Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, We Would Like to Begin the First Panel Discussion

MC(Ohto) Now, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to begin the first panel discussion. At this panel discussion, we will ask the panelists to speak on the East Asia Science and Innovation Area: Its Horizons and Hopes. The Moderator will be the young and spirited political scientist and also a member of the Committee for Strategy in Science and Technology, Professor Atsushi Sunami of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. To the right of Professor Sunami, we have a member of the House of Representatives, Chair of the Research Commission on Diplomacy and National Security, former Senior Vice Minister of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Mr. Masaharu Nakagawa. He has been a strong advocate of the Asia Research Area concept. Last May, together with members of our committee, he visited East Asia to solicit support for science and technology collaboration policies during the Golden Week holidays. I’m sure he will inform us about the DPJ policies concerning science and technology collaboration. Next to Mr. Nakagawa is Mr. Koichi Kato from the House of Representatives and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party. He has served as Secretary General, Director of the Defense Agency. He is a well-known figure in Japanese politics and has served as Policy Research Council Chairman. In 1995, when he was Chairman of the Policy Research Council, he was instrumental in drafting the Science and Technology Basic Law. He has also been instrumental in expanding the science and technology budget. He is currently serving on the LDP Parliamentarian League for Life Sciences. He is also passionate about the promotion of science and technology. Seated next to Mr. Kato is the former president of Ochanomizu University and current Executive Director of the Research Organization of Information Systems, Dr. Mitiko Go. Dr. Go is well known for her work in molecular evolution research where she has established methods to analyze the molecular evolution of proteins and genes based on three-dimensional structures. She was the Dean of the Nagahama Institute of Biosciences and Sciences, and has served as the Dean of Ochanomizu University, and also served as a member of the Council for Science and Technology Policy. She is an outstanding speaker on university education research in general, and she is passionate about international exchange among female scientists. Seated next to Dr. Go is an Advisory Member of ITOCHU Corporation, and Director of the ITOCHU Research Institute of Innovative Technology, Mr. Yoshi Matsumi. From 1997 until 2000, Mr. Matsumi was with ITOCHU New York. In 2004, he became Executive Officer

and General Manager of Innovative Technology Assistance Office of ITOCHU. He has served in several important positions including as a member of the Japanese Government’s Biomass Nippon Strategy Advisory Group, Intellectual Property Strategy Committee of Council for Science and Technology Policy. We also have with Mr. Tateo Arimoto, Director General of the Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society, JST. He also serves as Chair of the Committee for Strategy in Science and Technology. It would not be an overstatement to say that he is the mastermind behind the ARA concept. He has served as the Director General of the Science and Technology Policy Bureau of MEXT and also as an Executive Research Fellow of the Economic and Social Research Institute of the Cabinet Office. He has been serving his current position since 2006.

Moderator (Mr. Atsushi Sunami) Thank you very much. I, too, would like to thank you all for joining us today. It is the end of the year. And to the panelists, thank you so much for taking time out from your very busy schedules. We appreciate your presence here. As time is limited, I’d like to start the panel discussion without further ado. I would like to ask each of the panelists to spend ten or fifteen minutes of the first round to give their thoughts. After the first round, we would like to hear some discussion and comments from the panel between themselves. Then as much as time allows, we would like to open the floor to comments and questions from members of the audience. So I would like to invite Mr. Nakagawa to speak. He has been very involved in promoting the East Asia Science and Innovation Area concept. When he was the Senior Vice Minister, he was the driving force in promoting this concept. So I would like Mr. Nakagawa, a member of the House of Representatives, to talk about the present situation.

Mr. Masaharu Nakagawa Thank you very much for the kind introduction. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Last year, I served as the Senior Vice Minister of MEXT. I devoted myself last year, and this year I wished to continue with this profile. However, I was fired from the job, so to speak, and currently I am serving as the Chair of the Research Commission on Diplomacy and National Security, but I am also Director of the Budget Committee as well. So the challenge for me is how to

survive the current Diet Session. Of course, I need to seek advice from Mr. Kato later. That is the challenge that confronts me. To begin with, the DPJ after the change in government has been exercising our policies. The basic concept that we have upheld is that of the East Asia Community, and based on this concept, we have to open our doors to the rest of the world so that we drive change from within our national borders and place our emphasis on Asia. But, of course, this should not invite misunderstanding. What is the relationship between Japan and the United States? Of course there is an alliance relationship regarding security. Apart from security, there is other cooperation. Reflect on the past history of Japan. The collaboration with the United States serves as a core pillar. Of course, this is not to undermine the bilateral relations. There have been various issues along the way, for example, the relocation of the Futenma Base. This has been set back, unfortunately. There has been criticism that the DPJ has shifted its focus away into Asia, but this is not the case. We still place emphasis on relations with the United States as a core pillar of our foreign policy. We also wish to deepen and develop our relations with the United States, but, at the same time, we also look to Asia since as we look toward the future of Japan, our relations with Asia will also serve as an important pillar of our strategy as we open our doors to the outside world. Under the current Prime Minister, we have established a council to discuss what specific science and technology policy measures we should take to contribute to the regional integration in Asia. I believe that Mr. Shiraishi was also a member of this council. There have been many discussions, and I have also attended council meetings from time to time. I have shared my aspirations, and have talked about the necessity of developing mid- and long-term strategies for cooperation. The concepts of the East Asian Science and Innovation Area were a timely result of the discussion of the council. As mentioned earlier, I have visited Southeast Asian nations to explain the mindset of Japan, and to sound out their responses. In addition, there was a trilateral summit held on Cheju Island involving Japan, China, and South Korea at which a concrete proposal was made about the collaboration in science and technology. We proposed the creation of a common fund with which researchers can conduct collaborative research among Japan, China, and South Korea. Both China and South Korea have endorsed this proposal, and an agreement has been explicitly expressed in writing.

