Each of the Overseas reviewers has been asked to provide their own opinions, and while we had some discussions among ourselves, these reports are from individuals and do not necessarily represent the views of the other members.
My comments and recommendations will follow the four outline points provided to me by JST, and will cover the four programs in question: ERATO; ICORP; PRESTO; and CREST.
| @@ | The points we were asked to address are:
|
To accomplish these tasks the overseas reviewers were provided material detailing each of research programs in question, overview of JST and its operations, an overview of the Japanese research infrastructure, and preliminary comments from the internal review committee members. Subsequently, the overseas reviewers were invited to visit Japan for a period of one week, visit research projects and interact with a select group of researchers within each of the four programs: ERATO, PRESTO, CREST, and ICORP.
To set my review comments in perspective to what is happening structurally and financially to the whole science and technology enterprise in Japan, I will briefly provide a background summary of these changes. This is important since many of JST programs are either directly responsible for some of the changes or are beneficiary of the additional funding provided by the Japanese Government.
|
|
@ | ||
|
|||
Corresponding to these increases, JSTfs2 success with its existing programs such as ERATO and PRESTO played a major role in helping other ministries shape their new research programs, funding of projects based more on competition and peer review thus somewhat overcoming the obvious disadvantages of the traditional Japanese Koza system used by the MONBUSHO at public universities.
The system basically divides the funding by the number of senior people, thus favoring the senior professors and researchers at the expense of junior faculty. In addition to funding more basic research in universities, the universities benefited by receiving \1 trillion during this period that was invested in their badly under funded infrastructure.
The call for an increase in post-docs was met quickly, within 4 years, but it was a challenge since university research assistants are classified as government employees and the Japanese Government had at the same time of enacting the First Plan, a goal of reducing the number of government employees by 25% by year 2010. This particular problem should disappear in 2003 when universities are to become "independent" but until then it is an issue. Fortunately, JST cleverly overcame this problem by choosing to categorize the post-docs working at universities
and being supported by their various programs as JST contractors.
| @@ | The Second Science and Technology Basic Plan
has three major goals:
|
Corresponding to the Second Plan is a major Japanese Government administrative reform that affects every agency involved in R&D. The stated purpose for this reform is to decentralize central government control, reduce operating costs, gain efficiency and streamline the research enterprise. The reform calls for reducing the Ministries and Agencies from 33 to 11, number of bureaus from 128 to 96, number of advisory bodies from 211 to 90, and cutting the number of government officials by 20% in 10 years.
The role of science and technology in Japanese government is significantly elevated by the creation of a new Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) reporting to the Prime Minister. Initial indication is that the new structure is to serve a similar role to that of the Office of the Science and Technology Policy in the US, with its corresponding Presidential Committee for Science and Technology (PCAST). Responsibility for supporting research will be reorganized into one new Ministry, emanating from the present Ministry of Education, Science,Sports and Culture, to a new Ministry probably keeping the same name, but now in the interim referred to as MEXT . MEXT will include previous S&T responsibilities from MONBUSHO as well as JST. The total budget for fiscal year 2001 for this new Ministry is \6, 578 billion (US$ 52.2 billion using February 2001 exchange rate). The reorganization took place , but clearly there are opportunities to improve the S&T enterprise in Japan, as well as dangers for its demise if the old policies of the past prevail . Japan has made a good beginning in vitalizing its basic research enterprise, in spite of its decade long economic problems, and is becoming a significant player in the world, but it must continue to strengthen its policies to support programs based on competition, using proven peer-reviewed methods, and engage the world science community to assess its quality. Traditional (language and/or cultural) reasons cannot be used as excuses to prevent proper review of the quality of science being supported. The best young researchers demand changes and will leave Japan, if they feel that the status quo of rewarding seniority will prevail and that they have little chance of pursuing their ideas in a competitive spirit that rewards quality and innovation.
| Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| @ | |||||||||||||||||||||
| JST is a public corporation that was created
in 1996 as a result of a merger
between the
Japan Research and Development
Corporation
(JRDC) and Japan Information
Center of Science
and Technology (JICST). JST currently
has
six major activities: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
JSTfs budget for 2001 (which starts on 1April 2001) is \ 121 billion . JSTfs current staff is 455 . Of this total budget, the Japanese government provides \ 103 billion, \558 million is service income from its patents and licensing fees, and \17 billion from other sources. JST expenditures are programmed to be: \ 51.5 billion for its basic research programs; \ 49.7 billion for strengthening the S&T infrastructure; and \ 12.9 billion for helping start-up new businesses. JSTfs basic research programs are listed in Table 1 below, showing the name, number of ongoing projects with range of project size, and total budget. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
@ | ||||||
|
|||||||
| 1. | Significance and Originality of the Respective Programs. |
| JST introduced 5 new programs previously
and is introducing a new program - SORST
this year. The oldest program ERATO (1981)
was a pioneering program in Japan that tried
to address the need to support young researchers
in a competitive manner. ERATO also addressed
the criticism at home and abroad that Japan
was not contributing enough to the worldfs
database of basic knowledge. ERATO was also
a social experiment that was considered to
be very risky at the time of its implementation,
but it turned out to be very successful.
Risky because it tried to change a very rigid
bureaucratic system based on seniority and
connections that characterized past Japanese
research practices. JSTfs task was to find
the best research leaders available to manage
large research programs, attract young people,
provide them adequate funding for a period
of 5 years, and under supervision give them
a free hand to do their best. The project
teams were made up of approximately 10 to
20 researchers, drawn from universities,
industry, government laboratories, and overseas
organizations. Most groups were interdisciplinary,
again a novelty in the rigid Japanese university
research community5. Although the number of projects funded
by ERATO was small in terms of the overall
basic research budget in Japan, it proved
to be the bellwether model for funding of
research projects in Japan, and the model
has been copied successfully by other Japanese
organizations. I believe ERATO helped start
and PRESTO reaffirmed the need for a change
in the research culture in Japan. ERATO gained
international recognition even before it
was fully recognized in Japan, when the US
National Science Foundation together with
the US Department of Commerce sent two groups
of prominent American scientists, once in
19886 and again in 19967, to review the programs and see what aspects
of it could be modeled in the US. The ICORP program is very similar to ERATO except that it identifies a partnering research team abroad to work together with a Japanese research team located in Japan. This international gvirtualh commingling of researchers is a very important step in helping Japanese researchers participate fully in the global community. All of the American researchers that I spoke to highly praised the program and its management. Graduate student involvement in both ERATO and ICORP is highly desirable, and should be made a requirement in all projects now that cooperation with public university professors is possible. I am quite pleased to see graduate students participating in various programs and hope that it becomes a norm rather then an exception. A number of ERATO programs initiated new research areas, and some clearly need a follow-up to fully realize the potential created by JST. For those that have an industrial application but further research is needed, I might suggest that the SORST program be an avenue of such continuation. An example is the KITANO project where clearly there is a very large potential for commercializing technology as well as continuation the research. It would be a shame to have that project come to an end. From experience, it is critical that any new efforts to capture research results for potential commercial applications bring in industrial partners. Researchers often do not have the experience or know-how of transferring technology and can spend much effort and resources on ideas that have no practical commercial market. All ERATO projects are set up for 5 years in laboratories explicitly created for their benefit, typically in rented space near business centers. In 1989 a laboratory site was located outside of Japan. The IKEDA GenoSPHERE project was set up in Ottawa, Canada. To the present, eight ERATO projects had part or sometimes most of the effort being carried out overseas. Reasons for the decision to set up laboratories overseas varies, but are usually made on basis of special circumstances. For example, the YAMAMOTO Quantum Fluctuation project is near Stanford University since Professor Yamamoto went to Stanford and he was the project director. PRESTO is also a social experiment by JST to see whether it is possible to stimulate resourceful individuals to explore new research areas in Japan. It was a direct outgrowth of the need to provide funding to single researchers as they try to develop a research project to a stage that either they can obtain significant funding and/or a position either in a university or industry. Although not initially intended, PRESTO program became a program for younger researchers and it continues to attract a large number of researchers. It allows researchers to develop embryonic ideas, something that is often difficult to find funding for due to its inherent