Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 37
Appendix
Keynote Addresses
The U.S.-Japan Dialog on the Working Environment for Research in
Universities was cochaired by Dr. Roland Schmitt, president of Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute and formerly chief scientist at General Electric, and
Dr. Sogo Okamura, professor at lblyo Denld University and former dean
of the School of Engineering at Tokyo University. The workshop, held
at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, was opened with keynote
addresses by Drs. Schmitt and Okamura on January 9, 1989. The texts of
those addresses follow.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Roland] Schmitt
President
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
We are embarking on an unusual activity. Our objective is to see if
we can find new ways of cooperating in research to the benefit of both
our nations. Now, we already have at least four decades of evolving
relations in this arena; so it may seem curious that the topic is suddenly
of such great importance. But the reason is simple. Our two nations have
entered a new era of comparative strength and comparative advantage in
our respective capabilities in high technology industries and in research
in natural sciences and engineering. In the last two decades Japan has
37
OCR for page 38
38
emerged as a predominant economic force based in no small degree on its
ability to develop, produce, and market technology-intensive products. The
task we have in the next two days is to see how this situation affects the
modes of cooperation between our nations in university research.
Limiting ourselves to a discussion of university research means that we
are ignoring some of the most important issues of reciprocity and parity
between our nations, although later workshops will cover them. The distri-
bution of research capability among the various institutions universities,
industries, and government labs is different in our two nations. Thus the
improvement of productive research relationships between our two nations
goes much beyond the topic of this workshop. We might agree on new
cooperation in university research that would not, in fact, contribute a great
deal to the solution of the broad problem. So I would first like to address
some of the broader issues that surround that of university research.
We should start by reviewing some of the differences that now exist.
Graduate education in universities is on a larger scale in the United States
than in Japan. In 1983, the number of Ph.D.s in engineering awarded as a
result of graduate work in universities was 489 in Japan, 2,781 in the United
States. Masters degrees, similarly based, were 7,703 in Japan, 18,642 in
the United States. In this same year, the number of bachelor's degrees
awarded in engineering were about the same in each country, about 70,000.
These differences are a reflection of the fact that Japan has many fewer
graduate students in total in its university system than the United States.
The differences in scale of graduate academic research in the two
countries may, in part, cause the imbalance in flow of research workers
between the two. In 1986, for example, 23,334 Japanese researchers came
to the United States while only 3,633 U.S. researchers went to Japan.
The exchange of researchers takes place between all institutions, not just
universities. But, any way you look at it, the flow of scientific and technical
people and information is very one-sided today. The condition reflects the
realities of the past, however, not those of the present and future.
Japan's strategy for technical knowledge has been similar to its strategy
with other resources. Being a land of limited natural resources, Japan has
learned to live and to prosper by its wits and its energy. It imports resources,
it adds value, it uses and exports the resulting products. It has done the
same thing with scientific knowledge; importing it, adding value, using
and exporting it in products. But, importing knowledge is different from
importing coal, iron ore, or oil. Knowledge is brought back by people, not
in cargo ships or tankers. Thus, Japan has sent legions of people abroad
to acquire and bring back this knowledge.
The United States followed a similar strategy in the last century and
early part of this one. As those people who had gone abroad from the
United States to acquire scientific and technical knowledge returned from
OCR for page 39
39
Europe, they brought back new capabilities as well as new knowledge.
And these capabilities found a rich cultural soil in which to grow and
prosper our strong heritage of exploration, of moving into new geograph-
ical frontiers, and of pioneering. Our propensity for pioneering, added to
our new found capability in science and technology, resulted in an outpour-
ing of new discoveries, inventions, products, and industries, beyond those
of any prior period of history.
Japan, too, with its returning researchers has brought back to its
shores capabilities as well as knowledge. But those capabilities, lodged in
a different cultural environment, have produced a different result. They
have produced an outpouring of innovative improvements, modifications,
and new generations of products that have captured dominant positions in
world markets. In a sense, the cultural propensity of Japan for perfection,
for step-by-step improvement, was ideally suited for the style of innovation
needed in these phases of industrial evolution.
