that Dr. Kinoshita used to solve the on-site issues may not be that valuable. By understanding that there is a theory different than that in natural sciences and that it is part of how the discipline is done, the researcher may be relieved or may feel a bit more comfortable. KinoshitaComparison of social and natural science is interesting. I, however, wish to compare quality and quantity. Where quantitative discussions are possible, those are preferable to qualitative discussions because they enable much more precise arguments. However, there often are many kinds of quantity to measure and it is not necessarily clear which is to be chosen. If that is determined injudiciously, the whole argument would be like a castle built on sand even if rigorous and detailed quantitative considerations are made on it. We are faced with systems with many kinds of quantities in computer science, probably many more than in physics and chemistry. So, analysis which justifies the selection of quantity to be measured is necessary before we start a quantitative theory. Such discussion will naturally be qualitative. Some people tend to say that qualitative argument is less precise than a quantitative one. It may be true, but a qualitative argument would be much more precise than a quantitative argument based on careless choice of the quantity. I wish to emphasize this point. KomaiCurrently, what troubles me the most is the “social approach”. Although risk assessment is a scientific approach, there is a


page 56