Title: NSF/Tokyo Report: The Science System in Japan Date: February 2, 1998 The National Science Foundation's offices in Tokyo and in Paris periodically report on developments abroad that are related to the Foundation's mission. These documents present facts for the use of NSF program managers and policy makers; they are not statements of NSF policy. Special Scientific Report #98-04 (January 27, 1998) The Science System in Japan The following report was prepared by Dr. William A. Blanpied, Senior International Analyst in the Division of International Programs at the National Science Foundation. Dr. Blanpied visited Japan from October 14 - December 6, 1997 as a Visiting Research Fellow (short-term) under the sponsorship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Professor Shinichi Yamamoto of the University of Tsukuba, Japan served as host scientist for Dr. Blanpied. Dr. Blanpied may be reached via email at: wblanpie@nsf.gov. Overview of Activities The overall objective of my visit to Japan was to assess, informally and unofficially, some of the immediate and probable longer-term impacts of the July 1996 Science and Technology Basic Plan on the formulation and implementation of science policy by government agencies, as well as on the conduct of research and the training of scientists and engineers at the masters, PhD and post-doctoral levels. Because several elements of the Basic Plan have significant international implications, I was particularly interested in possible impacts on prospects for US-Japan cooperation in science and engineering both within the existing binational framework and within an expanding multilateral context. To further my objective, I visited and/or had meetings with professors and administrators at seven national and two private universities (most frequently at more than one institute and/or faculty within those universities) and three major public research facilities. I also met with officials in several different units of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (MONBUSHO), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), the Science and Technology Agency (STA), the Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST), and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), as well as officers of the Science Council of Japan. I gave invited presentations on US Science Policy at the Tsukuba University Research Center for University Studies and the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), as well as a talk on Opportunities for US-Japan Scientific Cooperation at a seminar in Osaka on Formation of Ion Nanobeams and Applications to Materials! Processing. Finally, I had opportunities to meet several NSF post-doctoral fellows on long-term research visits and learn about their experiences working and living in Japan. Specific Impressions and Thoughts on the Science System in Japan Because my research had to do with changes in the Japanese science system itself, I will outline in this section some of my impressions and thoughts of the current and probable impact of the Science and Technology Basic Plan on that system. These impressions are preliminary and based on my oral interviews, since I have not yet had an opportunity to study the considerable collection of documents that I acquired during the course of my meetings. It is my intention to use this brief report as a basis for a more substantial one, in addition to several short, in-depth reports to be issued by the National Science Foundation's Tokyo Regional Office. Several of those I spoke with emphasized that progress in implementing the financial components of the Science and Technology Basic Plan should be considered separately from progress with respect to its organizational and institutional components, even though they cannot be completely separated. Thus, although government funding is not increasing as rapidly as had been envisioned in July 1996 when the Basic Plan was adopted, nevertheless there appears to be a significant, long-term commitment to implementing its organizational and institutional components. As I stated in my proposal for the JSPS Fellowship, I am particularly interested in the following aspects of the Plan: * Expansion of priority funds for promoting diverse R&D, with an emphasis on selectively strengthening basic science activities; * Human resource development, including a significant expansion in post-doctoral positions; * Promoting science and technology in the regions; * Promoting international joint R&D through Japan's initiative, including (a) intensifying international cooperation with the emphasis on global issues, and (b) working on mega-science projects; and * Expanding cooperation with developing countries, with an emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. In the remainder of this section I will provide observations on how each of these five aspects of the Plan is being implemented. Although in all cases implementation requires some additional financial commitment, none of them can be implemented without organizational or institutional change. Necessary change will, in some cases, be relatively easy to accomplish; in others, change will not come easily and is likely to require many years of persistent effort. Expansion of priority funds . . with an emphasis on selectively strengthening basic research. The establishment of new, competitive research programs by MONBUSHO/JSPS, STA/JST and MITI/NEDO, together with the expansion of existing programs, are intended to expand opportunities for the most creative scientists at Japanese universities. Several university scientists I spoke with are excited about these opportunities, particularly since recent changes in regulations governing university research provides additional flexibility in organizing their research efforts. Additional flexibility and management autonomy similar to what prevails at new advanced study institutions such as the Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST) might encourage even greater numbers of university scientists to consider availing themselves of these opportunities. In particular, I believe it is essential that incentives be provided for university scientists to involve their graduate students int! imately in major projects supported by new and existing competitive research programs. Public research institutions such as KEK, RIKEN and SPring-8 also appear to have organized themselves to encourage greater research