>> From the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.
[ Silence ]
>> Tomoko Steen: I'm Tomoko Steen from the Science, Technology,
and Business Division from the Library of Congress
and it's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished speaker,
Professor Tateo Arimoto.
I've known him five years maybe, five or six years,
and it's my pleasure each time-
it's a very interesting conversation we can have with Professor Arimoto.
So Professor Arimoto is a professor of the National Graduate Institute
of Policy Study, and the acronym is GRIPS in Japan.
And he's also the director general of the Research Institute of Science
and Technology for Society, RISTEX, in Japan.
And today's topic: we had an event two years ago in March -
the big earthquake as well as the meltdown - and nuclear policy,
energy policy and also environmental policy is all very complicated
in Japanese science policy now.
And also, last December we had a new prime minister
and the party changed, so professor Arimoto is going
to cover all these issues and answer your questions.
So before further adieu, please join me to welcome Professor Arimoto.
[ Applause ]
>>Professor Tateo Arimoto: Thank you so much, Tomoko san,
for the kind introduction, and everyone here, thank you so much
for giving me this exciting opportunity in this wonderful room,
this beautiful room - American style, traditional style.
Anyway, this morning my title is Japan's new government
and new science, technology, and innovation policies.
For some background, this picture is Kyoto, the traditional old Capitol,
in the snow last December.
Anyway, I want to talk this morning about these items:
New government and new policies.
And second, lessons learned from the March 11 great earthquake, tsunami,
and nuclear accident reflecting the science and technology policies.
And third point is the great transportation
of the world's systems these twenty years.
And fourth point is under the new administration,
how to make Japan's new science and technology innovation policy.
We need a redesigning of STI innovation ecosystems.
And finally I will show you some new perspectives.
So the first: New government and new policy.
As Tomoko san said to you, we, Japan, have a new administration.
After the three and a half years of the old regime,
Japan's Democratic Party: the DPJ, so this is the excerpt
from the statement from the new Prime Minister, Mr. Abe, Dec.
26. He points out several important points: Japan is currently
in a critical situation from the political viewpoint as well
as the economic viewpoint.
Put a stop to the political confusion.
His keyword is "recover," regain the trust in politics.
And the creation of a new Japan led
through the true political leadership and mutual trust
between politics and the public sectors and the general public.
And the second point is the important point,
he shows the four pillars of his policy, rebuilding,
revitalize Japan's economy, diplomacy, and education.
And his final point is the peace of mind
of the general public's daily lives.
The economic viewpoint, the revitalizing plan of the economy,
consists of three pillars: one is bold monetary policies -
now Japan's Central Bank is reconsidering their policies -
and the second point is flexible public finance policies,
now the new government is preparing a stimulus package,
something like the four-year-old Obama administrations
complemented budget.
Probably the stimulus package is to be sent to congress late this month.
And the final point is important: the growth strategy,
including the new science and technology policies,
particularly encouraging the private sector investment.
And the other point is to restore a reliable Japan-U.S. alliance.
These three and a half years, the old Democratic Party's regime,
in my personal view, was not working well.
Some points is that they destroyed the US-Japan
alliance collaborations.
So Mr. Abe would like to regain the trust
and reliable collaboration ability of the alliance.
And the second point is - this is important -
the field of science and technology policy.
He would like to cultivate world-leading academic abilities.
And the fourth point is the peace of mind,
and rebuilding sustainable social security systems,
and making the nation's infrastructure,
social infrastructure more resilient for the disaster and terrorism.
And we need to reform the crisis management
and aging infrastructures.
So I can show you at this time, these pictures are just
after the beginning of the old previous administration.
Three years ago they want to cut down the budget, even in the field
of science, so the left-hand side,
she is reading these works, Madame Rempo.
Later, she was assigned as the minister of governmental reform.
So the right-hand side - ok, this is important message that she says:
"Why must Japan aim to develop the world's number one supercomputer?
What's wrong with being the world's number two?"
