What is going on in Japanese Science and Universities

1. The key issues for scientists and science at the moment in Japan.
  a) To which research areas should the research funds be distributed, 
     and in what way?
  b) Young scientists have lost their goals.
  c) Are we doing anything good for the society?
  d) Young people are losing their interest in science.

2. Background and my views on these key issues.
 a) As you might know, all professors, associate professors and research associates
   of national universities are funded by the government, which is called basic funding.
   Some professors receive the fund without doing any research nor good teaching.
   This ineffectiveness has been criticized for a long time, say 30 to 40 years.
   Now the government wants more effective distribution of basic fund. It believes that giving 
   universities' presidents more power, called leadership, will enables this.
   Besides basic funding, we can apply for competitive grant (equivalent to NSF or DOE
   grants in the US) from MEXT or METI(the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry).
   These funds are distributed to fewer people in specified (priority) areas
   so that these fewer people have more money to work with.
   My view:
   People who received too much are wasting the fund on having many conferences.
   For example, the basic funding for my whole group this year will be about
   $20,000, which is about one half of the entire money we got three years ago.
   Competitive grants we received this year are about $50,000. These amounts
   are enough for our research activity. However, one of the graduate students
   in my group applied a grant to MITI related project on Information Technology
   and he received $70,000 by himself and he must use it in 8 months this year!
   Namely, he got more money than our entire group! In most cases these project 
   related grants  are wasted.
   This is happening in the university as well. The president now controls more money,
   namely the lost part of our basic funds went to the president, and was distributed
   under his "leadership". But in reality, his followers received the most, 
   which will again be wasted.
   This kind of phenomenon is happening all over the places. The problem is that
   although everyone blames the system for the ineffectiveness, the real problems
   are in the people, and not in the way the fund has been distributed. 
   It is hard to have a true leader in Japan. Most "leaders" try to use their power
   to benefit his associates.

b) Three years ago, the government suddenly increased the number of post docs
   to 10,000, which is about 5 times as much as there were several years ago. 
   At the same time, many universities reduced the number of research associate 
   positions (permanent position, more or less equivalent to research assistant
   professor in the US). Therefore, after 2-4 years as a PostDoc, they cannot
   find any jobs in an academic institute nor in the industry. There was a similar
   case when I graduated about 30 years ago when the government increased the 
   number of graduate students suddenly in the 1960's. When I finished 5 years
   in the PhD program, there was virtually no position in an academic
   institute. After 5 years of PhD course work, I did not get a job for 6 years, 
   thus I went to the US in 1979.
   There will probably be many "OVER POSTDOCS" now, as well. Moreover, retirement 
   age will be extended in many universities and thus young scientists cannot have
   bright plans for their future.
My view:
  Every reform that the government has tried to do was in the wrong direction. 
  This is due to
  (1) There are virtually no science doctors in MEXT who can take responsibility 
      in the reform.
  (2) MEXT consults only to people who get along with MEXT.
  (3) There are no politicians who know science and think seriously the science
      policy in the view of scientists.
  (4) Lack of philosophy why we need universities.

c) Many professors are still thinking that they should and could do research
   at their will. This is partly true, but society now knows science could 
   produce harmful results; the Atomic bomb, environmental problems (CO2 problem,
   ozone hole etc).
  The government thinks that universities should only produce what the society
  immediately appreciates, thus they set up Venture Business laboratories in
  many universities. Yet Japan is importing almost all of the basic findings 
  from abroad, in particular from the US.
My view:
  It is true that scientific research should not be interfered by the government,
  but we cannot ignore the consequences of the research. I think 
  we should be asked the product liability of the scientific research.
  The government has decided four priority areas: Life science, information and
  communication, environment, and nanotechnology. There is nothing wrong with
  encouraging these areas, but the majority of Japanese scientists will probably
  shift to these areas, weakening our foundation of scientific research.
  As you might know, most of Japanese scientists want to work in the area where
  other people are working, thus diversity of research areas in Japan is far
  and away below that in the US.

d) Every five or six years, government modifies its nation-wide curriculum.
   (Japan has a nation-wide standard curriculum for 1-12 grade)
  In each of the last modifications, they have reduced the contents of science 
  and mathematics. Young students are not exposed to heart of science. 
  Kids prefer playing video games to observing natural phenomena outdoors. 
  As a result, the quality of students majoring physics is constantly
  dropping, even in graduate schools. This is the same trend in any
  industrialized country.
My view:
  As I said before, Japanese scientists have to be more responsible in what they do.
  We cannot do science without regarding its impact on society anymore.
  I think we have to reassure why we need science and we must stop chasing trends. 
  If people recognize the merits of science once again, young people will
  be interested in science once again.
  It is not the problem of the education system nor the curriculum, 
  but it is a matter of liability and philosophy of science.

