(Authored by Minoru Kuniya and Mami Oyama)
1. Achievements by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy in Research and Survey on Science & Technology and People & Society
Along with the rapid progress recently achieved in science and technology (S&T), the resulting advantages and disadvantages have an enormous impact: S&T affects both society at large and the lifestyle of the individual person. On the other hand, society itself has pressured S&T to meet requirements and come under regulation.
The Japanese national government has already addressed the issue of considering the relationship between S&T and people & society, and has declared in the "Fundamental Principals of Science and Technology Policy" (decided at a Cabinet Meeting in April 1992) and several Recommendations of the Council for Science and Technology that it is an important issue in S&T policies to achieve harmony between S&T and people & society. Specifically, Recommendation Nos. 5 (1971), 6 (1977), 11(1984), and 18 (1992) of the Council for Science and Technology, as well as the Science and Technology Basic Law established in 1995, stress harmonization between S&T and people & society.
As specific actions to cope with this issue, technology assessment, which will be discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, attracted widespread attention and was also put into practice in Japan starting in the 1970s. We have to acknowledge such technology assessment as an initial measure taken that was aimed at harmonization between S&T and people & society since it is able to analyze both the advantages and disadvantages of S&T. (Note that in the US, technology assessment was considered as a measure for issuing early warnings against potential hazards caused by S&T.)
When looking at individual fields, the life sciences is a field in which the relation between S&T and people & society is especially significant, and for which investigations have been conducted in the various government ministries, offices and divisions concerned. This issue will be later discussed in Section 1, Section 1 of Chapter 1 "Present Status and Strategies for Life Sciences."
Since its foundation in 1988, the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) has considered this relation "between S&T and people & society" as one of the key themes that should be addressed in our researches and surveys. NISTEP has conducted a variety of studies, including among others: public opinion surveys on the relation between S&T and people & society, followed by analysis of the data thus obtained; international comparison in terms of social awareness to S&T; studies of influences of S&T on people and society; and surveys on public opinion towards S&T for improving quality of life.
For the key study results obtained, we published reports entitled "Social Awareness to Science and Technology" (1989) and "Comparison between Japan, the US and Europe in Social Awareness to Science and Technology" (1992). In these reports, we analyzed public opinion on the basis of the data obtained from the study of social awareness to S&T and pointed out, among others, that S&T is expected to greatly contribute to social developments and an improvement in the living standard of people, and that what is important for the scientific and technological developments is to contribute to people's life while ensuring safety. In a later report entitled "The Influence of Science and Technology on People and Society" (1994), we analyzed people's awareness of S&T, based on which we analyzed several new yardsticks, e.g. value judgment, factors and functions which are considered important to harmonize S&T with people & society, and we pointed out, among others, the importance of paying attention to adverse effects of S&T on people and society, e.g. effects on the mental aspect of people and their self-esteem. In another report entitled "A Survey on the Public Opinion towards S&T for Improving Quality of Life" (published as an interim report in 1995 and final report in 1996), we pointed out the importance of promotion measures in the fields of environmental preservation, health & medical service, disaster prevention and social welfare, and also pointed out the necessity of identifying the needs of people in daily living and of providing information regarding life-related S&T.
The current circumstances require not only studies focusing on analysis of data obtained from public opinion surveys but also further advanced studies which enable us to respond to social changes triggered by scientific and technological developments and also to address those social issues that are expected to be resolved by S&T. Regarding life sciences (including cloning technology), information technology, and waste & environmental conservation related issues, for example, studies which utilize new approaches and are based on specific cases and administration-involved cases, as well as policy proposals, are required. The present Policy Study was conducted on the basis of our awareness of these new issues.
2. New Approaches and Social Interest
(1) New Ways of Approaching Science and Technology
In response to social changes resulting from scientific and technological developments, there has recently been an increasing interest in a new research field called STS (Science, Technology and Society). However, its precise definition has not yet been established. Some people consider STS as "research and education on the social aspects of S&T from the viewpoints of cultural and social sciences" (quoted from "What is Science?" authored by Hideto Nakajima).