This message destroyed the trust in between politics and science,
particularly you may know the well-known Nobel laureate,
Professor Tonegawa.
And the right-hand side is Noyori sensei,
he is the president now of the Rikan institute.
Anyways, those distinguished, not only distinguished professors,
but also the young scientists, young students,
worried about the previous administration's recognition
of science.
My personal view is that, since that time, the dispute
and distrust has not been restored.
How to regain, rebuild trust in between politics and science?
This is the important first priority in the new administration's agenda
in the field of Science Policies.
Okay, next chapter is lessons learned
from the Fukushima nuclear accident and tsunami and earthquake.
Last year, the cabinet-level decision, last June, the white paper
on science and technology was published.
The main title was: "Toward Robust
and Resilient Societies" based upon the science
and technology knowledge.
So I want to show you some of the details of the white paper.
This is important pictures, the disastrous trend.
Question, to the general public:
Should expert professors decide the direction of science and technology,
or the science and technology policies?
Before the March 11 big earthquake, most of all the general public -
around 80% - supported it; it's okay.
But after March 11, less than half of the general public supports
that traditional direction.
Because the Japan Science and Technology community
and the science advisors within the government,
they couldn't take appropriate counter-measures and advice
to the Prime Minister, administers,
and the local government during the disastrous situations.
So coming back to the contents of the White Paper here on the ST,
Science and Technology last June.
So this White Paper showed us the recognition the science community
and science policy sectors cannot give the insufficient response,
and inappropriate provision of scientific knowledge.
And we are lacking a national system utilizing R&D results to cope
with actual institute disasters.
And it's now important to not only recover public trust by reviewing
and reconstructing STI policies, but also promote STI
in response to social needs.
So this white paper takes the priorities,
the new science activities including risk communication,
technology assessment, regulatory science, and finally,
Japan needs a reform of the scientific advisor assessment
to high-ranking officials including the Prime Minister -
something like the case
of the United States, United Kingdom, and EU.
As well as you may understand,
even the United Nations now is considering
such a science advisory system.
Under such situation, we need a code of conduct, new code of conduct how
to bridge science and politics and government in policy making.
So, I and my colleague Dr. Sato published this paper titled:
Rebuilding Public Trust in Science for Policy-Making,
last September in the Science Journal.
The keywords are shown here: independence, responsibility,
broad perspective and balance, quality, integrating viewpoints,
uncertainty and diversity, free disclosure,
and even-handed treatment by the government,
and finally transparency.
Our recommendation: now the Japan's National Academy of Science is
in Tokyo; based upon our recommendation they reconsider their
code of conduct.
Probably they'll fix it until March this year.
So next chapter: great transformation of the world systems.
This is a short history of these twenty years,
the change of the world.
You may remember in 1989 the Berlin Wall broken down, Cold War ended,
and three years after that time the internet services had been open
to the general public.
So, politically as well as technologically,
the world had been connected to the edge of the globe.
So globalization is running intensely
and with complexity and uncertainties.
And these twenty years, we are facing big disasters,
artificial disasters and natural disasters, and climate change,
political uprising, and the economic crisis several times.
So how to cope in this complex and uncertain world?
The rules of the game are changing.
Not only the private sector's strategy,
private companies' strategy, but also the national public policies
and the strategy and management of the universities and science
and technology policies of course.
So we need innovation, and we need entrepreneurship
and we need combinations: not only the technological innovation
but also the social innovation for creating new values.
And we need a redesigning of governors of STI globally,
regionally - in Asia, in North America,
Africa - regionally and locally.
And finally, we have a long history of modern science;
we need to keep scientific integrity
in the modern changing world, of course.
So I can show you two pictures made by the National Science Foundation,
the National Science Board.
This is our expenditures increasing rapidly these ten years,
particularly in Asia, particularly China and Korea.
And another point is the scientists, engineers,
and the doctorate degrees,
the numbers of these professionals is increasing rapidly also in Asia.
