The lessons of the screening process

The biggest shock in 2009 to people related to science and technology was the “screening process” by the new administration’s Government Revitalization Unit. The relentless screening of science and technology budget, which until now has been a sacred area under the banner of the Basic Plan for Science and Technology was opened to the public and attracted the citizens’ attention. In response to this, Nobel Prize-class scientist issued statements of objection, prominent overseas scientists conveyed their concerns, against this screening, and it is said that over 153,000 public comments were sent to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

However, what was more shocking were the citizens’ voices sent to the mass media. Although a number of mass media companies explained the importance of promoting science and technology in their editorials and took a critical tone toward the “screening process that demanded cutbacks of science and technology budget in a single sweep based on short-term cost effectiveness,” 60 to 70% of the citizens’ voices criticized the “arrogance of the scientists,” and it is said that only about 10% of them were sympathetic to the scientists. Regarding the revival of the budget for supercomputers, there was also a comment by an intellectual that “if things are decided without policy discussion because a Nobel Prize winning scientist butts in, it is a sign of political immaturity.”

Although some projects were forced into cancelling new projects in the finalized fiscal year 2010 budget proposal released at the end of December, the total budget related to basic research was slightly increased in response to public comments and the parties concerned were relieved. However, there were some people who criticized that the budget revival process lacked transparency.

Through this series of activities, I believe that those who are doing the funding to support basic research such as ourselves have learned a big lesson. Up until now, funding institution such as ourselves were just required to fulfill our accountability toward the Council for Science and Technology Policy of Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and the researchers who are receiving our support. However, the appeal to the authorities concerned with policies that “the ratio of science and technology budget in relation to GDP (gross domestic product) is extremely low compared with other developed countries” can no longer convince the public.

Both the funding institutions and scientists should look at things from the citizens’ perspective from now on. We should explain in a way that is easily understandable about how the achievements of basic research are linked with the future development of science and technology, why that research is necessary, and why such amount of research fund is necessary.

JST funding – the example of PRESTO

Now, it has been reported that the Government Revitalization Unit will become involved in the screening process of independent administrative institutions and public-interest corporations in the future. As for the two funding institutions which deal with basic research, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) that deals with Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) that deals with basic research programs, distinction of the roles between these two corporate bodies will be questioned. Here again, these two institutions are being required to explain about the difference in the objectives and characteristics of their programs in an easily understandable way from the citizens’ perspective. Based on my experience, I would like to explain how the JST Basic Research Programs (PRESTO type) (hereinafter called PRESTO for short) and the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research are different.

I came to know about the JST funding program when I was appointed as a research supervisor of JST PRESTO “Materials and processes for innovative next-generation devices” in 2007, and it has been a continuous surprise how utterly different JST funding was compared with the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research.

First, whereas the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research is a grant to the researchers by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, PRESTO is a JST program that is supported by a grant for operating expenses. Whereas the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research is issued to programs which are academically distinguished among research proposals based on the freewheeling ideas of researchers, PRESTO of JST is a basic research program which aims to dramatically develop the research capabilities of outstanding researchers in accordance with the strategic focus presented by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (although I believe that the citizens’ perspective is also necessary to decide the strategic focus, I will not go into this subject here). JST decides the “research areas” according to the strategic focus, and the person in charge seeks the “research supervisors” who are good judges of these areas based on their accumulated know-how and through many hearings. Selecting the research supervisor is not a simple administrative task, thus a solid scientific knowledge is necessary and this task is frequently handled by staff members who have experience in research.

As soon as I was appointed to a research supervisor, I was requested by the staff in charge to make a “supervisor’s aim on open recruitment” in accordance with the “strategic target.” In this regard, this is inherently different from the research in a particular area by the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research, in which the research supervisor makes the “open recruitment procedure” on his own will.

The procedure to select a program from among many applications of research proposals is also important. The selection is done in two steps, which is the screening of candidates by examining the papers, followed by the screening of candidates by interview with the help of research advisors or other outside examiners, but a simple council system is not applied here. The opinion of the research supervisor is respected in making the final determination. As a general rule, a proposal which is not consistent with the “aim of the research area” will not be selected no matter how outstanding the research content may be. On the other hand, a risky research proposal which normally would not be selected does get selected. This is where a top-down spirit is adhered to, and the difference from the bottom-up type Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research is clear.

I was even more surprised that the research supervisor was making site visits. The research supervisor, accompanied by the counselors of engineering and administration, visits all the institutions where the selected researchers work and asks those researchers’ supervisors to give favorable considerations on the research environments. When I visited, I found out that there was a world of difference in the research environment depending on the institution where the researcher belongs to, and I realized that each researcher should be managed according to their research conditions, rather than treating all of them in a uniform way.

There are two annual research area meetings set in the PRESTO research program, and they are conducted in a training camp style where the supervisors/advisors and researchers, or the researchers themselves hold thorough discussion until late at night. The researchers are self-confident as they are strongly aware that they were chosen from among 10 researchers, so they are very enthusiastic but sometimes get into harsh arguments. Also, since most of the research areas are made up by cross-sectoral researchers, many researchers who experienced PRESTO said that “the network which we build with researchers in different fields through PRESTO became quite useful in conducting subsequent researches.” This point is also a difference with researches in particular areas by the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research, which has fewer exchanges among different fields.

In PRESTO, a fund of about 40 million yen is granted over three and a half years as a general rule, but the research supervisor can flexibly make a judgment to allocate additional funds to accelerate a research that is producing good results. We are also a more caring funding institution that looks after voluntary research activities as an organization, such as supporting the holding of workshops proposed by the researchers, and I hope that I have conveyed the difference from the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research which just hands over the research funds.

A large number of PRESTO researchers enhanced their research capabilities by using this support as a stepping stone, and have become core researchers who support the innovations in Japan. It is true that PRESTO support costs more than the Grants-In-Aid for Scientific Research, but I hope that people understand that this system is supporting the basic research capability of Japan in the long term, and therefore we would like to ask for the citizens’ continuing support in the future.

Chinese / French / Japanese