When looking back on its history, it is acknowledged that this theory originated in an attempt to introduce ways of analyzing various S&T issues from different angles, and was created in the 1970s in several universities and other relevant institutions in the UK in an attempt to inject new energy into science education (so-called SISCON: Science in a Social Context).
In the US as well, social expectations of scientific and technological developments that had continued since victory in World War II became questionable starting in the 1960s, which, together with the introduction of these trends in the UK, facilitated the debut of programs to study the relation among science, technology and society (STS) at universities throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s.
The main direction in recent STS theory with regard to what the relation between S&T and people & society should be, changed from the policy to upgrade people's understanding of S&T (i.e. specialists enlighten citizens) to the direction of improving communication between S&T and society and encouraging citizens to participate in decision making on scientific and technological issues. Awareness of the importance of information disclosure and accountability (i.e. the obligation of specialists to provide explanations to citizens) is currently well established.
In addition, when considering the fact that today, the disadvantages of S&T, e.g. problems of the global environment, bioethics, and international technological friction, attract substantial attention, it is acknowledged as being essential that all people from general citizens to public policy-makers understand the social problems related to S&T. The times are moving in the direction of accepting the reality of S&T.
Here, we should not overlook the role that 'Mode Theory' played in the development of this new STS theory. This made an attractive debut in the 1990s and was proposed in a book co-authored by Michael Gibbons (who at the time was Director of the Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex University, UK) and entitled "The New Production of Knowledge" (the Japanese translation under the supervision of Shin-ichi Kobayashi is entitled "The Modern Society and Creation of Knowledge: What is Mode Theory?"). In this book, a social format organizing scientific and technological activities is regarded conceptually as a 'mode.' Mode 1 refers to a format of science in which studies and evaluation are performed in accordance with values and methods provided by groups of researchers within the existing academic fields. The authors of this book pointed out the appearance of Mode 2, which is a new format of science which targets actual problem solving and social application. Mode 2 made its debut because there exist many problems for which the existing Mode 1 failed to give any explanation and these problems were progressing, e.g. environment related problems, medical insurance related problems, and so-called 'Big Science' which has become more significant in recent years. Mode 2 is a trans-disciplinary way of targeting problems. Mode 2 is a research activity format that focuses on the side of utilizing knowledge. The appearance of Mode Theory may make people more aware of the problem-resolving viewpoint when using many academic approaches (i.e. both cultural & social scientific approaches and natural scientific approaches) when they think of what S&T should be.
Evaluation of STS itself is controversial since scientists who function as subjects of STS studies have argued against the theory, while others have voiced disagreement against portions of it. Nevertheless, we need to pay attention to STS since this has brought new viewpoints to S&T policy studies. What is worthy to mention in particular is the possibility that new methodologies may result from competition between several different fields since the methodology of STS is characterized by its trans-disciplinary concept. Some of these examples include history of science and technology, philosophy of science and technology, and policy of science and technology, since in these fields such studies have already been initiated. In addition, novel academic fields which did not exist in the past are proposed, which include laws of science and technology, economics of science and technology, politics of science and technology, ethics of science and technology, and popularization of science and technology (refer to "What is Science?" by Hideto Nakajima). We consider it necessary to give considerations to these new academic fields when conducting research and studies of S&T policy, although we cannot yet identify their actual stand.
In parallel to the appearance of the above-described new academic trends, substantial changes have occurred in the environment surrounding S&T over the past 10 years or so. In the economic society, when facing economic problems in particular, increasing expectations have been placed on S&T to play a role in activating industries, and each country has formulated strategic policies one after another to support advanced S&T. On the other hand, there has been an increasing number of issues requiring international cooperation, e.g. patent and standards, and there is an argument that in the fields of life sciences and information technology, some limitations are necessary for the implementation of high-standard studies and the utilization of the results of such studies. For this purpose, it is very much required that S&T policies be decided not solely on the basis of evaluation made by specialists in particular fields, but be subject, upon their decision, to information disclosure and accountability and to reflect people's opinion. A substantial portion of recent S&T administration has been spent handling these new issues that were not taken into account in the past.