high risk and the need to obtain support from a senior professor at a university. Unlike in the U.S. where even junior faculty have much freedom to pursue their interest and funding, in Japanese public universities, unless you are a full professor, you donft have much freedom or independence. In the US, a PRESTO award would be equivalent to a typical single researcher grant from the National Science Foundation, and it would be competed on a peer review basis by the research community not just a single professor. PRESTO peer review process is a feature that is unique in the Japanese research enterprise and definitely is setting a pattern for other agencies to follow, although reluctantly since it takes away the power of very senior professors to dictate their research preferences to the young faculty. In spite of some obvious risks to the researchers8, PRESTO programs have been quite successful in drawing a large number of excellent proposals, and overall the selected projects are very good. I was impressed by the exuberance of the PRESTO young researchers, and their support for the program. A number said that if PRESTO was not available, they would likely have sought overseas opportunities. The sample of researchers we saw, all spoke excellent English and had colleagues working overseas in similar fields. They also stayed current by communicating and networking with their overseas colleagues often. All were quite satisfied with the budgets they were provided. TOREST is a fairly new program, just established a little more than a year ago. The purpose of the program is to offer a program that bridges a one-researcher program, to a team program needed for an ERATO or CREST efforts. Typically two or three researchers combine their skills for a typical TOREST proposal. TOREST is focused on supporting young researchers, typically people 37 years or younger and within 10 years of obtaining their Ph.D. Although PRESTO has no age qualification, the majority of successful applicants are young researchers as well. Both PRESTO and TOREST are highly competitive and awards are based upon a peer review process. The CREST program is an outgrowth of the impact of the First Plan and the additional funding given to JST. It is somewhat like an ERATO type program except that it is typically organized in a university setting as compared to ERATO project being organized off university campuses. CREST is competed nationally and projects are selected in a peer review system, whereas ERATO projects are selected more top down as will be discussed later in this paper. Since 1998, CREST is also now available to industrial researchers. CREST is very similar to block grants found in the US that run for 5 years and involve groups of researchers headed by a technical team leader. These programs are highly sought after since they provide freedom and flexibility not found by other government provided research programs. However, there is some concern that the number of applicants has been decreasing over the last few years. It is still competitive, with the latest number of submissions being close to 700, but this down from about 1,400 in the first year of CREST. This decrease is somewhat troubling and the cause ought to be investigated thoroughly by JST. It could be that there is a paucity of qualified applicants but it also could be that given the low success ratio, many potential applicants just donft want to waste their time writing proposals only to be turned down. If this is the case, maybe a dual screening process can be established. In the first round you identify the best proposals, and then only those who made it in the first round, be expected to write full proposals. There might be a tendency that if the success ratio is only 10-15%, the best people just will not want to take the time for writing large proposals if other more sure sources of funding are available. If the reason is paucity of good researchers, then the problem is more difficult to solve and requires an integrated approach to cultivating more researchers. This requires enhancing the science and engineering curricula in schools, starting with grade school. On the other end, good job prospects must also be available to researchers in order to attract the best people. ICORP is a small unique program that has received wide acceptance in Japan and abroad since half of the program is carried outside of Japan. ICORP projects are more difficult to initiate since they require concurrence not only within JST but also a counterpart funding organization in a foreign country. Differences in policies, review process, cultural differences and goals are just a few of the problems that need to be overcome. On the positive side it is a very intriguing program and clearly once set up can provide a tremendous opportunity for innovative research as well as helping integrate Japanese researchers with their foreign counterparts and vice versa. Speaking to several of the U.S. research directors, I found them to be satisfied with the experience and feel the program was very successful in stimulating very good research as well as building a good relationship between the U.S. and Japan. I heard similar sentiments from senior personnel in the National Science Foundation who provided the funding for the U.S. side of the projects. In summary, although difficult to set up, I personally feel more ICORP projects should be funded because of the large impact it can have on the Japanese research community. |
|
| @ | @ |
| 2. | Impact of Research Results |
| ERATO in particular and PRESTO to a somewhat
lesser degree have a long track record of
accomplishments that can be effectively evaluated
on their impact. Examples of excellent research
results are too numerous to be listed here
and the overseas panel personally was briefed
only on a small number of the current projects.