There have been discussions along the way on how to build on this agreement. Dr. Komiyama participated in the discussion along with young researchers from Japan and also South Korea and China to talk about their vision for collaboration in science and technology. This was a very interesting discussion, and what evolved was that Japanese researchers expressed an interest in basic research, and when asked why they were engaging in research today, the answer was that it was because they are passionate, they are interested, and they want to find a fulfilling life. However, the Chinese researchers said that they had a very clear objective: to contribute to the development of the nation, and they had very tangible ideas about the types of research that would be required. These ideas would translate into innovation that can be applied. Lying between these views were the South Korean researchers, which was interesting to note. I found out that even in the collaborative research conducted by researchers from public institutes there exist sensitive problems of competition and cooperation that can usually be observed in the collaborative research among private companies. I see that China’s areas of interest usually lie in extracting or utilizing expertise from Japan, and then applying this expertise in collaborative research that will result in immediate innovation. This tells us the issues we need to address when we conduct collaborative research with Asian countries. When Japan conducts collaborative research with Southeast Asian countries, regional problems would be taken up and the research would be conducted with a grant from Japanese ODA. This has been the general procedure in the past. However, when we conduct trilateral research among Japan, China, and South Korea according to the agreement, we share the cost for the collaborative research as equal partners. There is a model for this kind of collaborative research. It is the Human Frontier Science Program for collaborative research in basic sciences. The program was started with Japanese initiative when Japan was criticized for not having invested in basic sciences. Japan made a major contribution with other countries to set up fund for collaborative research, and the headquarters is located in France. This fund serves as a model for the pursuit of trilateral cooperation among Japan, China, and South Korea. When I presented such a vision to our audience in Southeast Asia, there was some hesitation, even in Malaysia and Singapore. If Japan will provide the funds, these countries express an interest in participating; however, when it comes to sharing funds, then there is hesitation. They said that maybe it would be better for Japan, China, and South Korea to proceed first to serve as a basis for later

discussions through which Southeast Asia might be induced to take part. This indicated to me that we would have to present our concept from a different angle to the Southeast Asian partners. When it comes to environmental science and technology or life sciences, I found out that it is important to apply the results of basic research to systemizing social structures, or rule making to solve local problems, or national strategies as well as to solving scientific and technological problems. For example, if nuclear facilities are brought to Indonesia, we can’t just talk about the cost benefits. We also need to think about guidelines or standardization to apply with IEAE guidelines. Also, if such facilities are taken to a community, there needs to be a mechanism in place to convince the community as well. All of these considerations need to be incorporated into a total package of technology transfer. During the course of discussions with Asian leaders, I found out that we need to develop a comprehensive approach combining social and natural sciences to conduct collaborative research with Asian countries. I now look forward to the panel discussion. Thank you very much.

Moderator (Mr. Sunami) Thank you very much. I would now like to invite Mr. Kato to make some remarks. Now I am remembering I have taken a class in which Mr. Kato gave a lecture on foreign policies at Columbia University. I have learned a great deal from him. Recalling that, today, he will be addressing the question of Asian diplomacy from a broad perspective that includes science and technology cooperation, so he will, no doubt, be addressing science policy as well. So, Mr. Kato, please.

Mr. Koichi Kato I am Koichi Kato. This is my first visit to the Graduate Research Institute of Policy Studies. In April of 1995, the value of the yen shot up to 79.75 yen to the dollar, which was the highest level in the past 20 years. At the time, I was the Chairman of the Policy Research Council of the coalition cabinet of three parties. The LDP was the largest party, so I was the head. And Mr. Naoto Kan came from Sakigake, Mr. Ito from SDP. We had three party heads on the Policy Research Council. I was in charge of having to collaborate with the other parties. At that time, the LDP and SDP were at odds, so setting a defense budget was a huge undertaking.

