• KOMIYA Ken
  Researcher, Institute for Extra-cutting-edge Science and Technology Avant-garde Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)

Basic researchers face a unique and perplexing challenge when they tackle the vital but often ambiguous issue of "Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," aimed at fostering a "better" society through science and technology and building "better" connections between these fields and society. The difficulty lies not only in the vagueness regarding the goal setting, but also in the question of how researchers can fulfill their responsibility for the future by taking on the challenges that are not considered included in their mission of a professional who seeks the truth. As we are members of society first and researchers second, it is natural to take great care to ensure that one's research activities do not have a negative impact on society. However, speculating on future societal implementations or economic activities in which basic researchers are not able to engage in directly and expressing their own opinions, which are nothing more than amateur ones on these matters, may not contribute to building a "better" society. While it is important not to remain confined to one's specific field, it is also crucial to avoid inconsiderately overstepping the boundaries of one's professional expertise.

In contrast to applied researchers who are engaged in developing technologies for practical use, basic researchers have limited opportunities to contribute in a way that their effort can be perceived as making a meaningful difference, even in technology assessment and risk governance. Their motivation to practice RRI, which (at least for the time being) does not improve the evaluation of their research or career, should be the co-creation of knowledge. Dialogue among diverse stakeholders forms the foundation of RRI. When these participants, who not only have different areas of expertise but also different professional missions, step out of the usual field of action into the forum of dialogue and listen carefully to the words of the other parties, they begin to realize that the words they use to express somethings can hold entirely different meanings for others. In interdisciplinary dialogue, encountering a term that is used differently from how it is defined in one's own field does not mean that the other person is wrong. The narratives, perspectives and histories inherent in each discipline shape these differences in the meaning of words.

Words and concepts that have different meanings in different disciplines or domains are called "boundary objects,"*1 which can serve as tools for bridging the boundaries and fostering deeper mutual understanding. Boundary objects are not limited to technical terms. Rather, common words used by everyone often have the potential to become more important boundary objects that can facilitate essential understanding by transcending peculiar perspectives and backgrounds. For example, molecular robotics researchers conducting research at the border between matter and life are intrinsically motivated to find a clue to solving profound questions such as "What is life?" and "What are humans?" The ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications) dialogue in relation to molecular robotics - which examines the ethics, the laws that implement minimum ethical standards, and the way that society is shaped by these laws regarding technologies that intervene the fundamental functions of life and humanity - requires the establishment of a common understanding of life and humanity. Life and humanity have inspired exploration and inquiry in all disciplines as universal themes that directly concern everyone. If it is possible to reach an understanding that cannot be achieved by conventional research activities, then dialogue with other fields would be essential for basic researchers.

In dialogues where the universal language serves as a boundary object, discussions aim to share perceptions that transcend the definitions and understandings specific to individual academic disciplines in a process that can be seen as a transition from specialized knowledge to convergence knowledge. This process may involve rephrasing specialized knowledge into lay language to make knowledge more accessible to society, although this may sometimes induce discrepancies in meaning. Nevertheless, the effort will focus on structuring profound questions in a way that ensures that everyone can understand the meanings embedded in the language, thus building a foundation for thorough discussion among all stakeholders. Words that are redefined or newly created through this process, as their meanings are organized and clarified, will facilitate more effective RRI discussions among a wide range of stakeholders. At the same time, they will serve as powerful tools for basic researchers to address fundamental questions.

A "better" society can be built when individuals, who are all strangers to each other, fulfill their roles in their own fields. To achieve this, it is crucial for each person to engage in dialogue with diverse people to the extent that they can casually do, and to weave narratives and words that bring happiness to those they may never meet in their lifetime. A "better" future in which we all coexist will emerge when stakeholders with different expertise and values, who typically do not interact beyond their own boundaries, act on their own motivations. In this era, how basic researchers formulate questions is coming to be a matter as RRI becomes more integral to scientific research.

Science is about to get a lot more exciting.

*1 Star and Griesemer "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39", Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420 (1989)

Essay All Discours