So, a different viewpoint, I make you pay attention
to this important declaration from 1999,
just before the beginning of the 21st century.
The United Nations, UNESCO, and the International Council
of Scientific Unions, the world organization of the National Academy
of Sciences, those international organizations co-hosted world
science conferences.
At that time, it took one week to discuss about the responsibility
and commitments of science and technology
in the new 21st century, new values.
20th century, of course,
was "science for knowledge, knowledge for progress."
But the 21st century, if we need sustainable support
by the general public and the world,
we need to change the values of science.
Of course we keep science for knowledge, but also science
for peace, science for sustainable development, and finally science
in society and science for society.
This is the world-famous Budapest Declaration.
Every two years, world science forum has been held in Budapest to check
and review these commitments worldwide and on national levels.
So the basis of this declaration: STI in the 21st century.
STI for what in the 21st century?
Of course, the STI for knowledge, for profit,
for competitiveness, for growth.
These are the traditional values.
But also STI values are now expanding.
For employment, for wellbeing and quality of life, for safety,
security, and social cohesion, and sustainability and resilience.
So the STI is having very diverse values.
How to accomplish, how to respond to those requests
and demands from society?
We need to redesign policy making and policy process of STI of course.
Fourth chapter: Under the new administration,
new LDP administration, making Japan's new STI policy
and redesigning STI innovation ecosystems.
Of course the new administration was inaugurated just ten days ago,
late December, last December, so we don't have yet have a real message
in the field of science policy.
But I can show you some of my expectations, personal.
So I'll show you a short history of Japan's legal framework of science
and technology policies here.
In 1995, Japan's congress unanimously, nonpartisan,
enacted Science and Technology Basic Law.
On this basic law, the Japanese government has been making every
five years a basic plan, including the budget size,
of the five-year budget size investment.
First, second, third basic plans.
So those previous basic plans, the main policy is the so-called
"discipline-based policies,"
discipline-based meaning the priority falls on life science, ICP,
information/communication technology,
environmental technology,
nanotechnology, and material sciences.
By this time, the fourth basic plan, this is covering 2011 through 15.
The fourth basic plan was decided by the cabinet levels
of Japanese government August 2011 after the March 11,
reflecting the disasters.
So this time, they considerably changed the basic concepts you may
see here.
Ok, here.
So-called issue-driven, beyond the discipline based policies.
Issue-driven means problem-solving or demand-driven policies.
And this basic plan decided for, excuse me, three priority fields.
The three priority fields are: recovery and reconstruction
from disasters March 11, and second point, green innovation,
and third point is life innovation.
Based upon these kind of issue-driven,
not discipline based policies, we need system reform.
And also in line with the system reform, we need bridging science
and societies, and public participation, and ethical, legal,
and social issues, and technology assessment,
science and risk communication.
Finally, the fundamental point is we need promoting social science,
new social science of science and technology innovation policies.
So I can show you some accomplishments
under these previous science policies,
particularly the typical point is that Professor Yamanaka
at Kyoto University got the Nobel Prize in physiology
and medicine last year, iPS cell.
This is a quantum-jump knowledge creation.
He promised within ten years this technology will make,
change the medical treatment and drug development.
But this field has fierce competition,
not only Japanese groups but also the United States and Israel
and Cambridge, of course.
Life innovation is the second priority field by the CSTP,
meaning "science council" - excuse me, the "Council of Science
and Technology Policy," which is the supreme advisory board
to the prime minister.
The action plan for Life Innovation: preventive medicine,
regenerative medicine, innovative medical technology,
and improving quality of life in an ageing society.
And second point is green innovation,
including secure clean energy, renewable energy,
low carbon fossil energy, and decentralized energy systems;
innovation for energy supply, storage,
and carrier systems energy supply chains, and innovation
for energy use- saving energy technologies.
And also innovation for greener social infrastructures.
Social infrastuctures means of course, buildings and roads
as well as cities as well.