participation by university scientists. New, long-term programs such as RIKEN's Brain Research Program promise to yield significant and important insights. While it will be possible for some university scientists to work on aspects of this program on the RIKEN campus, it might also be useful to consider a competitive grant program that would encourage cooperation between RIKEN scientists and university scientists and their graduate students working on their own campuses. Human resource development, including a significant expansion in post-doctoral positions. Improvements in education and training at the graduate student and post-doctoral levels are, of course, linked in part with the expansion of research opportunities for university scientists, assuming that involvement of graduate students and post-doctoral scholars in competitive research programs will be strongly encouraged. Although reform of university courses of study for scientists and engineers at the tertiary and graduate levels is not an explicit component of the Basic Plan, many of the long-range goals it envisions may require such reform, particularly if Japan's young scientists and engineers are to be adequately equipped to address the challenges of the new century. It was very encouraging to learn that there are now more opportunities for graduate students to receive fellowship support during their studies than was true a few years ago. Some serious thought might be given to encouraging greater numbers of students to work in Europe or the United States for a some time, in part to give them first hand experience with the flavor of international science. One of the more significant developments in US science policy during the past decade has been growing recognition that education and human resource policies cannot be separated from science policy but must be regarded as an integral component of such policy. Although many in Japan also recognize the importance of coupling education policy and research policy, I believe that such recognition needs to be more widespread. The proposed regulatory reform that would permit university students more flexibility in designing their own courses of study which was announced during my last days in ! Japan is certainly a step in the right direction. Promoting science and technology in the regions. I had little occasion to study this aspect of the Basic Plan. However, three disconnected observations lead me to conclude that it is being taken seriously. First, the National Institute for Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) has assigned a high priority to analysis of regional science and technology, suggesting recognition of the need for reliable data as a basis for long-term planning. Second, Kanawaga Prefecture has agreed to provide substantial support to the new Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Third, the new MITI/NEDO program to support cooperation between universities and small and medium-size enterprises within selected prefectures appears to be a most promising initiative. (NB: my information on the MITI/NEDO initiative came mainly from a meeting with Prof. Tisato Kajiyama at Kyushu University.) In my opinion, a detailed study of the regional aspects of the Basic Plan would be eminently worthwhi! le. Promoting international joint R&D through Japan's initiative. This is one aspect of the Plan that is likely to be hampered by delays in the original intention of the Government of Japan to double its R&D investments during the five year period from 1996 through 2000. Nevertheless, impressive progress is already apparent. Examples include: RIKEN's support for major new facilities at the Rutherford Laboratory in the UK and Brookhaven Laboratory in the United States; Japan's contribution to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC); Japan's initiative with respect to a major March 1998 Workshop on Global-Scale Issues through the OECD Megascience Forum; and initiatives by KEK and SPring-8 to encourage and facilitate cooperative use of their facilities by foreign scientists. It is understandable that Japanese scientists in fields that require large-scale facilities are disappointed in the government's decision not to consider any major new large projects for the next three years. Indeed, American and, more particularly, European scientists have experienced similar distress for several years due to constrained research investments by the governments. Thus, the need for more substantial efforts to promote international cooperation and cost-sharing in the planning, construction and use of large-scale scientific facilities appears ever more urgent. I have observed, during the past few years, an increased willingness of Japan to take firm leadership positions within the OECD Megascience Forum. In my opinion, Japan could move even more vigorously in this direction and in that way help strengthen the ability of the Forum to serve as an effective instrument for catalyzing international cooperation in all aspects related to large-scale scientific facil! ities. I am certain that the United States would welcome and be supportive of more aggressive Japanese leadership in this and other aspects of the OECD's work. Expanding cooperation with developing countries, with an emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. At some levels, Japan already has significant cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. For example, numerous Asian students, particularly from China and Korea, are enrolled in science and engineering courses of study at Japanese universities, many - perhaps even a majority - receiving financial support from the Japanese government. Also, bilateral agreements to encourage research cooperation with many Asia-Pacific countries are in effect. The extent to which cooperation in these categories has expanded or is likely to expand as a result of the Basic Plan is something I hope to begin to ascertain from the documents I obtained during my visit. At a different level, the number of Japanese scientists who make long-term research visits to developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region appears to be small, and I saw no indication that it is increasing. This is not particularly surprising, since there are still relatively few world class research institutions in these countries so that few Japanese scientists would consider long-term research visits except for those in disciplines such as