Whenever we discussed the defense budget, I thought that the administration would not last long. And the yen rose so high, how were we going to overcome that? We were worried that Japanese manufacturing industry would hollow out. At that time, we were consulting a higher ranking officer such as Director General of the macro-economy of the Finance Ministry. People might call it bureaucratic politics, but bureaucrats were intellectual advisors for LDP administration. When we asked him what we should do, he said that there are not many things we could do. He was the best and brightest man, and in charge of macro-economy of the Finance Ministry, and he said that there’s nothing to be done. I felt like a high school student who was abandoned by his tutor. Well I couldn’t leave it to the bureaucrats, and so for the next three months I had to do my own thinking. I came to the conclusion that we should base the future of the country on science and technology. I belonged to a faction called Kochikai, which was the mainstream of LDP, and has produced eminent politicians such as Hayato Ikeda and Masayoshi Ohira. The main policy of this faction was focusing on the economy with light defense spending. An economic advisor of the faction was Dr. Osamu Shimomura, who designed the high economic growth of the postwar era. I remembered he said that there existed a technology gap between Japan and the US, and this technology gap pulled the Japanese economy. He also said that starting in the early 1990s, Japan will have to put up with low economic growth, because Japan will catch up with the US in early 1990s, and once this catching up is done, then there will be no pull from the technology gap. That meant we had to create our own science and technology. There was a man called Mr. Koji Omi, who was a member of the House of Representatives. He came from METI and became Director General of the Science and Technology Agency. He was the glue of science and technology, and he grabbed me and tried to persuade me to make a basic law of science and technology. One day, the Ministry of Finance came to me and said that I should not listen to Mr. Omi. But I felt instinctively that Mr. Omi was right. The Ministry of Finance said that I was already brainwashed. The science and technology budget was around 85 billion yen, and I was head of policy research, so we discussed expanding the budget. The academicians would ask for an increase in the budget from 85 billion to 100 billion or so. I thought it would be no problem to increase the budget, but again, the Minister of Finance came, and said that the science and technology budget would be like a household budget, which would not leave anything after spending, while other public spending leaves bridges

and streets. So I thought the Minister of Finance might be right. But I also felt something was wrong, and wondered if there would be any convincing logic for the increase in the science and technology budget. I was asking around to find the logic, and one day, some academician told me that research and development produces intellectual property rights. I instantly thought that is the logic I was looking for. And I used this logic to convince the Ministry of Finance. Politicians have ears to listen, and regardless of whether the good ideas come from bureaucrats or the media, we will use them. And at that time I met Vice Chancellors of Tokyo University, and they said that postdoctoral researchers do not have research jobs, and so work at prep-schools such as Surugadai Yobiko. They are in their most productive ages of 25 to 35, and at the prime age for marriage, but do not have research jobs. The Vice Chancellors were hoping that the government would create jobs with salaries of 1.5 to 2.5 million yen per year. They said if we increase the number of research jobs from the current 3000 to 5000 with a salary of about 3.5 million yen per year, then the situation of Japanese sciences would significantly change. I calculated how much money it would cost and found out that it would only cost roughly15 billion yen. The number 5000 does not have a nice ring to it, and those young scientists need at least 5 million yen per year once they get married. So we increased the number from 5000 to 10,000 and the salary to 5 million yen, and named it the “10,000 Postdoc Plan”. The plan was actually approved and the project lasted for about five years. The postdoc salary was increased to 4.8 million yen, not 5 million yen. The second “10,000 Postdoc Plan” was cancelled because there were too many postdocs. I heard that private companies would not hire postdocs. Today, the exchange rate is about 83 yen to the dollar, so getting close to the level of 1995. I would not be surprised to see that the exchange rate eventually reaches a level of only 60 yen to the dollar, because American commodities have gone up by 30% in 15 years. I would not say it in public, because I would cause a big fuss if I say it. I don’t know the future, but I think that Hyundai or Chinese companies will produce electrical vehicles sometime soon. Globalization homogenizes manufacturing industries across the board. There is another shock caused by the high yen exchange rate. Sometime ago, Newsweek issued a special edition in which they claimed Japan as number 3. As you know, it was Ezra Vogel who published a book named “Japan as Number 1”. He was a professor when I was at Harvard University, and still a teacher I