Today, as Japan talks of moving more and more toward basic research,
I believe it is an open question of whether or not the results will be similar
to the earlier experience in the United States, given the quite different
cultural soil nurturing the efforts. I will be interested in hearing the views
of our Japanese colleagues.
Another key question that must be answered is "Where will Japan
strengthen its capability in basic and/or pioneering research?" Will it
be primarily in academic institutions or will it be in government labs or
industry? Attempts are being made on all these fronts but it is not clear
that universities will be the principal locus of growth in such research. We
need to hear from our Japanese colleagues on this. The answer will Neatly
affect the conclusions of this workshop.
The broad issue that confronts us today is how to ensure appropriate
scientific and technical exchange between our nations, and the specific
issues of this workshop must be addressed within that context.
The toughest part of this challenge may rest with Japan. U.S. institu-
tions generally, and U.S. campuses particularly, have a long history of being
multinational, multicultural, and multiracial. Japanese institutions do not.
As Japan's science and technology becomes ever stronger, it will have to
strive more and more vigorously to ensure that foreign nations have ample
opportunities to participate in its system as full partners, as equals. In
past decades, Japan has benefited from its access to the research and aca-
demic institutions of the United States and Europe. If Japan now becomes
a leader in generating new knowledge, inventions, and discoveries with
commercial potential, it will want to reciprocate with open laboratories,
open faculties, and open institutions. The Japanese have had over three
decades of experience in extracting knowledge from Western institutions
C, J
OCR for page 40
40
that welcomed them. During most of that time there was no strong reason
for the Western nations to ask or pursue reciprocity. ~day, there is.
The present imperative for the West to learn from Japan has sprung on
us quickly and with full force. We cannot take three decades to learn how to
do it. Moreover, the West is faced with cultural and institutional traditions
in Japan that are not congenial to foreign attempts to become a part of
their fabric. Alex DeAngelis, head of the National Science Foundation's
Tokyo Office, has remarked on the "sense of distance and separateness
toward outsiders which is . . . a longstanding motif of Japanese society."
We have a great challenge and we do not have a lot of time to resolve it.
DeAngelis points out that for all of the extensive courtesy accorded
guests in Japanese institutions, `'as long as [this] courtesy implies always
treating outsiders as 'honored guests,' who by definition deserve better
and special treatment than everyone else, then courtesy will also be used
as a tool to keep people at a distance." Thus the job is daunting but
immeasurably important. And it must be judged by results, not by expressed
intent! It will not be sufficient to announce programs that seem to be
responsive if they do not in fact work. Good intentions are not enough.
Japan and the United States together must find and promote programs that
work because such programs will benefit us all in the long run.
This meeting today is one of a number of new activities that have
grown out of dialog between the U.S. Academies and the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science. It is also in the spirit of the 1988 U.S.-
Japan Pronto Summit agreement for further cooperation in science and
technology. Getting started on these initiatives on both sides of the Pacific
is important and we should strenuously try to make them work. But, should
any of them fail, we cannot allow anyone to conclude that nothing will work.
Instead, we must keep trying: the task is to find programs that do work.
The effort will certainly be beneficial to Japan's own interests. Appro-
priate steps to further internationalize its research system, and especially the
academic research system, will also strengthen those systems, jUSt as they
have strengthened U.S. research systems. Some of the factors commonly
cited as impediments to a strong academic research system in Japan such
as the dominance of the koza or chaired professor, especially in the national
universities will have to be corrected. A more congenial environment for
bright, young researchers such as Professor ~negawa will have to be
established. Greater accommodation of interdisciplinary research, easier
entry into entirely new areas of research, and more flexibility in industrial
interactions are desirable.
Thus, the imperatives of internationalization and those of a strength-
ened capability in basic and pioneering research are compatible and syner-
gistic. Alex DeAngelis, again, has summarized the objective well in saying
that "the primary goal should not be to attract foreigners per se but to
OCR for page 41
41
create a research environment which in and of itself will naturally attract
the best minds from all over."