Nevertheless, results obtained by ERATO researchers
have been reported in respected peer reviewed
journals over the years, and I personally
reviewed ERATO projects over the last 15
years9. Well known and documented examples include the development of high-vacuum and high resolution electron microscope10; the use of electron holography to image and measure magnetic flux; dynamic behavior of bio-molecules, and the creation of the world-class Japan marine Science Technology Center which was created as a result of the Superbugs project. The current NSF Director, Dr. Rita Colwell in the 1996 ERATO study, commended positively on the Marine Center and its dependence on the ERATO project. Another early ERATO project, Yoshida Nano-Mechanism project (1985-1990) helped bring new technology to NIKON, and its director, then a Managing Director became the President. Another early project had a phenomenal effect, not only on the impact of research but also on the career of the director. The Hayashi Ultra-Fine Particle project (1981-1986) had both scientific and commercial success. Dr. Sumio Iijima joined the Hayashi Project after leaving his position at Arizona State University, and developed a high-vacuum high-resolution electron microscope, and using his research results, joined NEC and in 1991 discovered carbon nanotubes, a major scientific discovery acknowledged worldwide. A more recent ERATO project, the KITANO Symbiotic program while still in progress (1998-2003) shows great promise to both advance science as well as spawn one or several commercial enterprises. Dr. Kitano and his staff represent a dynamic group of researchers that can compete with the best worldwide and selection of such dynamic leaders has been a real achievement by JST. A recent ERATO project, the NAMBA Protonic NanoMachine project (1997-2002) is very intriguing in that unlike most nano projects in Japan, an attempt is made to look at nanotechnology outside of semiconductors, where most of the effort is being made, but in biological machines. Dr. Namba completed his post-doc at Brandies University in the U.S., and was a researcher in an earlier ERATO project (HOTANI Molecular Dynamic Asembly-1986-1991). This experience helped him not only become the director of this ERATO project but also helped him attain his present position as Research Director at the Advanced Technology Research Laboratories at Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. The ERATO program has been quite successful as a research catalyst for changing the Japanese system of supporting and performing research. JSTfs programs such as ERATO, CREST and ICORP were used as models for the Japanese gFrontier Research Systemh in the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN). ERATO directly and indirectly spawned new research areas in Japan, affected the scientific infrastructure, and expanded its operations overseas following the best Japanese researchers wherever they may reside PRESTO had programs funded since 1991. . By looking at the documentations and having the privilege of meeting and hearing presentations made by 4 PRESTO researchers, it is quite evident that the work is of high quality, the grants are highly valued and the young people selected are first class, many of whom have had graduate school or post-doc experience overseas. Unlike previous researchers educated at Japanese public universities, these researchers are very competitive and stand on their own with their peers overseas. It is very important for the Japanese Government to help create a climate for those researchers to grow intellectually in Japan and find useful employment, either in universities, or industry. Because they are so good, their mobility is such they will go elsewhere. PRESTO allows the researchers to pursue their own research initiatives, they are unfettered by bureaucratic constraints, free to travel to attend conferences in Japan or overseas and have adequate funding. Several examples show the quality and breadth of the PRESTO programs. Professor Yoshiki Sasai is a full professor at an unheard of (in Japan) age of 35 at Kyoto University. He has overseas experience and is now pursuing a project to identify molecules that initiate neural differentiation. Dr. Kumiyo Nakakoji is a young woman who holds a prestigious position of Chief Researcher at the Software Research Associates and is pursuing a software design project. She has