respect. He said Japan as number 1, but now Newsweek calls Japan number 3. Japanese people are shocked by it. In terms of total GDP, the #2 and #3 have changed places. But China has a more than ten times greater population. Japanese GDP per capita is much higher than that of China. Then, why are we so depressed when Japan is called number 3? Why does Japan look like a country of downfall? It’s just because Japanese people waver. People let DJP take over the reins, but they are not managing well. But people aren’t ready to give the reins back to the LDP because the LDP hasn’t proposed anything new. People are wavering. Professor Kang Sang-jung from Tokyo University published a book titled “Nayamu Chikara (Power of Waver)” which became a best selling book. His book is about the individual power of wavering. Japan wavers as a whole. After succeeding in catching up with the US, Japanese people waver about what to do next. Japan is an advancing country of wavering. I think it is time for politicians to propose creative visions. It is time for Japan to become a nation of advanced concepts of science and technology rather than a nation with advanced manufacturing industry. However, Japan alone can not produce pulling power. We need international cooperation. Japan should create a regional collaborative mechanism for science and technology in an international framework such as Japan-China-Korea trilateral framework, or ASEAN +6, or APEC as Mr. Nakagawa mentioned. I think it a wonderful idea and send my special respects to those who promote the concepts. Actually there is a model for this kind of collaboration mechanism. I think that Mrs. Shigeru Yoshida and Mr. Yasuhiro Nakasone were great political leaders with conceptual power, and when Mr. Nakasone was Prime Minister, Japan developed an international funding mechanism for basic research called the “Human Frontier Science Program”, which is still working well. The program has its headquarters in France, and supports basic research in life science area with a 3 or 4 billion yen budget. I think they study mysterious mechanisms of human such as DNA or tissue engineering. So far, 7 or 8 scientists who are involved in this program have received Nobel Prizes. So now we’re talking about an international collaborative mechanism targeting a more concentrated area, East Asia or Asia. And I think that’s a visionary concept. It may take time, but China and India will catch up with Japan, and won’t be satisfied with just producing cheap cars. Ten years from now, the population of Asia including Turkey will become more than half the global population. Since Asian people have very high literacy rates, Asia will be the

only choice for the development of a regional collaboration area focusing on basic sciences. Of course, Europe is another candidate, as is NAFTA, but Asia is the pre-eminent candidate. If the funds can be put together for research, we can have big dreams, and 15 years from now, maybe we will be able to reconstruct the nervous system. Then an Asian representative can go the United Nations and say: “Come to an Asian Hospital. We can reconstruct your eyesight.” Wouldn’t that be great? We can say to all women distressed by aging: “Come to Asia. You can be reborn young again.” That’s not a dream I think it’s near reality. So please put together a concept to enable that. We, politicians live in a “yakuza (not-sincere) world”, but are good at getting budgets for great visions. Sometimes, we might ask you to pay consumption tax, but if it’s a great vision, then there is a common base to discuss among ruling and opposition parties. We should not tell scientists that they don’t have to aim for number 1. We try our best to help people accomplish their dreams. So please do not forget the LDP as well as DJP. Thank you very much for your attention.

Dr. Mitiko Go I have prepared a PowerPoint presentation, but I can do without it if we are pressed for time. I have been encouraged by what Mr. Kato was saying. I want to be reborn young again. Also, I was hoping to be able to fly into space. And with those dreams I have devoted myself to science and technology. He talked about basic science, and said such regeneration could be a product that Asia can produce. First, I want to present one case study from academic research. We in Asia have always looked to the West, but over the past 50 years, Asia is coming to be the center for research. The second point is that the Japanese population is decreasing, so who will be the researchers? I think the abilities of women are not being fully used. These are the points I wish to address as time permits. I started my studies in physics. I did post-doctoral research in chemistry in the US and had a job at a biology lab using mathematics and computers. Although I belong to many academic societies, the most important society is the Biophysical Society of Japan, which was started in 1960. So this year is the 50 th anniversary of its foundation, and at the beginning of December, we held a commemorative party. The society was founded on the notion that the

fundamental purpose of natural science is to elucidate basic mechanisms of life, and we are trying to elucidate what life is by using integrated tools based on biology and physics. The special feature of the society is that the society welcomes participation of various researchers from versatile backgrounds. Concerning the cooperation with Asian countries, I would like to mention that the society started various joint projects with China at its very early stage. One eminent member of the society was Dr, Ei Teramoto of Kyoto University, who is now deceased, and he personally liked China and had many Chinese friends. He persuaded us to organize a joint meeting with Chinese scientists, which started in 1985 and is still continuing. I was invited to the first joint meeting held in Wuxi, China. I think that the society is one of the rare groups that started joint projects with China at that early time. The joint meeting was held 3 times at 3-year intervals in China and Japan, and between 1994 and 2006, it was expanded to a broader area, and held 5 times at 3-year intervals in Japan, China, Korea or Taiwan. The society has been supported by donations and the joint meeting has been further expanded to Australia, New Zealand, the American West Coast, and India. In the past, we held Asian Biophysics Symposia inviting scientists from these countries, and next year, the same symposium will be held in New Delhi. As I explained just now, the Japanese Society of Biophysics has a very interesting history, but other countries also have biophysics societies, and they organized an international body of these biophysics society IUPAB(International Union of Pure and Applied Biophysics), which also holds international meetings every 3 years. Japanese scientists have been quite active in this international body serving as chairman or vice chairman. The membership of the Biophysical Society of Japan is increasing despite the decreasing population in Japan while other societies are losing members. The society targets new integrated areas, and attracts new members. The number of members was 1200 when founded in 1960, but is now 3800, which indicates that the membership increased 3 times in 50 years. Biophysics targets wide ranges of practices such as basic sciences and technology, and covers wide regions of sciences including physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine. This feature attracts young and active researchers to this society. Looking at societies covering the same disciplines in other countries, the US just calls their society, “Biophysical Society”. Probably they are thinking that their society is the universal one. The membership is about 9000, and one-third of them are outside the US. The US members probably number 6000. The counterpart in Latin

