Pressing Issues for Japan's Science Policy
NOYORI Eiji / Journalist
March 5, 2013
"I have yet to save a single patient" – these are the words of Kyoto University professor Yamanaka Shinya, who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine last October and instantly became a symbol of Japan's reemergence as a world leader in science and technology.
By successfully creating an iPS cell (induced pluripotent stem cell), Professor Yamanaka demonstrated how a cell could be reset into an embryo-like state by activating only four genes, as if turning back the clock. His accomplishment was one that overturned the very foundations of biological dogma and truly worthy of a Nobel Prize as a major achievement in basic science. Did he utter those words then, to simply express his sense of modesty towards his own accomplishment? One suspects there was more to it. Dr. Yamanaka had always been acutely aware of the reality in Japan, where it took years before the results of basic science were put to practical medical use because of a deficiency in the system. Perhaps his words contained a certain amount of criticism directed at this situation.
iPS cell research is expected to open up broad avenues of promising applications for reprogrammed cells, which could be used in regenerative medicine to produce healthy organs and bones that could then be implanted to patients, or in drug discovery to enable efficient screening of candidate substances. According to some estimates, it may generate 10 trillion yen in global market value by the 2030's. Meanwhile, research advances in leaps and bounds, and more than five years have already passed since the successful creation of human iPS cells. Yet, the Japanese government has only now begun formulating guidelines and making legal preparations for deregulation towards clinical use. Compared to Japan's slow start, Asian countries led by China and South Korea have been aggressively seeking to commercialize scientific technology in a united effort between the government and the private sector.
For example, China has been accelerating its pace of commercializing research in promising areas through industrial-academic collaboration by luring leading Chinese and foreign companies to locate in "Science Parks" established within the campus of major universities. South Korea has attracted attention by boldly reforming its government organizations. Under President Lee Myung-bak, the authority to appraise the science and technology budget was transferred to the National Science and Technology Commission, an organization that functions as the control tower. The new administration of President Park Geun-Hye will also create a Ministry of Future, Creation and Science, which resembles a combination of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. While the effects of such organizational reforms require verification, they convey a powerful sense of recognition that drastic policy changes are needed. To keep up with China and South Korea in the race to commercialize promising science and technology, Japan needs to delegate substantial authority to an organization that transcends bureaucratic boundaries and commands each ministry as the control tower based on a strategy designed with a comprehensive perspective. Japan should also consider giving this organization the function of directly advising the fiscal authority on its policy for allocating the science and technology budget, instead of negotiating adjustments with each ministry.
In a belated effort to strengthen the functions of the control tower organization, action is finally forthcoming under the newly-formed coalition government of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Komei Party. It will take the form of reorganizing the Council for Science and Technology Policy, which was created as part of the bureaucratic reforms of 2001. The council is chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of relevant ministers and experts, and while it has been given the role of deciding the direction of science and technology policy and adjusting the budget between ministries, it has been criticized for its inability to sufficiently function as a control tower. To address this point, the government is currently considering allocating a budget of several tens of billions of yen to the Council itself so it can take the initiative in spearheading plans for cross-sectional research. The government is expected to present a reorganization bill before Parliament soon.
With respect to state policies related to science, I would also like to stress that Japan lacks a system that enables scientists to offer their support to the Prime Minister and core government officials at the Prime Minister's Residence, etc. The framework under which a group of leading scientists swiftly offers professional counsel to government leaders in shaping decisions on science and technology policy and emergency response is known as a science and technology advisor system. Representative examples include the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology of the United States and the Government Chief Scientific Advisor of the United Kingdom. The European Union also created the post of Chief Scientific Advisor at the end of 2011, and introducing such a system has become a global trend. In Japan, the only example to date was the appointment of a Special Advisor to the Cabinet on Science, Technology and Innovation during the previous administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. It was never developed into a system for retaining a permanent advisor.
When it comes to scientific advice, the lesson we should remember with the greatest bitterness was the confusion that surrounded the government's response to the accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant that occurred in the wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Although then Prime Minister Kan Naoto hired a successive string of experts as special advisors to the Cabinet, he failed to unify the substance of their advice and lacked the level-headed, accurate judgment that is most needed in a state of emergency. The scientific community, such as the Science Council of Japan, was also slow in advising the government and providing information to the public regarding the diffusion of radioactive substances. This was in stark contrast to action taken by the British Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir John Beddington, who advised his Prime Minister and officials immediately after the nuclear accident that "there was no need to evacuate British nationals from Japan" based on the predicted diffusion pattern of radioactive substances and other data, thus avoiding unnecessary panic. It is imperative that Japan introduce a system of scientific advisors, not only for responding to emergency situations, but also for developing science and technology policies that are constantly updated with the latest findings.