overseas experience and has chosen to stay and work in Japan. She clearly is a role model for other women in Japan who might be interested in becoming researchers. As mentioned before, PRESTO grants are highly valuable and hard to obtain due to the large number of applications and a stringent peer-review process. In the first five years of operation (1991-1995), for example, 132 awards were made from 1,715 applications. In the next five years (1996-2000), 250 were made from 4058 applications. CREST is a fairly new program and evaluating its impact is therefore difficult, although one has a good picture of the quality of people involved and their research directions. The rigorous peer review process of selecting winners is also a test of the quality of the programs. As a reminder, basic research impacts are a long-term process, and it took many years for the fruits of ERATO projects to be realized. The 1988 U.S. led JTEC panel concluded that although the program has been active since 1981, impact was just then starting to be realized and evaluation was still difficult. Thus while it is difficult for me to comprehensively speak about the quality of the research done under CREST, I can say that the process of choosing topics, and research groups is excellent, and one that closely resembles the way the U.S. NSF makes awards. Monitoring CREST programs is very important, and I recommend a systematic way should be devised to do it. Papers published in peer-reviewed journals and invited presentations at internationally acclaimed conferences are a good start but other factors should be studied and reported. Industrial interest in research being carried out, attraction of overseas post-docs to Japanese organizations, and number of Japanese researchers obtaining post-docs overseas are other factors that need to be considered. Allowing some CREST projects carried out in industrial settings is a good idea and unfortunately that is something that currently NSF does not do. Fortunately, in the U.S. other agencies such as NIST or DARPA fund projects in industrial laboratories. ICORP projects are far fewer than ERATO or CREST but they play a significant role in helping Japanese researchers gain international recognition and bring ideas to Japan, as well as bring Japanese ideas abroad. To set up an ICORP project is somewhat complex since one needs not only to have two teams of researchers wanting to work together, but there is a need for two funding organizations, JST and its counterpart in another country to agree to fund the project. The bureaucracy alone makes it more difficult to start, but once in place it is worth the effort. Having spoken to two U.S. project managers, I can say that the project was highly successful on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, and continued cooperation exists past the project timetable. What is key is good communication links between all researchers, not just e-mail and occasional visits but regular in-person meetings so that the staffs on both sides of the ocean really get to know each other. I highly recommend that part of each project be an investment in a video conference capability and it be used on a regular basis to get the two groups to better interact with each other. |
|
| @ | @ |
| 3. | Managerial Aspect of Research Projects |
| JST should be congratulated for its flexibility
and willingness to make changes.
The management
of ERATO has evolved over its
20-year life
span, and incremental changes
are being made
on a regular basis, most often
reflecting
inputs from current and past
ERATO researchers,
program reviews such as those
done by the
U.S. study tours, as well as
input from the
research community. I have heard
some criticism
that ERATO projects should have
a more open
peer-reviewed process. I personally
think
that the success of the program
speaks well
of the current process and it
should be continued.
By carefully selecting topics
and directors,
JST has done an excellent job
that few can
question. I also agree with placing
a term
of 5 years on all projects. However,
I would
argue for relaxing the time when
the clock
starts ticking to count the 5
years. In some
research areas, obtaining all
equipment and
setting up the laboratory takes
more time
than in others, and if the five
years includes
a significant part of it to wait
for equipment
to be set up or for its delivery,
the time
becomes to short to do research.