America is rather small with 600 members. The European biophysical society is not so big with 3000 members. Asian biophysical societies are now growing with 9000 members including Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Taiwanese, and Australian members. They are as large as the American counterpart. Of the Asian biophysical societies, the Japanese society is the largest; the second one is the Chinese counterpart with 3500 members. The Chinese biophysical society is growing rapidly, and I definitely think that the gravity of biophysics is moving to Asia. And it’s not just the number of scientists, but research of very high quality has been done in Japan. For instance, Dr. Akiyoshi Wada proposed the development of a DNA sequencer for the first time in the world (there is a story that his project was not approved by the Science and Technology Agency, which caused a delay in this area in Japan), and Professor Toshio Yanagida has developed a very sophisticated tool to observe biological molecules, which makes him a promising candidate for a Nobel Prize. Currently, Japan takes a strong initiative in this field. To which direction the society develops in the future is a big challenge, but I think that novel technology will develop in new biotechnology areas as well as the manufacturing of products with which Japan has been trying to catch up with the western world. Asia has a large population, so there is a large pool of young people full of energy. A friend of mine who is teaching at Shanghai University says there is a difference in attitude between Chinese and Japanese students in terms of enthusiasm. This is a quite shock to me, but we should stand in a broader sense of regional cooperation, and go to Korea or China to nurture young and enthusiastic youth with Japanese advanced science and technology. Another topic I would like to talk about is the support for women researchers and engineers. A trilateral forum involving Japan, China and Korea was begun three year ago to support women scientists, technicians, and engineers. The first forum was held in Korea, and the second forum was organized by Professor Tsugawa of Tokyo University and held in Tokyo last year. I attended the forum and discussed various subjects. The theme of the forum was “A Bright New Future for East Asia: the Role of Female Researchers.” I studied various statistics about women scientists, and found out that Japan has the lowest percentage of women scientists, about 13% including universities and industries. Korea has a slightly higher percentage of women scientists, 13.4%, than Japan. China has a different situation, but Japanese and Korean women scientists have the same kinds of problems such as quitting jobs when they bear and raise

children. When I was in university, with a grant from the Cabinet Office, I studied how much support is necessary to prevent women scientists from suspending their research due to childcare or maintain work pace during childcare. I am hoping that companies would support their women scientists at least for a few years other than support for infrastructure for childcare. For example, a company could permit women to work for fewer hours during childcare, or management would not give women scientists disadvantages for suspending their research due to childcare. Many ideas to support for women scientists were discussed with sympathy at the Tokyo Forum. In Korea, the counterpart of Japanese MEXT made a law to provide funds to support women scientists, and the number of women scientists is increasing. As I said in the beginning, the young population is decreasing, and the number of young people with science majors is expected to decrease in Japan. In this situation, it is essentially important to develop social systems in which more women scientists participate in the progress in science and technology. It would be a waste of resources if the talents of highly educated women are not fully utilized. I think that the government should take the initiative to develop environment in which more women scientists can play active roles. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yoshio Matsumi Thank you very much for the kind introduction. I am very honored to be able to take part in this panel discussion with such notable speakers. I have a rather different background having come from private industry, from a general trading firm. I’d like to address four issues today: science and technology diplomacy, Asian diplomacy based on Japan-US cooperation, private sector activities, and finally, the connection between venture business and small and medium sized companies. First, science and technology diplomacy should be discussed comprehensively taking into consideration various aspects. The ultimate objective of science and technology diplomacy is to contribute to the social and economic development of Japan and Asia. That is to say, the cooperation by science and technology diplomacy in Japan or Asia should be linked to innovation, which leads to the generation of new business and industry, and these new businesses and industries would produce new jobs and lead to economic growth, thus

contributing to the improvement of quality of life in the region. In order for this to happen, it is necessary for Japan to expand the current JST and JICA joint research project for developing countries to regional collaborative research and experiments, and promote them to joint projects and businesses. It is essential for the government, industry, and academia to participate in joint projects in a proper timing, and the government should promote the seamless development of science and technology diplomacy, which eventually will serve not only the interests of Japan, but also those of Asia as a whole. It is also necessary to develop human resources, especially young sectors with the ability tp collaborate internationally in order for Japan to promote such seamless and comprehensive science and technology diplomacy. It is also important to make talented and sympathetic Asian friends by inviting foreign students from Asian countries to strengthen networks with Asian students who understand Japan. Science and Technology diplomacy is a very important challenge that includes cooperation in science and technology, implementation of research results in society, education in graduate schools, and the development of human resources at collaboration sites. It should be addressed at certain organizations such as the National Strategic Office by bringing together the wisdom of intelligent people from government, industry, and academia. The science and technology diplomacy is a national strategic challenge which should be linked to science and technology policy, education policy, industrial policy, innovation policy, and diplomatic policy. The second issue concerns science and technology diplomacy toward Asia through US-Japan cooperation. If you think about the outcome of science and technology activities, it is obvious that it will be quite beneficial to Japanese industry and economy to take on science and technology diplomacy in Asia, which is growing to be a global market. However, the world is changing quite rapidly, and if we face Asia with the conventional viewpoint of a developed country versus developing countries, we might make mistakes. As you know, China and Korea are overtaking Japan in certain fields. If you take a look at the September issue of Harvard Business Review, you can see that the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship is moving from Silicon Valley to BRICS, from BRICS to Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, South Africa, Middle East, and Africa at a very fast speed. Asian or Middle Eastern youth who received their higher education in the US find chances to go back to their home countries, and