Also, the incentives for these technologies' dissemination-
tax measures, and deregulations.
Ok, I can show you the schematic pictures
of Japan's research funding systems.
This is the current research funding system.
Left-hand side is the area stage curiosity driven research,
or the blue-sky areas.
This is very important reservoir of knowledge.
This stage and this area has been supported by JSPS,
Japan's biggest research funding agency.
And the second phase: my mother agency, Japan's Science
and Technology agency (JST) supporting mission-oriented
basic research.
And third way: NEDO, supporting "exit" oriented R&D.
They are making prototype demonstrations
and social experiments to bridge the market.
Under their new policy, issue driven, we need to reform
and redesign funding systems for issue driven innovation.
How to bridge science and the market and society.
But not only Japan, but also every country is facing
similar challenges.
My understanding is that the US are now focusing upon the DARPA type
funding systems, not only the activities of defense
and homeland security, but also the energy education, even the NIH.
And European side, they are having a lot of experiments,
European technology platform, and VINNOVA in Sweden, ANR in France,
and every country is discussing how to redesign funding systems
for new challenges under the changing world.
So the new world is international competition and collaboration,
even the funding systems.
Last October, Nature journal published The Changing Map
of Science.
This is a very important message and document
to the science community in the world.
Keyword is the global reach, rise of the global research networks
and the global diaspora, a lot of the collaborations
in between bilateral and multinational and global levels.
So, I can show you another point made by me, by myself:
mode of the International R&D programs.
So the horizontal line is the bilateral,
regional, and global levels.
And the vertical level is the big facilities- big money,
joint research funding, grant/fellowship, and workshop.
So the right-hand side up- international space stations, ITER,
international, some nuclear fusion reactors,
human frontier science programs, etc. CERN,
European Molecular Biological Laboratories.
Anyway, those international, regional, global,
bilateral programs were designed and conducted these years
by advanced countries, but now the nontraditional players, partners,
and systems come in, involving emerging economies
and private companies and private philanthropies including the Bill
Gates Foundation and Welcome Trust, etcetera, etcetera.
So how to reorganize those programs?
Mr. Suresh, director general of the National Science Foundation here,
invited more than fifty presidents
of the national funding organizations
from the world last May.
So-called "Global Summit on Merit Review."
This is important message.
To provide a framework for increased international research cooperation,
and to convey accepted international standards
for science funding agencies.
Including, my understanding is including peer-review systems
and the ways and means how to keep the scientific integrity.
Of course, many newcomers,
many emerging economies are having different political systems
and religion- Islamic countries.
So how to keep the peer review system?
This is a very important activity.
So finally, I should say something in conclusion.
Coming back again to how to bridge policy, politics and science:
Policy and politics, of course, is normative, and has values.
Science is basically objective and value free.
Normally, the two different cultures are separated automatically, but no.
We need continuum in between.
So the bridging science policies, based upon the evidence
that is important to cope with the global challenges,
national challenges: environment, energy, resources, health, aging,
disaster, food, etcetera, etcetera.
So, we need collaborations: politics and science.
So, I can show you another point: the left-hand side is the editorial
of science, November 11, 2011.
Right-hand side is Nature, February of last year.
It's the same- in line with Mr. Alan Leshner, COE of the AAAS:
we need rethinking the science systems, later, more directly -
tough choices - scientist must find ways to make more efficient use
of funds - or politicians may do it for themselves.
This is modern message, under the current difficult budget situations.
Every advanced country is facing similar difficulties, challenges.
So I will summarize the gravity of scientific activity is moving
to developing countries, particularly in Asia, globalization
and localization are running in parallel, bridging science society
and politics, and new innovation models -
not only the disruptive innovation, but also reverse
and frugal innovation originated by developing countries.
So there we need informed policy systems.
Particularly systems as network, platform,
and connectivity is important, not only the center
of excellence concept, but also the network
of excellence is important, very important.