environmental biology or geology where field research is essential. An analogous situation exists in the United States where relatively few US scientists make long-term research visits to Latin America, despite considerable encouragement by the National Science Foundation and other government and private funding agencies. Developing the necessary incentives to induce greater numbers of Japanese and US scientists to conduct research in developing countries within their respective regions is an important challenge that both countries ! face. While Japan has substantial scientific cooperation on some levels with countries in East Asia, it has relatively little scientific cooperation with India - despite the existence of formal bilateral research agreements. The two principal exceptions I encountered during my visit were (1) the new Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, which is establishing working relations with environmental science organizations in several East and South Asian countries, including India, and (2) negotiations in process with the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Bombay to construct a contract beam line at the SPring-8 synchrotron radiation facility. That there has been relatively little scientific cooperation between Japan and India is not particularly surprising, in view of the differences in the ways their scientific institutions have evolved during the past fifty years, their geographical separation and, of course, their cultural differences. On the other hand, both Japan and India ! have large numbers of first rate scientists as well as several world class scientific institutions whose complementary strengths could provide attractive opportunities for research cooperation. Scientists from either country, accustomed to conducting their activities in the open environment characteristic of a democratic society, would most likely adapt themselves readily to research conditions in the other country. Although it is unlikely that scientific cooperation between the two countries will equal or even approach the intensity of their separate cooperation with the United States or with Europe, a significant increase in working scientific relations between Japan and India would almost certainly yield significant benefits for both countries. Summary impressions. The Government of Japan's Science and Technology Basic Plan of July 1996 and the Science and Technology Basic Law of November 1995 which the Basic Plan is intended to implement are impressive both in the breadth and comprehensiveness of their scope and the boldness of their vision. No US Government science policy document issued during the past 50 years can rival them in either respect. Of course it is much too early to evaluate the relative success of the Basic Plan. Indeed, its comprehensive character suggests that any attempt to evaluate its success after five or even 10 years will be a daunting task. Measurable success aside, a significant majority of the scientists, administrators and government officials I spoke with appeared determined to implement at least the spirit of the Basic Plan within the area of their responsibility; that is, to optimize the use of Japan's science and technology resources and capabilities to address urgent domestic and international problems, while seeking to integrate science and technology more closely with society. Although a few of the individuals I encountered expressed doubts about the ultimate success of the Basic Plan, they also acknowledged the importance of the goals it is intended to achieve. It was suggested at more than one of my meetings that the Basic Plan, unlike earlier Government of Japan pronouncements, was bound to have a significant impact because of the political will underlying it. Unlike most laws passed by the Diet, the Science and Technology Basic Law of November 1995 was not based on a proposal from the government. Rather, it emerged from the initiative of members of the Diet itself and was based, in turn, on ideas put forward by the Japanese scientific community working through the Science Council of Japan, for example. Thus, there appears to be a significant scientific as well as a political consensus behind the Basic Plan that bode well for its success. On the other hand, there are substantial barriers based on custom and tradition that may serve to impede effective implementation of the Basic Plan unless they are widely recognized (as I believe they are) and dealt with. One such barrier consists of the many outmoded regulations that severely limit the flexibility of the best university researchers to conduct externally-funded research on campus, to collaborate with industry, or to involve their graduate students and post-doctoral scholars in externally funded schemes. Fortunately, many of these regulatory barriers are being dismantled, but more needs to be done. Another barrier has to do with the intense and (to a foreign observer) meaningless rivalry coupled with a virtual lack of communication between staff at different agencies that support research leading, for example, to what may be wasteful duplication and, perhaps, the diversion of scarce financial and human resources away from priority research areas. As a National Science Foundation staff member I have, on many occasions, made appointments for visiting foreign scientists (including Japanese scientists) with staff members in the Department of Energy or the National Institutes of Health, for example. However, I judge it would be almost unthinkable for a staff member at MONBUSHO, for example, to make appointments at STA for a visiting US scientist or government official. The administrative reform proposals announced during my last week in Japan, by merging MONBUSHO and STA, may eventually end what can only be regarded as wasteful competition. However, in my opinion it will ! take many years to implement a truly effective merger unless there is consistent pressure from the Japanese scientific community. On the positive side, many of the younger people I met in the two agencies agree that an effective merger is in the best long-term interests of Japanese science. Given adequate support and encouragement, I believe they can help to bring about an effective combination in the impressive talent that exists in both agencies. A more subtle barrier which goes to the heart of the traditional bureaucratic system in Japan may not be easy to deal with. This has to do with