play vital roles in the creation of innovation and the development of homeland economy. They have built human relationships with their professors and friends when they were working for Ph.D or Master degrees, and these human relationships become an intangible asset when they go back to their home countries. Thus, relationships with the US are really important for developing countries. Last week I talked to some members of the National Science Foundation in Washington DC, and they said it would be more beneficial to the US to take on science diplomacy for Asia through cooperation with Japan rather than by working directly with developing Asian countries. I think that it would be beneficial to both Japan and the US if Japanese JST and JICA collaborate with American NSF and USAID. It would be beneficial to Asia too. From now on, we should think about research and development and business in the era of FTA, EPA, and TPP. We also should develop strategies for Japan taking into consideration that cooperation and competition, open innovation taking diversity from the world, and international collaboration among industry, academia, and government proceed at the same time. We are living in an environment in which there is no winner-take-all, and it would be a very important choice for Japan to take on science and technology diplomacy in Asia through Japanese - US cooperation. The third issue is private sector activities, and I would like to show you some examples. In the private sector, large scale plant businesses and resource development businesses have been carried out in a framework of international consortiums. In trading companies, research and development in science and technology, and commercialization of the results have been carried out through international cooperation during the recent decade. In 2000, I took the initiative in establishing an office on strategies for advanced technology in Itochu with support from President Uichiro Niwa, and we have been developing new projects based on biotechnology and nanotechnology. We have been working together with 25 foreign institutes and universities including Los Alamos National Laboratories, Columbia University, Pasteur Institute in France, and in Nederland as well as the Research Institute of Advanced Industrial Technology and Riken. A collaboration with an advanced material venture from Katholieke Leuven University in Belgium has actually developed into a joint venture business with Gifu Plastics Co. We also have established a venture company, Solasia Pharm, that specializes in the development of pharmaceuticals for cancer in

collaboration with the world’s largest healthcare venture capital, MPM. Solasia Pharma now has been preparing for clinical studies in China, Korea and Taiwan. In the area of green innovation, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi Materials are working with Japanese trading and foreign companies. Itochu also is developing various projects including water and smart community projects in China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore in collaboration with American and French companies as well as Japanese companies, thus trying to contribute to economic growth in Asia. Unlike traditional businesses such as exporting tools and equipments, we conduct research, do social experiments, and implement projects in collaboration with Asian counterparts in order to contribute to the development of Asia. We have come to an era in which there is no winner-take-all when it comes to social infrastructure and clean energy areas. International collaboration is indispensable in private business, and the government-private collaboration should be promoted since security issues are often involved. Finally, I would like to talk about innovation and venture and SME (small and medium sized enterprises). Under the initiative of Korean president Lee Myung-bak, the first G-20 business summit was held in Seoul last month, and I attended the summit with Mr. Kobayashi, Chairman of ITOCHU. The business summit left a strong impression that the center of economic activities is shifting to the developing countries, although members of the G20 summit including Prime Minister Kan and President Medvedev of Russia attended the summit. Since 2008, the world has been focusing on innovation based on science and technology in order to find a way to recover from the international financial crisis, and to develop measure for global challenges. Above all, a special emphasis is placed on nurturing novel ventures and SMEs, and discussion at the summit was compiled as a policy proposal. The policy proposal includes the establishment of SME support centers, the creation of a large scale venture capital fund based on multilateral cooperation and government grants, the participation of SMEs in research and development and innovation based on the industry-university collaboration, and the grant from multilateral governments funding for the development of novel technology by SMEs. The support for and nurture of ventures and SMEs become important measures for the promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship, and many countries recognize that these measures should be implemented through regional cooperation as well as by the effort of

individual countries. I hope this will help you understand the importance of regional collaboration in science and technology. Thank you very much.