Beyond the boundaries - boundaries meaning disciplines,
traditional disciplines, traditional organizations,
generations, and genders.
So finally, again I stress, we need redesigning governance
and we need new social science of science
and technology innovation policies.
So that ends my presentation, thank you so much.
[ applause ]
>> Dr. Steen: We left enough time for discussion, so any questions?
>> [Question from audience]
>> Professor Arimoto: Your question, in my understanding,
is public dissemination of research funded by public money.
Is this okay?
My answer is, even Japan is having the same policies with your side,
but my personal view- we cautiously separate the short-range actions
and long-range perspectives.
Short-range actions, every countries - not only the advanced countries,
but Asian countries - collaborate.
We adapt to such kinds of trends.
Public funded accomplishment should be distributed openly
to the general public and market.
But it depends upon case by case.
Particularly I can show you the typical example.
Last year, the big challenge was [in Japanese] Bird Flu, Avian Flu.
So, the Science journal as well
as the Nature journal facing the difficulties,
how to handle such excellent results
to be published freely, or no, dual use.
So, dual use knowledge, not only in life science but also the nuclear,
space, etcetera, etcetera.
Those uncertainties, the world
and everybody can get the information immediately-
terrorists, including terrorists.
So basically, should be kept open, but it depends
on the cautious case by case.
So that's my answer, is it okay?
>> Dr. Steen: If I can add, I collect the Japanese science
and technology collections,
and the National Diet Library has received all the records,
and I also get a copy of them.
Most of the things, except for the defense sensitivity,- we receive it.
Anything publicly funded, we receive it- both here
and at the National Diet Library.
>> Professor Arimoto: I should say something.
I forgot to mention the science policy of the new administration,
because the new administration now put in the highest priority
as the revitalization of the economy.
Short-sighted.
Particularly the political viewpoint is until the coming summer -
summer meaning July, another election,
the upper house election, will be held.
So the new power LDP party, they want to get a major majority
of the upper house, even the upper house.
Now they are different.
It is similar to this country's senate and the lower house.
So until this summer, our new government's taking priority
on just economic recovery, including the summer viewpoint of the science
and technology policy, particularly including innovation.
But since the summer, and after,
probably after the LDP gets the majority.
Since that time, my personal observation is that they want
to change the science and technology policy and the science
and technology policy mechanism from the long-term viewpoint.
For instance, the new science advisory systems
to the prime minister, this is probably
after the summer a high priority.
So, that is the completion of my comment.
Next question.
>> [Question from audience]
>> Professor Arimoto: Okay, your question is Japan's administration,
Prime Minister particularly, are changing rapidly these years.
Under such a troubled situation, the science and technology policies
and activities are facing some difficulties.
So my understanding, as I said, basically the science
and technology policy as well as science
and technology activity have been supported
by the non-partisan parties these fifteen years, after the enacting
of the basic science and technology basic law.
But, in my personal view, these three and a half years
under the previous diplomatic party Japan ruling period,
this is my personal opinion.
I can show you the typical pictures here.
Oh, no. Okay, here.
She has the spare.
The difference, I can show you the different character
of the two parties, LDP and DPJ.
The previous Democratic Party is here.
My personal view is that even though under the LDP administrations,
even though the Prime Minister is changing rapidly,
but many congress people who know science and technology and policies,
those people are supporting our policy and funding activities.
But under the previous DPJ administration,
there have been very few congress people who are familiar with science
and technology activities and science and technology policies.
So, this is a typical example.
Straight forth speaking, she has no ideas about science.
So, under the previous administrations three years
and a half, those kinds of troubles happened frequently.
Not only at the policy level, but also individual researchers.
Not only the policy level and distinguished scientists,
but also the working level scientist and the student.
Their motivation has been destroyed.
My personal view is that in the future, Japan is facing the change
of the political parties- the DPJ or the LDP.
Under such kind of political situation, how to keep
and maintain sustainable activities and sustainable development?
Science policy and science activities.