There is a six month grace period for most projects but I think it should be decided on a case by case basis, and in some cases that time should be as long as a year. Another issue that should be reviewed is the disbursement of funds throughout the course of the 5 years. Accountants like a steady cash flow and accompanying expenses, but research requires often spurts and down time, and particularly at the end of the project funds become very scarce. More flexibility should be allowed for disbursements of the funds through the life of the project, and if opportunities become real, some way to augment the funds should be possible. In summary, JST should continue to fund ERATO in its present form, and find the best possible directors and help them recruit the best staff, including researchers from overseas. In that context, I was very pleased to see Professor Reiko Kuroda chosen as a project director on the KURODA Chiro-morphology project. She is the first woman researcher to be given such a prestigious position, and I recommend JST to look for other such opportunities even if they to seek them from overseas. Professor Kuroda is a good role model for young women in Japan interested in science and can do much to help garner that segment of the population to increase the dwindling cadre of researchers. JST might consider organizing a conference of women in science and engineering. Invitations might be given to all women researchers supported by JST, and consideration should be given to inviting a few foreign women scientists, such as Professor Mildred Dresselhaus from MIT, as guest speakers. Management of PRESTO should be continued as is, with the integration of TOREST as a bridge to support a team of 2-3 researchers. Basic shortfall of PRESTO was that the funding was for only one researcher. Many projects require and in fact can be successful if there are several researchers, often bridging several disciplines. TOREST fills the gap and I think it is a good step to provide a wide variety of research support. Successful PRESTO projects that need an increase in research activity to have an even bigger impact should be a good source of ideas for TOREST projects. However, they along with other submissions should continue to be peer-reviewed to ensure quality. Identifying themes is a very important part of the process in PRESTO, TOREST and CREST. I would suggest that engaging the world community would ensure that all new areas are covered, particularly as they are being developed. Some of the PRESTO researchers while appreciating the generous funding suggested that some flexibility be allowed to moving money from one year to another. The issue is that often funding is available and must be spent when it is not the most opportune time from the research perspective. They also suggest that the researchers be more involved in purchase of specialized research equipment. In cases when the equipment is not goff the shelfh, but is customized by the researcher, he/she must be involved in the procurement process to make sure they are getting what they need. CREST program is the largest JST effort and requires considerable management time. JSTfs role is to select research areas within the framework of the strategic sectors established by the Science and Technology Agency (STA), JSTfs parent organization. Many of these areas are new and there is concern that there exists a lack of researchers in Japan to review the proposals. To this end, as I mentioned above, I recommend that overseas reviewers be employed. This is a standard practice in many countries, including the U.S. Traditional barriers should not be used as an excuse not to involve foreign scientists, since the purpose is to identify the best science, and it often exists in areas that are not heavily populated with researchers. Science has a worldwide community and Japan should tap into it. As in many cases abroad, much new technology is first utilized by new start-up companies rather than being integrated by large industries. Some of the researchers expressed concern that JST management does not understand the culture of start-up companies since none of them came from that sector. JST might consider bringing in, on a consulting arrangement, people who understand the needs of such small companies since much of the technology transfer will occur in this manner. There also appears a problem of commingling funds to augment research. I would think that if the research team can find additional funds to augment its research capability, it should be encouraged since it will leverage the JST funds. Commingling funds from several funding sources is a common practice in the U.S. and other countries. Such additional funds can help stimulate new directions that the original funding was not adequate for. |
|
| @ | @ |
| 4. | General Comments and Recommendations |
| We were asked to review the ongoing JST programs:
ERATO, PRESTO, ICORP, and CREST.