Mr. Arimoto For the last two years, I have been supported by the Takeda Foundation to chair the secretariat, and I am very, very happy that we are able to have this symposium. There are three points that I would like to discuss. The first point has already been mentioned by Mr. Nakagawa, but in my own words, the international collaboration by Japanese is like independently selling a unit item loose or by the piece, whether it is scientific or business activities. There is no system involved in the international collaboration by Japanese. Many Japanese universities conduct collaborative research, but they are not based on total strategies or visions to elevate university values, nor related to any activities of other universities. As Mr. Kato mentioned in this panel discussion, Japanese now need the power to create new visions and concepts, and I think that the discussion of the Asia Research Area will provide a great opportunity to change the mindset of Japan. The second point is about the Human Frontier Science Program as mentioned by both Mr. Nakagawa and Mr. Kato. The Human Frontier Science Program, whose headquarters is located in Strasburg, France, was established during the 1980’s when there was tremendous international friction brought about by the increase in exports by Japanese companies. Japan was being accused of developing competitive technologies using basic knowledge in science and technology created in Western countries. At that time Prime Minister Nakasone initiated this program, and METI and the Science and Technology Agency (STA) were the core drivers. I was in charge of this project at the STA, and spent three and a half years working on this project. There was no email in those days, but only telephones and faxes. There was a time difference among the participating countries, so you would telephone or send a fax whether at midnight or early in the morning. That was good training. The project was at first negotiated by government officers of the participating countries, but I realized that government-to-government communication was not successful because governments had the national power on their backs, and it was difficult to build trust. We set up an international advisory council to which two or three top scientists and wise people were invited from each country after one and a half years we started this project. It’s called track 2 in diplomatic language. This

advisory group was very helpful. We discussed plans and systems of the project for a year or so without any progress, and finally a turning point came. In the beginning, foreign members said that it was your problem. After a year and a half, John Cowdery Kendrew, a Nobel laureate from the UK who served as president of international academic meetings, said that it was our problem. He said that let’s think together. That was the turning point. After that, the structure of the program, including multi-funding, peer review, and international networking systems, were smoothly developed. We should consider the same kind of approach to create the Asia Research Area. At the final moment, the government should take an initiative, but trust building should come first. The third point is that not only economic activities, but also science activities are expanding in Asia and also in the Islamic world. Top class scientists in the western science society have mixed views on this trend. Some of them are concerned and worry. They are wondering if science can take its firm root in Asia where democracy is not mature enough. They have the same kind of concern that was written in the Diary of Erwin von Baelz in the early Meiji Era. That is the reason that an open-ended discussion is needed involving not only Asia, but also inviting Europe and America. In this way we will be able to develop a mutually benefiting research area in Asia. Finally, we will need a great deal of energy, but it will be a necessary investment. We should raise human resources during the development process of the Asia Research Area. If you go abroad and attend international scientific meetings, you will see foreign scientists who can discuss not only science, but also programs and society. I think that it is our challenge to develop young people to be this kind of scientist. I think that the process of creating the Asian Research Area will provide a great opportunity to raise this kind of human resources, global human resources in Japan. Thank you very much your attention.

Mr. Sunami Thank you. I think we started this panel late, and Mr. Nakagawa will have to leave us at 3:30. So the panel is to wrap up at 3:30. So please think about the questions or comments you would like to share. And before opening the floor, I would like to ask the panelists to return. Mr. Nakagawa, from the government perspective, what would your comment be?

Mr. Nakagawa We need your support. We are currently in budget deliberations to create the fund. For the time being, in terms of the size of the budget, it’s a mere 100 or 200 million yen. In Cheju, Japan wanted to start with two or three billion yen, and that was the proposal. However, China and Korea would not agree. Especially, China said that they could not commit unless the details of the program are clarified. This was the discussion there, and that’s why we are starting with that amount of funds. I am hoping that we can get together and create momentum to push China and Korea to come on board at the same level. Secondly, it is necessary to conduct exchange activities as well as collaborative research. Specifically, we should conduct international exchange in higher education among Japan, China and Korea utilizing the credit transfer system and the assurance of quality of classes. It is called a Campus Asia initiative. Another thing I would like to talk about is education in English at Japanese universities. We have already started a project to establish international education centers in Japan, Global 30, and 13 centers are already approved. At the center, all classes and courses are given in English, but they do not have enough Japanese teachers who can give lectures in English, and they are soliciting lecturers from outside Japan. This seems a bit strange, and I think that we should discuss better ways to teach classes in English at universities. Conversely, we should think to develop systems that allow foreign students or researchers to take Japanese lessons and Japanese teachers to take English lessons. We have set up projects to make strategies for internationalization for Japanese education at the Agency for Cultural Affairs and MEXT, because there is no systematic framework for Japanese education for foreign students. The Agency for Cultural Affairs has the National Language Department where they consider usage of Japanese language, but they don’t consider Japanese language education for foreigners. MEXT needs a Japanese education department and they have set a budget to establish a promotion office for Japanese education. We have Japanese language schools for foreigners in Japan. To my surprise, they are not under the administration of MEXT but under the administration of the Ministry of Justice, because foreign students need visas for admission to Japanese language schools. In general, MEXT is responsible for the quality of education in Japan. MEXT is now working on a project to

