POINT OF VIEW/ Tatsuhiro Kamisato: Third party needed to assess scientific projects

Last year's screening of wasteful public spending by a government task force led to drastic cuts in science and technology funding--traditionally regarded as a sacred cow--and sent an unprecedented shock wave through Japan's scientific community.

General public opinion on the subject, however, appeared objective as reflected in letters to the editor and media reports.

Most people apparently understand the importance of promoting innovations in science and technology, while recognizing the difficulty of scrutinizing projects to determine how important they really are.

Still, taxpayers also believe the area can no longer be given carte blanche.

Of course, budgets should not be cut so drastically that they would imperil the livelihoods of bright young researchers or cause suspension or scrapping of too many research projects. That would potentially cripple the continuity of the nation's research activities.

As a scientist who could be affected by the budget cuts, I have many specific requests. At the same time, however, I believe it is also important to look at the problem from a broad perspective.

First, I want to point out that in industrialized countries, the conflict between democracy and specialized intellectual knowledge, such as we saw in the budget-review process, is nothing new. It is akin to "thorough bass," or the figured bass notation that is a continuous accompaniment in a musical piece and underpins its harmonic structure.

In the West, while the importance of promoting science and technology is widely recognized, it no longer gains as much special treatment as it received in the 20th century.

Systematic attempts to position science and technology as part of a nation's society and to find common ground with democracy are also continuing.

In particular, the creation of a parliamentary organization to assess technology provides a valuable clue to a solution of the problem. Early technological assessments help to evaluate the impact that a new technology could have on society before it is widely implemented.

The idea spread in the United States during the late 1960s against the backdrop of environmental pollution. At the time, the negative aspects of science and technology attracted public blame for spreading pollution.

Recognizing that a neutral and specialized organization was needed to deal with such problems, the U.S. Congress in 1972 became the first legislative body in the world to set up the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).

The OTA was later abolished as part of congressional reform. However, European countries have since established similar organizations as permanent organs, giving momentum to moves to institutionalize technology assessment.

For example, in Britain, full-time staff members with doctorate degrees take the lead in analyzing projects and provide useful intellectual resources when Parliament must consider cutting-edge and socially important subjects, such as nanotechnology and climate change.

And apparently, the United States, where the idea originated, has been considering the reinstatement of OTA functions in recent years.

Unfortunately, the Japanese government has made no move to create such an entity.

When disagreement arises between science and politics, as it did this time, I believe the decision-making would advance more smoothly if a third party conducts adequate research on the facts in advance.

In conducting such research, such an independent team should look into the risks and costs of the technology, while considering the importance of broader benefits, such as introducing inventions.

If the recent confusion over the value of scientific research leads to greater social debate on how Japan should handle scientific and technological innovation, the nation will reap many benefits. I hope to see more open dialogue on this subject.

* * *

The author is a project associate professor at the University of Tokyo specializing in the history of science.