There are
two new programs created by JST:
TOREST and
SORST but they are very new so
not much can
be said about them, other that
their purpose
is well understood. However, from my perspective as mentioned above, TOREST is very much like PRESTO and probably the two programs should be combined, and managed as a single program. The fact that in PRESTO there is one researcher and TOREST has 2-3, does not require a material difference in management. If there is a concern that all of the funding not go to a multiple researcher team, then JST might consider making allotments for each type of the program and then have the best receive awards. Another general comment is that JST needs to be more flexible in managing the various programs taking into account the large diversity of projects, even projects within projects. As we enter the 21st century, it is critical for Japan to become more entrepreneurial to compete globally and respond to opportunities quickly, without having to resort to creating totally new programs. This will ensure that the brightest and most ambitious scientists stay in Japan and not depart for countries that provide them more freedom. JST is a pioneer in helping change the environment and culture in research and it has to continue to make sure that its staff does not become too conservative and argue that procedures must be followed even if the effect is counterproductive to obtaining excellent results. Another recommendation is for JST to consider bringing in practicing scientists to help manage the program. These would be like NSFfs rotators who leave their employment for two years, come to Washington, help manage programs and then go back to their universities or laboratories. Both JST and the researchers would gain from such a program. The Overseas reviewers were struck by the differences in safety standards of industrial laboratories as compared to university laboratories. Some of the university laboratories appeared to be waiting for accidents to happen. Corridors full of empty cartons, exit doors blocked, and aisles so narrow that a person cannot walk without touching equipment are accidents waiting to happen. The whole Overseas Committee feels strongly that JST needs to take corrective action as soon as possible. Most universities have safety rules but they appear to be disregarded. Japan is not unique in this respect but there is too much at stake. JST had a very big challenge given to them in 1995 when the Japanese Government gave them and other science and technology agencies in Japan a major increase in their budgets and they were required to spend it starting in 1996. In a strategic move to ensure the continuing the tradition of high quality in their ongoing programs of ERATO and PRESTO, they started several new programs, beginning with CREST. To their credit, CREST was a highly competitive program that attracted a lot of attention. Of the 1,350 proposals they received they funded 54 projects that first year. In the current year they funded 42 projects out of 602 proposals. Of interest is that 16 of those proposals were for continuing previously funded CREST projects, but only 4 were funded. This shows the highly competitive nature of CREST and that previous funding does not ensure continuation of support. This demonstrates the vitality and strength of JST management. I applaud JST for establishing a fixed time for all of its programs since; it might be difficult to selectively end some programs and not others. This could offend some people and losing face would make it very difficult to make such choices. Finally, it is encouraging for me to see the number of woman in the various JST programs, including as I mentioned a woman ERATO program director. This should be supported and an active program should be in place to identify even more good women researchers to be supported under various JST programs. Women in Japan need to see successful women in science and technology and have them as role models. Along the same line, it would be good to see non-ethnic Japanese residents be chosen as leaders of various research projects, for example, Korean or Chinese residents living permanently in Japan. As the pool of Japanese men decreases, it is critical that Japan fully utilize its citizens to the fullest extent possible, and Japanese women and non-ethnic Japanese residents provide the largest pool of researchers that can fill that gap I noted that there is a fairly steady increase in patent applications in Japan and abroad. I approve of such efforts, and suggest that follow-up studies be made to quantify the value of such patents in terms of commercial applications. If the value of a patent can be quantified, it would be a good way of showing directly the return on research investments. This is difficult and tricky but useful to do because of its potential significance. JST has done an excellent job of providing support for scientists in Japan and has been a leader in opening new ways of doing business in a country that has difficulty making changes. Competition in science however, lives on changes and for Japan to be one of the leaders in science it must change quickly and adapt to new situations. JST has proven to be a role model for changes, and I hope it will continue to be there to support the best that Japan has to offer. Lastly, I would like to observe that while there is much attention paid to strengthen the research community in Japan, little attention is being paid to the human output. Creating a pool of post-docs is a very ambitious and worthy goal, but I donft see enough effort being made to address the issue of careers of researchers past their post-doc period. The vast majority of these people will need to be absorbed by industry since university positions cannot grow fast enough to absorb the new people. Life sciences in the US has been experiencing this problem for a number of years, and one can find post-docs in their forties, married with family, just moving aimlessly from one post-doc position to another. Clearly this situation is not healthy for the profession or, in the long term, of attracting the best and brightest young people to science careers. |
|
|
@ | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