(2) New Themes and Approaches
NISTEP has been engaged, as stated above, in a variety of studies regarding the relationship between S&T and people & society, and considers that there exist many themes in diverse fields which we should study in the future. While giving consideration to the above-described changes that have occurred in the circumstances surrounding S&T, we, the 2nd Policy-Oriented Research Group in particular, decided that our study will target technological fields for which actual problems requiring prompt resolution currently occur or for which it is foreseeable that such problems will occur in the very near future. When NISTEP received assessment by the Evaluation Committee on Organization in 1998, the Committee pointed out that an advisory function is one of the roles of our institute. In order for us to fulfill this function, we believe that our institute is expected to address the above stated types of technological fields. In addition, we have to mention that since these technological fields selected as our new themes provide a relatively large number of administrative cases and that we may encounter legislation or systematization mid-way through the investigation, our policy institute, which is positioned in-between general academic institutes and administrative agencies, has the advantage of fully exercising an impartial mandate.
We also consider, of course, that our studies in these fields will build upon demonstrated findings and knowledge within the framework of the general investigation of the relationship between S&T and people & society, and will thus contribute to well-balanced research of the general arguments, which have been active, and demonstrations regarding this relationship.
Upon the decision made on our future study themes, we considered two major categories: 1) advanced S&T which is promoted primarily by the national government, e.g. nuclear energy development and space development; and 2) advanced S&T for which the national government takes a relatively neutral position to consider nationwide promotion and regulations. We cannot determine to which category individual S&T fields belong. However, we can expect that in the latter category, S&T studies produce principals, whereas the former category gives opportunities of application of such principals. Our Group therefore decided to first conduct studies in the fields of Category 2) and then, on the basis of the results thus obtained, conduct studies in the fields of Category 1).
The S&T fields of Category 2) are extremely diverse and we cannot therefore perform studies covering all fields. As such we have to select representative fields from a specific point of view then study these fields sequentially. Through the course of our decision making, attention was paid to the fact that "regulations" constitute an important part of recent S&T policies. It has been considered that research does not go well with regulations; however, when studying those S&T fields belonging to Category 2) which currently cause social problems, we have to consider regulations in almost all such studies.
The S&T fields belonging to Category 2) can be roughly divided into 3 groups in terms of how these studies are related to regulations. The first group consists of S&T fields for which it is considered socially necessary to regulate the studies themselves. An example of this group is the life sciences, which has recently produced hot debate in society because of reproductive medical technology and the creation of cloned embryos. (It should be noted that all fields included in this first group do not require social regulations for implementation of studies themselves, but that individuals want to formulate prompt action to regulate studies in some fields.) The S&T fields in the second group are those for which not studies but study results have a substantial influence on society and various regulations are thus considered necessary at the stage of applying such technology to society. An example of this group is information technology. (It should be noted that differentiation between the first and second groups may be difficult.) The third group includes S&T fields in which it is expected that study results be reflected in regulations. Contrary to the first and second groups, it is expected that in S&T fields of the third group, application of study results to the society is expected under certain regulations in order to contribute to people's safety and humankind's welfare, even before such study results have yet achieved an intended level. Examples of this third group are environmental S&T and earth S&T.
The relation between advanced S&T, the results of which are hardly foreseeable, but have an enormous influence on people and society, and "regulations" has rarely been discussed except in specific fields (e.g. regulations of nuclear power). It is therefore significant to organize general ideas about advanced S&T and regulations upon investigation of S&T policies. This is also significant in order to foresee various problems which may occur. In the present Policy Study, we selected life sciences as our study theme, which is hottest among the above-described themes, and in particular focused on cloning technology in the field of reproductive medical technology. In the future, we plan to study the other fields sequentially on the basis of the present study results.