Eiji Noyori is the staff writer of science news department of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
By successfully creating an iPS cell (induced pluripotent stem cell), Professor Yamanaka demonstrated how a cell could be reset into an embryo-like state by activating only four genes, as if turning back the clock. His accomplishment was one that overturned the very foundations of biological dogma and truly worthy of a Nobel Prize as a major achievement in basic science. Did he utter those words then, to simply express his sense of modesty towards his own accomplishment? One suspects there was more to it. Dr. Yamanaka had always been acutely aware of the reality in Japan, where it took years before the results of basic science were put to practical medical use because of a deficiency in the system. Perhaps his words contained a certain amount of criticism directed at this situation.
iPS cell research is expected to open up broad avenues of promising applications for reprogrammed cells, which could be used in regenerative medicine to produce healthy organs and bones that could then be implanted to patients, or in drug discovery to enable efficient screening of candidate substances. According to some estimates, it may generate 10 trillion yen in global market value by the 2030's. Meanwhile, research advances in leaps and bounds, and more than five years have already passed since the successful creation of human iPS cells. Yet, the Japanese government has only now begun formulating guidelines and making legal preparations for deregulation towards clinical use. Compared to Japan's slow start, Asian countries led by China and South Korea have been aggressively seeking to commercialize scientific technology in a united effort between the government and the private sector.
For example, China has been accelerating its pace of commercializing research in promising areas through industrial-academic collaboration by luring leading Chinese and foreign companies to locate in "Science Parks" established within the campus of major universities. South Korea has attracted attention by boldly reforming its government organizations. Under President Lee Myung-bak, the authority to appraise the science and technology budget was transferred to the National Science and Technology Commission, an organization that functions as the control tower. The new administration of President Park Geun-Hye will also create a Ministry of Future, Creation and Science, which resembles a combination of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. While the effects of such organizational reforms require verification, they convey a powerful sense of recognition that drastic policy changes are needed. To keep up with China and South Korea in the race to commercialize promising science and technology, Japan needs to delegate substantial authority to an organization that transcends bureaucratic boundaries and commands each ministry as the control tower based on a strategy designed with a comprehensive perspective. Japan should also consider giving this organization the function of directly advising the fiscal authority on its policy for allocating the science and technology budget, instead of negotiating adjustments with each ministry.
In a belated effort to strengthen the functions of the control tower organization, action is finally forthcoming under the newly-formed coalition government of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Komei Party. It will take the form of reorganizing the Council for Science and Technology Policy, which was created as part of the bureaucratic reforms of 2001. The council is chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of relevant ministers and experts, and while it has been given the role of deciding the direction of science and technology policy and adjusting the budget between ministries, it has been criticized for its inability to sufficiently function as a control tower. To address this point, the government is currently considering allocating a budget of several tens of billions of yen to the Council itself so it can take the initiative in spearheading plans for cross-sectional research. The government is expected to present a reorganization bill before Parliament soon.
With respect to state policies related to science, I would also like to stress that Japan lacks a system that enables scientists to offer their support to the Prime Minister and core government officials at the Prime Minister's Residence, etc. The framework under which a group of leading scientists swiftly offers professional counsel to government leaders in shaping decisions on science and technology policy and emergency response is known as a science and technology advisor system. Representative examples include the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology of the United States and the Government Chief Scientific Advisor of the United Kingdom. The European Union also created the post of Chief Scientific Advisor at the end of 2011, and introducing such a system has become a global trend. In Japan, the only example to date was the appointment of a Special Advisor to the Cabinet on Science, Technology and Innovation during the previous administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. It was never developed into a system for retaining a permanent advisor.
When it comes to scientific advice, the lesson we should remember with the greatest bitterness was the confusion that surrounded the government's response to the accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant that occurred in the wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Although then Prime Minister Kan Naoto hired a successive string of experts as special advisors to the Cabinet, he failed to unify the substance of their advice and lacked the level-headed, accurate judgment that is most needed in a state of emergency. The scientific community, such as the Science Council of Japan, was also slow in advising the government and providing information to the public regarding the diffusion of radioactive substances. This was in stark contrast to action taken by the British Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir John Beddington, who advised his Prime Minister and officials immediately after the nuclear accident that "there was no need to evacuate British nationals from Japan" based on the predicted diffusion pattern of radioactive substances and other data, thus avoiding unnecessary panic. It is imperative that Japan introduce a system of scientific advisors, not only for responding to emergency situations, but also for developing science and technology policies that are constantly updated with the latest findings.