develop systems for quality assurance and systemization of Japanese education both in and outside Japan. In addition, we should think about nurturing Japanese experts in Asian affairs. We have been trying to receive foreign students from China and Korea; however, we do not have enough Japanese students who have actually gone abroad to become experts in foreign countries. We should think about giving incentives for Japanese youth who would like to go abroad to study, and we are also working on a project for that too. To be more precise, I am proposing a reverse JET program, that is, to send Japanese youths to Japanese language schools in foreign countries. In many Asian high schools, they teach Japanese language, and we should send Japanese youths there. Then, these Japanese youths who went abroad would become fans and experts of the countries where they stayed. Mr. Michael Green, one of the contact persons in Japanese affairs in the US, is a typical example. A simple reason for him to have become a contact person in Japanese affairs is that he came to Japan with the JET program. He came to Japan to teach English, understood Japanese culture during his stay, married a Japanese woman, and went back home to become a contact person in Japanese affairs. In this sense, I think that the JET program is a very good one. I propose a reverse JET program in which Japanese youths go to Asian countries to teach Japanese language. They might be interested in Asian cultures and become experts of Asian countries. MEXT now has these kinds of programs with budgets, and I am hoping that the audience here will understand and support these activities.

Mr. Sunami Thank you very much. In the area of science and technology, there has been a lot of discussion about budget cuts and no positive discussion for promoting activities in science and technology. I am hoping that the government will take more positive measures for science and technology that will encourage Japanese society. I believe we still have time for one or two questions from the audience.

Audience member My name is Arora, and I’ve lived in Japan for 41 years. I worked for GE for many years in Japan. I came to Japan as a Hitachi trainee to learn television

engineering and technology. Since I have been living in Japan for many years and doing business with China and other countries, I think I know a bit about Japanese culture. I have two questions. First, it’s about language. In terms of technology and ODA, Japan is in many ways playing a central role in the world. Whenever they find something good in foreign countries, they bring it to Japan and translate the contents into Japanese so that all Japanese know about them. On the other hand, while there are many good things in Japan, people in other countries don’t know much about them, because they are not translated into their languages. I think there exists an information imbalance between Japanese and foreign people. As Mr. Nakagawa mentioned, if we want foreign students to come to Japan, we should have English media in Japan. NHK TV has channels 1 and 3. I propose that NHK channel 3 be broadcast in English 24 hours a day. That’s an idea though. China has CCPBQ channel which shows world news as well as political propaganda in English 24 hours a day. If Japan had an English TV channel, it would have a strong effect on foreigners who want to know about Japan. I strongly hope that the Japanese government will consider the possibility of having an English TV channel. Another thing is planning and realization of today’s discussions. I think we have discussed many good ideas, and we should make specific plans for them to develop.

Mr. Sunami Any other questions? Mr. Nakagawa has to leave us now. Thank you, Mr. Nakagawa. There is a question about English as a bearer of information about Japan. Dr. Go, do you have any comments?

Dr. Go I am really in support of your idea, because you have to use English to teach at a university. We have to hire foreign teachers because we don’t have enough Japanese teachers who can use English fluently. This is an urgent problem to be addressed quickly. Perhaps present teachers should take a sabbatical leave for one year to take English training. And as you say, television would be the best medium to transfer information on Japan to foreigners. Talking about teaching Japanese in foreign countries, Ochanomizu University, where I was, has many exchange treaties with universities in Thailand, and we have a Japanese language course at Ochanomizu University. Asian students who graduate from the course at Ochanomizu University return to their home countries and teach

Japanese language there. There are also Japanese students who have completed the course and are teaching Japanese in Asian countries. When I visited Thailand, many of those graduates came and greeted me.

Mr. Sunami I am going to finish this panel discussion after I take comments from Mr. Matsumi and Mr, Arimoto. So Mr. Matsumi and Mr. Arimoto, would you like to comment on the ideas that have been put forward?

Mr. Matsumi I resided in New York for 20 years, and there are dozens of languages broadcast on TV in New York. In fact, NHK and Itochu have made a Japanese TV channel for Japanese who live in the US. The same thing needs to be done here in Japan to nurture diversity. This is my last comment. Whether it’s innovation, or science and technology, or strengthening of Japanese industrial power, if we discuss only among Japanese, we will be left behind from the international competition. Whether it’s business, or politics, or academic activities, it will be really important to make a comprehensive plan to increase diversity and take specific measures. We should increase diversity as much as possible by hiring foreigners and introducing overseas knowledge into business or research. Thank you very much.

Mr. Arimoto As I mentioned before, global human resources are those who talk in “Globish”. It doesn’t have to be King’s English. One of the summer issues of Newsweek wrote that there are about 3 billion people who speak in “Globish”, and only four hundred or five hundred million people speak in King’s English or something, and Globish speaking people have more influence than they. I am not saying that we should not use Japanese, but if you speak Globish, then you can see things from different angles, and can develop new concepts or think systematically. Newsweek admits it is OK with speaking in Globish. They speak Globish in India, and also in Singapore. That’s my comment. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sunami I think that diversity will be the essential background not only for innovation but also for what we have to do to create the Asian Research Area. With this, I would like to finish this panel. I would like to thank the panelists for the active discussion.