So my personal view is that we need, how to say, consistence
and round tables, coming together from different parties-
those distinguished scientists, young scientists, and mass media
and in some cases industrial leaders.
My personal intention is to develop such kind of round tables in order
to nurture young congress people, non-partisan, who know science.
Straight forward speaking, particularly the democratic parties,
the congress people, they are, they understand.
They recognize that science could be conducted easily under the direction
of the congress or the increase of budget.
This is a childish understanding.
So, I don't claim those people - we need to nurture such understanding,
such literacy of science.
Okay, so is that okay?
After this meeting we need some discussion.
Okay, next please.
>> [Question from audience]
>> Professor Arimoto: This is an important point.
Your question is balancing the fundamental science
and applied technology development.
So, my personal concern - the new administration,
as I said frequently, put the first priority as the revitalization
of the economy using scientific knowledge.
If this policy continues, automatically -
you mentioned public money - resources could be moved
from fundamental science to the application field.
But, as I said, many congress people of the new administration,
the new party, the LDP people, know and recognize the importance
of the reservoir of fundamental science for future innovations.
So, at the moment, such concern is growing,
but my personal expectation is that we could have a balance -
fundamental science and applied science.
My personal view.
Okay, next?
>> [Question from audience]
>> Professor Arimoto: So, your question is the relationship
between religion and science, is that okay?
So, in Japan, we haven't had such kind
of interrelationship of religion and science.
Is that okay?
>> [Continuation of question]
>> Professor Arimoto: Your question is how to rebuild trust
by the general public in science.
So this is a very serious challenge
and this is not short-sighted measures.
We need, my personal view is building scientific literacy
and communication in between the scientists and general public.
This is the fundamental and it will take a long time.
And also, in Japan some sectors of the science community are concerned
that scientists should have social literacy [laughter].
So it's parallel: general public and science literacy,
and scientists and social literacy.
Okay, next.
>> [Question from audience]
>> Professor Arimoto: So, your question is, my understanding,
is risk communication: how to do?
And my personal view, my experience is the Fukushima accident
and the tsunami, historic tsunami disasters.
As I said, most of the Japanese scientists and science advisors,
even within the government, they don't have enough knowledge
and experience how to communicate fact and prospects and forecast
about the disasters to the general public.
Straightforward speaking, they are pure scientists,
based on their academic background.
They just make speeches to the general public.
Based on my academic viewpoint is this, for instance,
the director of the low-radiation effect,
even the prominent scientists within the national academies,
they showed their own understanding directly to the general public,
based upon their own academic knowledge.
Academic knowledge, of course, should be the- how
to say-accumulate the competition.
They cannot communicate fluently with the general public.
The keyword is, under such situations we need -
even the academic communities - we need a unique,
coherent voice to the general public.
Even the effects of low-level radiation, they, the scientists,
don't have enough exact evidence.
So the, how to say, the more comprehensive message should be
communicated to the general public.
Do you understand?
Sorry, my knowledge is poor.
Anyway, the key word; the National Academy of Science
in Tokyo now are considering under such disaster situation, how to do.
As a scientific community, not as individual scientists,
how to make a unique voice to the general public.
That is the important current consideration.
So after this meeting I want to talk with you.
[speaking with Tomoko at podium]
Okay, so my conclusion is three points.
First point is, I mentioned, rebuilding the trust
between politics and science.
I have confidence under this current administration.
And second point is the public support money to science.
At the moment, stimulus package is inputting much money into science.
But long-term, under the current fierce budget deficit the Japanese
government is facing, we need a sustainable support,
but I have some questions personally.
And third point is the high-level policy making and advice mechanism.
It will take one year, but the new administration wants
to reform the more centralized, more communicable science advisory system
to politics as well as to the general public.
That's my point.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
Dr. Steen: Thanks professor Arimoto.
I think we learned a lot from the Japanese case
that the US can learn from.
Thank you so much for coming.
>> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress.
Visit us at loc.gov.