Eiji Noyori is the staff writer of science news department of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
日本の科学行政の問題点
野依英治 / ジャーナリスト
2013年 3月 5日
「私はまだ誰ひとりとして患者を救っていない」。昨年10月、ノーベル生理学・医学賞を受賞して、一躍、「科学技術立国・日本」再興のシンボルとなった山中伸弥・京都大学教授の発言だ。
山中教授によるｉＰＳ細胞（人工多能性幹細胞）作製成功は、４つの遺伝子を組み込むだけで、時計の針を逆戻しするように、細胞が受精卵に近い状態まで初期化されるという生物学の常識を根幹から覆す成果だけに、基礎科学の業績としてノーベル賞受賞は当然だった。それでは山中発言は自身の研究成果に対する単なる謙遜なのか。それだけとは思えない。山中教授は、制度の欠陥のため、基礎科学の成果が医療現場でなかなか実現しない日本の現実を痛感してきた。上記の発言は、そうした現状への批判も含む言葉でもあったのではないか。
ｉＰＳ細胞の研究は、初期化した細胞で健常な臓器や骨をつくって患者に移植する再生医療や治療薬の候補物質を効率よく探す創薬など、成長が見込まれる裾野は広い。２０３０年代には世界的に10兆円規模の市場価値を生むとの試算もある。だが日進月歩で進展する研究に比べ、ヒトｉＰＳ細胞の作製成功から５年以上が経過したが、臨床を見据えた日本政府による指針づくりや規制緩和を進める法制面の整備はようやく緒に就いたばかり。日本の腰の重さに比べ、中韓をはじめとするアジア諸国は科学技術実用化に向け、官民あげて積極的な取り組みをみせている。
例えば中国では、主要大学構内に国内外の有力企業を誘致した「サイエンスパーク」を設置、成長分野の研究を産学で事業化する取り組みを加速している。大胆な政府組織の改編で目を引くのは韓国だ。李明博政権では、科学技術予算の査定権を司令塔組織の「国家科学技術委員会」（ＮＳＴＣ）に移管。朴槿恵新政権も、日本の文部科学省と経済産業省を足し合わせたような「未来創造科学省」を新設する。組織刷新の効果は検証する必要があるが、思い切った政策転換が必要との強い問題意識が伝わってくる。日本が中韓に負けないように、成長が見込める科学技術の実用化をいち早く実現するには、省庁を超えた司令塔組織が、トータルでデザインした戦略の下、各省を指揮できる強い権限を持つ必要がある。科学技術予算の配分方針を、各省との調整ではなく、財政当局に直接勧告するような機能の付与も検討するべきだ。
遅まきながらこうした司令塔組織の機能を強化しようとする動きが、発足したばかりの自公連立政権下で動きはじめた。それが２００１年の省庁再編で発足した総合科学技術会議の改組である。首相が議長、関係閣僚や有識者で構成されるこの会議体は、科学技術政策の方向性を決めたり、関係省庁間の予算を調整したりする役割を担ってはいるが、司令塔としての機能が十分に発揮されていないと批判されてきた。このため、現在、政府内では、数百億円単位の予算を同会議自身が持ち、横断的な研究計画などを強力に先導していくことなどが検討されており、今後、改組法案が提出される見通しだ。
また国による科学関連政策では、官邸など政府中枢で科学者が首相らをサポートする体制が構築されていない点も強調したい。有力な科学者集団が専門的な助言を政府首脳へ迅速に伝えて科学技術政策や有事対応の決定に反映させる。こうした仕組みは科学技術顧問制度と呼ばれる。代表例は米国の大統領科学技術担当補佐官、英国の主席科学顧問などで、欧州連合（ＥＵ）でも一昨年末に科学顧問を初めて置くなど、制度導入は世界の潮流となっている。日本では、第１次安倍政権で内閣特別顧問を登用した例があるのみで、顧問を常駐させる制度化は実現していない。
科学的な助言を巡り、最も苦い教訓としてとらえるべきは、東日本大震災の東京電力福島第一原子力発電所事故の対応を巡る混乱だった。当時の菅首相は専門家を内閣官房参与に次々と起用したものの、助言内容を一元化できず、有事に最も必要な冷静、的確な判断に事欠いた。日本学術会議などの科学コミュニティーも、拡散した放射性物質を巡って、政府への提言や国民への情報発信でスピード感を欠いた。英国のジョン・ベディントン主席科学顧問が、放射性物質の拡散予測などから「在日英国人の国外退避の必要なし」と、原発事故直後に英国首相らに助言し、無用の混乱が避けられたのとは余りにも対照的である。緊急時の対応のみならず、最新の知見を絶えず取り込んだ科学技術政策立案のためにも顧問制度の導入は必要不可欠ではないだろうか。
