Working groups of the Government Revitalization Unit in the new administration began the screening of science and technology budgets, and scientists who protest against the cutback policy attracted wide coverage by newspapers and TV stations. It seems that even science and technology budgets have a fair amount of waste and inefficiency, but questions remained whether or not such form of screening is suitable to science and technology. That said, it is still groundbreaking that citizens showed such interest in science and technology budget which not many people paid attention until now. The current uproar over the review of projects became a good opportunity to question the science and technology budget once again. I would like to take a look at this from four perspectives.

First is the perspective of “public understanding.” When the budget cuts were proposed, furious Nobel laureate scientists and well-known journalists held press conferences one after another, and newspapers and TV stations covered them generously. The media was generally favorable to the protesting scientists. Surprisingly, many newspaper readers voiced opinions that “scientists are being arrogant.” To the general public who is suffering from job or wage cuts, scientists who protest against the cutback of a huge amount of budget may have appeared a little too high-handed.

While there are scientists who hold angry press conferences, I also met many researchers who reflected on themselves and said, “even though we are doing the research with tax money, perhaps our explanation to the public was inadequate.” Next-generation supercomputer, Super-Kamiokande, B-factory, Deep Sea Drilling Project, SPring-8, MX rocket…. Now, how many people among the general public know about these existence of these huge projects? Haven’t the scientists neglected the explanation to the public, thinking that “even if we explain them, people won’t comprehend them anyway?” Pouring a huge amount of tax money cannot be allowed without the understanding from the public.

That said, the public relations system in the scientific community has been greatly improved during the last 20 years. In the past, it used to be normal for science reporters to find the research results in academic journals and visit the researchers. In recent days, however, various universities and research laboratories hold press conferences one after another, so much that the reporters cannot cover them all. For almost all of the research results published in Nature or Science, press conferences are held beforehand. The University of Tokyo sends out notices by fax on press conferences of research results, symposiums and lectures almost every day. Major research laboratories around the country are also beginning to hold open houses or tour events regularly in an attempt to promote exchanges with local residents.

Probably, the problem is the fact that the speed of state-of-the-art science advancement is too fast compared with the speed of the general public’s increased understanding of science and technology. Even the GPS (satellite-based global positioning system), which we casually use for car navigation system or mobile phones, applies the esoteric General Theory of Relativity. For people like us who cannot even understand science and technology in everyday life, big science of state-of-the-art science such as B-factory or Super-Kamiokande are too difficult to comprehend. However, a democratic nation is the one which gets them done. Scientists need to be accountable.

The second point is that “nobody can tell the future.” One of the themes that I covered in the past was the “Asuka,” a short takeoff and landing aircraft by the National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan (currently JAXA). After manufacturing only one experimental aircraft, this project was terminated without proceeding to the construction of commercial aircrafts. It was successful as a basic research. Nobody can criticize it as “a project which erred in foreseeing future aircrafts.” This is because it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future correctly. There are many projects which ended like this, without achieving their initially expected developments. What makes it science is the challenge to the unpredictable future. It is important to have a common awareness on this point during the review of projects.

The third point is that “in basic research, achievements are born from the pile of failures.” During basic research, a hypothesis is formed, experiment conditions are decided, and proofs are derived through accumulation of experiments. However, most of them end up as failures. The success of Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in establishing iPS cells came as a result of betting on the slightest of chance that even he could not be certain, and spectacularly finding the truth. There is a history of tens and hundreds of researchers’ failures behind this achievement.

Even the Kamiokande in Gifu prefecture was originally constructed to observe proton decay. As it turned out, no proton decay was ever observed, but supernova neutrinos were discovered instead and brought the Nobel Prize in physics to Japan. In the basic science world, complete failures often turn into huge successes. A research which is promised to be successful is not a research with much significance. This judgment cannot be done by project reviewers, scientists or anyone else. It is similar to the investment of venture capital. One supports the project with a mindset that “if one out of 20 or one out of 30 is successful, that is fine.” The review of projects and this element of gambling are probably not very compatible.

The last point, without a doubt is “transparency”. Promotion of science and technology is extremely important to Japan as a nation built on the creativity of science and technology. Cutting this budget unnecessarily is an act of suicide of the nation. However, it is also true that questions arise whether or not the budget is allocated “correctly” and “fairly.” Researchers have many grievances when they see that only some specific themes get preferential treatment while other themes get no budget allocated at all, or see that themes connected to scholars in high position can easily get research budget allocated while unknown researchers get none.

To begin with, what should be the basis to judge something as being “correct,” and what criteria should be used to determine that something is “fair?” In the absence of any solid criteria to make such judgment, people can’t help but rely on the names of influential scholars or research institutes. Also, as researches becomes more state-of-the-art, the number of people who can make judgments on their values become limited. Consequently, there will be a tendency toward closed groups making closed judgments. The only way to make these judgments “correct” and “fair” is to make them transparent and get everyone to participate. The review of projects might have problems such as time constraints or lack of expert knowledge. However, I believe that making the process of budgetary discussion transparent will bring benefits that outweigh these shortcomings.

Lastly, I would like to present an opinion from a reader. “People seem to be debating whether to cut the budget or not, but let me say that science and technology is important. Don’t make me, an 85-year old lady, say such an obvious thing.” Citizens know quite well that Japan became an affluent country like this due to the power of science and technology. People who think that science and technology budget should be cut are in the minority. I would like to see the scientists communicate the greatness of science much more on a regular basis with confidence. And furthermore, I would like them to realize a correct and fair science and technology budget. Don’t make an 85-year old lady worry about such a thing.

Chinese / French / Japanese