3. A summary of the Council for Science and Technology's new guidelines.
A Japanese version can be found in the following URL:
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/13/06/010607.htm

--Principle for structural reform of (national) universities--June, 2001
[1] Drastic merger and reshaping of national universities
  (i) Merger and reshaping on the basis of the status of each university and its objectives
    - Training universities for teachers---reduce the size and number, transfer  to local 
      government
    - College (like medical College)---merger with a big university, transfer to local government
    - Merger and reshaping should not be restricted in one prefecture
  (ii) Significant reduction of the number of National Universities
 -> Promote activities by "SCRAP AND BUILD" principle
[2] Introduction of management system like private companies
  (i) Employ specialists for management
  (ii) Effective and strategic management by clarifying where the managing responsibility lies.
  (iii) A new faculty employment system based on competence and accomplishment
  (iv) Detaching specific functions from national universities (use self-supporting accounting 
       system)
      -Business schools and primary schools will be first candidates
 ->Prompt shift from national university to "Independent Agency"

[3] Introducing competition among universities, based on evaluation by an independent third party 
 (i) A third party evaluation committee consisting of specialists and civilians
   -Use existing "Evaluation organization for university/Agency for granting degree" etc.
 (ii) Evaluation must be open to the public which includes students, funding agencies and companies
 (iii) Funds will be distributed among universities based on this evaluation
 (iv) Expanding competitive funds for national, public and private universities
 ->Promote the top 30 national, public and private universities to the world level.

--Action Plan for Structural reform to promote Japanese economy originating University--
                              June 11, 2001
1. Making universities in the world leading class
    -Competition based evaluation system 
    -Accelerate creation of new business originating universities
    -Change the managing system of national universities to those of a private company
2. Making Japan as a nation produces many talented persons constantly.
   -Educate professionals so that they are competitive in the world
   -Educate professionals who can adapt themselves to changes in society and employment
3. Rebuilding cities and communities
   -Make Universities as a part of city and community

My comment:
These are plans MEXT thought of to meet Prime minister Koizumi's plan for reformation.
These words sound very odd to many Japanese. It seems like a solution of an
incompetent student's homework.
There is no philosophy in it. One must think of why we have had the universities and
what was wrong in existing philosophy.
I think universities are a sort of safety net for the society and human beings in that
our wisdom and knowledge are conveyed to next generation and that we can cope
with any situation in the future based on wide variety of basic research.

4. Is it true that Japan's science leaders are protesting these
guidelines? Why?

I am not aware of real protests. The media does not report such protests, and
the public seems unaware of the entire issue.
The principle and plans are terrible, because we know that they don't work.
However I know many universities want to be on good terms with MEXT and
they will introduce these plans by any means.

5. What changes are being discussed? Which are likely? What are the
implications for science?

Merger of universities have already been discussed. In fact my university
Kyushu University announced merger with National Kyushu College of Art and Technology.
Many universities are discussing merger and grouping of universities.
Shift of power to president has already happened as the name of "leadership". 
Many universities are trying to introduce a new managing system.
Once MEXT shows a plan, the plan will be realized sooner or later.

6. In your view, are the changes underway likely to be good for science?
Why or why not?

I think it is not good at all for science. I believe the best part of the Japanese system 
of scientific research was the basic funding. Because of this people could do basic 
research without worrying about funding.
Of course with basic funding, scientists who do not do any research were able
to receive money. However, the problem here is not in the system but in the
quality of faculty members. The basic funding reduces pressure to get a grant, 
which is the big problem for young faculties in the US. I know very well of this
difference since I worked for both systems.
It will be the best if the government put enough money and scientists decides
the way it is distributed.
As I said before, it is difficult to find a true leader.
Funds are likely localized around the distributor's followers, degrading
researches in other areas. It will be a big loss to science as a whole.

7. How will the structural changes affect your field? Please elaborate.

Many scientists will likely change their field to a trendy one that they
would get them fund easily.
Thus basic research will be stalled in some areas, making Japan's science, 
contrary to the aim of the Japanese government, less competitive in the world.

8. Please tell me anything else you consider relevant. 

Problems in the universities have been pointed out since the 1970's when
the big waves of the student movement hit Japan. But nothing had been done
by the government or by universities since then.
In the past decade many changes have been introduced.
Three big changes are 
(1) demolition of general education system
(2) Shifting faculty members to graduate school 
(3) Concentrating power to president.
All these changes are based on the wrong conception of the problem: 
"the problem is in the system". But in reality problems are in the
people, not in the system!

It seems that the government wants to change something because the
public is asking for a change. Problems I see are
(1) Most of the changes are imported from the US: Admission Office entrance
examination, Admission policy, Faculty development, State university system
with many colleges or locations, etc. 
They import them without knowing the underlying philosophy of the system.
Picking some name without philosophy is the worst thing to do in the reform.
(2) The philosophy of the reform is unclear. Why were universities  ever
created? Why does the founding principle of universities have to be changed
now?
(3) Government pushed that we must get 30 nobel prizes in 50 years. 
This kind of numerical aim ignores Japanese culture and has no meaning.
As you may know, Japanese are raised to put more value on harmony than to
be independent, i.e. "Harmony is the greatest of virtues".
This nationality is not suitable for very creative researches.
It is rather suitable for improvement.
This is a clear contrast to researcher in the US I know.
Unless we can change our nationality (which is unlikely to happen),
the numerical aim such as "30 Nobel prizes" is meaningless.
It is not the matter of system nor big funding but of "quality" of scientists.

ホームページ に戻る.