（筆者は読売新聞科学部記者。）
山中教授によるｉＰＳ細胞（人工多能性幹細胞）作製成功は、４つの遺伝子を組み込むだけで、時計の針を逆戻しするように、細胞が受精卵に近い状態まで初期化されるという生物学の常識を根幹から覆す成果だけに、基礎科学の業績としてノーベル賞受賞は当然だった。それでは山中発言は自身の研究成果に対する単なる謙遜なのか。それだけとは思えない。山中教授は、制度の欠陥のため、基礎科学の成果が医療現場でなかなか実現しない日本の現実を痛感してきた。上記の発言は、そうした現状への批判も含む言葉でもあったのではないか。
ｉＰＳ細胞の研究は、初期化した細胞で健常な臓器や骨をつくって患者に移植する再生医療や治療薬の候補物質を効率よく探す創薬など、成長が見込まれる裾野は広い。２０３０年代には世界的に10兆円規模の市場価値を生むとの試算もある。だが日進月歩で進展する研究に比べ、ヒトｉＰＳ細胞の作製成功から５年以上が経過したが、臨床を見据えた日本政府による指針づくりや規制緩和を進める法制面の整備はようやく緒に就いたばかり。日本の腰の重さに比べ、中韓をはじめとするアジア諸国は科学技術実用化に向け、官民あげて積極的な取り組みをみせている。
例えば中国では、主要大学構内に国内外の有力企業を誘致した「サイエンスパーク」を設置、成長分野の研究を産学で事業化する取り組みを加速している。大胆な政府組織の改編で目を引くのは韓国だ。李明博政権では、科学技術予算の査定権を司令塔組織の「国家科学技術委員会」（ＮＳＴＣ）に移管。朴槿恵新政権も、日本の文部科学省と経済産業省を足し合わせたような「未来創造科学省」を新設する。組織刷新の効果は検証する必要があるが、思い切った政策転換が必要との強い問題意識が伝わってくる。日本が中韓に負けないように、成長が見込める科学技術の実用化をいち早く実現するには、省庁を超えた司令塔組織が、トータルでデザインした戦略の下、各省を指揮できる強い権限を持つ必要がある。科学技術予算の配分方針を、各省との調整ではなく、財政当局に直接勧告するような機能の付与も検討するべきだ。
遅まきながらこうした司令塔組織の機能を強化しようとする動きが、発足したばかりの自公連立政権下で動きはじめた。それが２００１年の省庁再編で発足した総合科学技術会議の改組である。首相が議長、関係閣僚や有識者で構成されるこの会議体は、科学技術政策の方向性を決めたり、関係省庁間の予算を調整したりする役割を担ってはいるが、司令塔としての機能が十分に発揮されていないと批判されてきた。このため、現在、政府内では、数百億円単位の予算を同会議自身が持ち、横断的な研究計画などを強力に先導していくことなどが検討されており、今後、改組法案が提出される見通しだ。
また国による科学関連政策では、官邸など政府中枢で科学者が首相らをサポートする体制が構築されていない点も強調したい。有力な科学者集団が専門的な助言を政府首脳へ迅速に伝えて科学技術政策や有事対応の決定に反映させる。こうした仕組みは科学技術顧問制度と呼ばれる。代表例は米国の大統領科学技術担当補佐官、英国の主席科学顧問などで、欧州連合（ＥＵ）でも一昨年末に科学顧問を初めて置くなど、制度導入は世界の潮流となっている。日本では、第１次安倍政権で内閣特別顧問を登用した例があるのみで、顧問を常駐させる制度化は実現していない。
科学的な助言を巡り、最も苦い教訓としてとらえるべきは、東日本大震災の東京電力福島第一原子力発電所事故の対応を巡る混乱だった。当時の菅首相は専門家を内閣官房参与に次々と起用したものの、助言内容を一元化できず、有事に最も必要な冷静、的確な判断に事欠いた。日本学術会議などの科学コミュニティーも、拡散した放射性物質を巡って、政府への提言や国民への情報発信でスピード感を欠いた。英国のジョン・ベディントン主席科学顧問が、放射性物質の拡散予測などから「在日英国人の国外退避の必要なし」と、原発事故直後に英国首相らに助言し、無用の混乱が避けられたのとは余りにも対照的である。緊急時の対応のみならず、最新の知見を絶えず取り込んだ科学技術政策立案のためにも顧問制度の導入は必要不可欠ではないだろうか。
（筆者は読売新聞科学部記者。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