What Tonegawa’s Nobel Doesn’t Mean

Reprinted from THE SCIENT/ST @l 1(25):9, 16 November, 1987,

In the wake of the news that That expatriate curriculum vitae, of MIT had been along with Tonegawa’s own critical chosen as the 1987Nobel laureate in remarks on the overemphasis placed medicine (See The Scientist, on teamwork, consensus and November 2, 1987, p. 4), an article seniority in the Japanese science by Stephen Kreider Yoder appeared enterprise, apparently fueled the ar- in the Wall Street Journal (October gument that this prize reflects badly 14, 1987, p. 30) under the headline on Japanese science. What “Native Son’s Nobel Award Is Tonegawa was able to achieve Japan’s Loss: Scientist’s Prize abroad would not have been Points Up Research System’s Fail- achieved in his home country, so the ings. ” The writer asserted that argument goes. Tonegawa’s prize is “as much an Drawing conclusions about a embarrassment as a victory for nation’s scientific performance Japan’s research community [and] from aggregate data on the Nobel illustrates the dire shortcomings of Prizes is difficult enough, but to do Japan’s research system.” (See so on the basis of a single prize is “Japan’s Embarrassing Victory, ” absurd. P. 24) If Tonegawa’s non-Japanese This conclusion stems from working environment is a critical Tonegawa’s personal history. Al- commentary on the deficiencies of though he earned a B.S. degree from Japanese science, how then shall we Kyoto University in 1963, he left the explain the Nobel Prizes won by, to country thereafter and has studied name a few, Leo Esaki, Kenichi and worked outside Japan ever Fukui, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, all of since. He received a Ph.D. from the whom received their education and University of California at San conducted their prize-wiming re- Diego in 1968, was a post-doctoral search in Japan? fellow there from 1968-1969, a fel- Furthermore, Tonegawa’s per- low of the Salk Institute from 1969- sonal style in conducting research, 1970, a member of the Base] as described by hls colleagues and Institute for in Swit- students, suggests an exceptional zerland from 1971-1981, and since predilection for independent work, then has been professor of biology at even by Western standards. In MIT’s Center for Cancer Research. short, to generalize as Yoder does

273 from the specifics of a single prize tural practices, the Japanese will and a literally singular researcher is likely make the required modifica- unwarranted. tions in their science apparatus. In The only meaning of this year’s the past the Japanese have proved in medicine is the ob- they can transcend tradition to reach vious one: Professor Tonegawa is a a well-defined goal. And in the past brilliant researcher, whose dis- Westerners have routinely underes- covery of the somatic theory of the timated the Japanese capacity for immune system constituted a true change. Yoder has perhaps misread breakthrough of revolutionary im- characteristically self-effacing com- pact. ments by the Japanese on the inade- By delimiting the meaning of quacies of their science enterprise, Tonegawa’s prize this way, I am not comments that reflect more a deter- discounting real structural weak- mination to change what must be nesses in the organization and fund- changed than resignation in the face ing mechanisms of Japanese of tradition’s impediments. science. Tonegawa and others ac- It is for this reason as well that curately describe, I am sure, the fre- Yoder’s portrayal calls for rebuttal. quently dampening effect that In seeing in Tonegawa’s prize all Japan’s strict hierarchal organiza- that is wrong with Japanese science, tion can have on the enthusiasm and Yoder is only reinforcing a creativity of younger researchers. stereotype—that the Japanese sys- In the selection of research projects tem is inflexible, overly uniform and and funding for them, it is the senior discourages inventiveness. More researchers who typically control and more, that is apicture of the past. what is to be done and who will do In fact, it is becoming more flexible, it. Young scientists frequently see varied and open to creativity with little opportunity or challenge in each passing month. playing seemingly endless support- Rather than emphasizing the ing roles. And along with their low “dire shortcomings of Japan’s re- status go low salaries. There is no search system,” as Yoder does, I question about the need for a more would emphasize that nation’s flexible system, one structured more recent superior performance, which on merit and less on seniority. seems to foreshadow a dominant But Japanese researchers and role for Japan in the future. I have science policy-makers realize this. just reviewed data on Japan’s scien- They know that greater flexibility, a tific output and its impact and con- place for individualism and cluded that if Japan remains on the creativity, and a meaningful role for course it laid down some 10 years younger scientists are all needed to ago there is reason to expect that it achieve the nation’s goal of attaining will become a world leader in basic a leadership role in basic science. research. (See “Is Japanese Science Despite the incongruity of such ac- a Juggernaut?” Current Contents, tions with traditional social and cul- no. 46, October 16, 1987, pp. 3-9.)

274 Information gleaned from the coverage. 1S1’s Science Citation Index Not only are Japanese scientists database, a storehouse of the litera- contributing more to the best scien- ture from the world’s most sig- tific journals, but their world share nificant journals, shows that Japan of citations has increased markedly. increased its annual output of scien- From 1973 to 1982, Japan’s share tific articles in all subjects by some rose 65 percent. Second among 9.8 percent per year during the major industrialized countries, and period 1978 to 1980. For chemistry far behind Japan, was the Federal the increase over the period was 7.3 Republic of Germany which tallied percent, for life sciences 10.3 per- a 14 percent increase in its world cent, for physics 10.7percent and for citation share over the same period. mathematics 4.3 percent. Compared (See John Irvine, Ben Martin, Tim to the performance of the United Peacock and Roy Turner, , States, the United Kingdom, the vol.316, August 15, 1985, p. 588.) Soviet Union, the Federal Republic A 1986 study, prepared by the of Germany and France during this U.S. Congressional Research Ser- same period, Japan surpassed its vice for the House Committee on nearest rival by a significant margin. Science and Technology’s Task For example, across all fields of Force on Science Policy, reported: science the closest to Japan and its “the hosting of Nobel-Prize-win- annual growth rate of 9.8 percent ning science in a country is most were the and the closely correlated with indicators of United Kingdom with annual in- citations to the published scientific creases of about 3.9 percent. literature, which reflects the overall Preliminary data of more recent quality of a nation’s scientific con- vintage from the Current Contents tributions.” (“The Nobel-Prize Address Directory corroborate the Awards in Science as a Measure of view that Japan has increased its National Strength in Science, ” scientific output substantially. In Science Policy Study Background 1978 Japan ranked sixth in number Report No. 3, September 1986, p. of authors whose articles were listed xiv.) in the Address Directory. In 1982 Since the citation data mentioned Japan ranked fifth. Last year Japan above reveal an increasingly influen- ranked third. In the past 10 years tial role for Japanese researched, one Japan has exhibited the highest rate can only assume that Japanese of increase in article output, well laboratories will be producing their beyond the rate at which we added share and more of future Nobel more Japanese journals to our laureates in science. ■

275