the practice of rotating staff within an agency into different positions every three years. On the one hand, this practice is laudable, since it permits younger staff people to understand many different parts of an agency. On the other hand, it strongly inhibits development of responsible institutional memory within an agency, particularly since most staff when rotated into a new position feel little or no responsibility for what subsequently occurs in the programs with which they were formerly associated. Worse, in most cases they feel they should not interfere with the work of their successor in any way - even to the point of providing information that might prove useful or invaluable. As a case in point, when I met with the STA official responsible for that agency's public understanding of science programs, he outlined recent activities and future plans, many of which I found intriguing. He also presented me with a summary of an August 1997 Tokyo conference on public understanding of science held under APEC auspices. Many of the results and recommendations were very similar to the results of a November 1996 Tokyo conference jointly organized by STA and the OECD. When I asked if any of the results of the OECD conference had been presented and discussed at the APEC conference, the official seemed only vaguely aware that there even had been such a conference. He then confessed that he knew little about the OECD conference, since his predecessor had been responsible for it. Clearly the APEC conference and, I believe, Japan's work in the important area of public understanding of science, as well as its international leadership in this area, would all have b! een enhanced if serious attention had been paid to an event that had occurred in Tokyo less than a year before. But, due in large measure to the rotation system within STA, those opportunities - which seem never to have been taken seriously - were simply wasted. As another example, one experienced university administrator I spoke with informed me that one reason why the peer review process for competitive grants does not work as well as it should is that agency staff who oversee particular programs do not take personal responsibility for the grants that are made, knowing that they will be in other positions in their agencies by the time the research performed under those grants has been completed. Of course I recognize that there are good reasons for rotating staff among different positions within an agency. But it must also be recognized that many of the most important aspects of the Science and Technology Basic Plan will take many years to implement effectively. That being the case, it may be useful - indeed necessary - to modify the rotation system somewhat so that institutional memory and a sense of individual responsibility for specific results can develop within the agencies. Such a modified system in which a few key people held the same position for five or 10 years or even longer might also improve the effectiveness of international cooperative programs by allowing specific individuals to build long-term relationships with their staff in foreign counterpart agencies. At the other extreme, serious consideration might be given to modifying the rotation system in the opposite direction to permit larger numbers of unusually talented and motivated individuals to take three to five year assignments in other science- and technology-related agencies. Such an extended rotation system could help develop the closer links between agencies, particularly MONBUSHO/JSPS and STA/JST that will be essential if the proposed merger of the two agencies is to result in an administrative system whose principal objective is to serve the best interests of Japanese - and world - science, rather than the narrower interests of specific agencies. I thoroughly enjoyed my weeks in Japan, particularly having an opportunity to meet and exchange frank views with so many people. I was impressed with the new opportunities provided to university researchers by competitive grant programs in MONBUSHO/JSPS, STA/JST and MIT/NEDO, by the facilities made available through those programs, by the dedication and enthusiasm of many university researchers - particularly those who are still relatively young; and by the dedication I often encountered within government agencies. On the other hand, I remain troubled by the realization that unless rather deep and fundamental changes are made in areas noted earlier, much of the enthusiasm and devotion I encountered may be frustrated and opportunities to implement the spirit of the Basic Plan may fail or at least be much less successful than they might. The Basic Plan was put forward to optimize the use of Japan's science and technology resources and capabilities to address urgent domestic a! nd international problems, while seeking to integrate science and technology more closely with society. The vision is splendid, the means to accomplish it exist. Along with many other scientific friends of Japan, I will look with great interest as the implementation phases unfold, hoping very much that the political will exists to face up to and solve some of the difficult organizational and institutional barriers that must surely be dismantled if success is to be achieved. Comments and Suggestions Concerning the JSPS Fellowship Program My situation was somewhat different from the majority of those who come to Japan under this program, since my objective was to examine various aspects of the Japanese science system itself rather than to conduct research at a specific facility. For this reason, I do not have any specific comments to make about the program that might be helpful to other fellows in the future. The one procedural aspect that I found inconvenient was the method followed to provide me with my per diem allowance and internal travel money. If a way could be found to deposit these sums directly in the foreign bank account of the Fellows or, alternately, permit Fellows to open short term bank accounts in Japan, that would certainly be preferable to having to handle relatively large sums of banknotes. However, I recognize that solving this problem goes considerably beyond the authority of JSPS. As I have made clear in the preceding section, I found my time in Japan to be very worthwhile. That being the case, I am sincerely grateful to JSPS - and to my host, Professor Shinichi Yamamoto - for making this experience possible. 6