A strong system of research that is accessible to foreigners, and that
foreigners participate in meaningfully, implies dealing with the language
issue. I believe it can be handled by additional language courses in both the
United States and Japan. Far more important is the issue of where Japan's
research strengths will grow. If basic, precompetitive research grows mainly
in industrial labs or in programs, such as the International Superconductivity
Technology Center (ISTEC), that are expensive and inaccessible to a broad
range of U.S. researchers, including academics, reciprocity will be hard to
achieve. Thus it would seem that strengthening an accessible academic
research system should be a high priority and it should be an academic
system tightly linked to industry. I will give other reasons in a moment for
why I think this is so.
The alternative-growing capability in inaccessible institutions-could
have a bad effect on both of our countries. Let us imagine, for a moment,
that at some future time the balance of payments for royalties and license
fees on intellectual property should reverse, with Japan becoming a net
exporter in this segment as it is in so many technology-based products. And
suppose this happens without achieving reciprocity in access to research.
Should that come to pass, I fear there would be a political backlash in the
United States that would make it difficult to maintain free, open access to
our universities a development adverse to both our countries.
This brings me to the subject of our own research universities. What
changes and issues are they facing and what will be the effect on future
exchanges between the United States and Japan? In fact, U.S. research
universities face a future of immense challenges and I am not confident
that they are yet prepared for it. The future will be less benign toward
these great institutions than has the past. And the fundamental reason is
that resources human and financial- will not be as plentiful as in the past.
Moreover, many universities are ill-prepared, in governance, attitude, and
management, to meet this future. Today, I cannot begin to cover the full
range of issues implied by these brief comments, so I want to limit myself
to the issue of human resources.
Today the number of high school graduates in the United States is
dropping- by one-third over a decade in some parts of the country. In spite
of this drop, higher education in the United States has been heartened by
growing applications to college, indicating a higher fraction of high school
graduates are going to college. That is fine for the moment, but there
are limits to that solution of the problem. For us here today, the more
serious problem is that fewer and fewer of these high school graduates
express an interest in science and engineering. Among college freshmen,
those interested in a science major have dropped by one-third over the
OCR for page 42
42
past two decades. And more recently, those interested in engineering have
dropped by one-fourth between 1982 and 1987. So even today, in a
number of schools where total applications are still growing, applications
for science and engineering are dropping. Thus we face the prospect of a
diminishing fraction of a diminishing supply of students going into science
and engineering.
And once in the "pipeline," as we call it, the attrition rates are high,
especially at the bachelor's level. We thus have too few domestic graduate
students in science and engineering and have come to depend on a strong
flow of foreign nationals for our graduate student population. And this has
now carried forward to the stage of young faculty and young researchers
in our industrial labs, where we are more and more dependent on foreign
born individuals to fill these. For example, by now, 50 percent of U.S.
engineering faculty below the age of 35 are foreign born. In fact, the
United States has become dependent on the import of technical talent.
This situation is getting a fair amount of attention these days, and it
may well be that, within the next few years, U.S. educators will develop-and
U.S. legislators and industry fund some good programs to change these
trends by increasing the numbers in the science and technology "pipeline."
But even the most successful programs will not turn the situation around
quickly enough to eliminate the dependency in the near future.
The net effect of this is that U.S. research universities must and will
continue to strongly welcome foreign students. And they have been coming
in growing numbers from the Pacific Rim- especially at the graduate school
level. As recently as 1980, the number of foreign undergraduates in U.S.
universities outnumbered foreign graduates by two to one. By 1987, the
number of foreign graduates exceeded undergraduates by 14 percent. This
shift has been driven largely by the influx of Pacific Rim students while
students from Africa and the Middle East have dropped. Thus, competing
with any move to limit access to U.S. universities by noncooperating foreign
countries will be the economic and human resource imperatives I have
described. How would the U.S. balance these opposing forces, should it
come to pass? It probably depends on how the public at large and its elected
representatives feel at the time. In the extreme case one can imagine the
equivalent of trade negotiations to determine bilaterally, country by country,
what the exchanges will be. It is a situation that I hope we can avoid.
Finally, among the many other trends on the U.S. academic scene
that might affect future exchanges between our nations, I want to dwell
on one: the relationships between U.S. universities and U.S. industry.
Support of research in U.S. universities by industry has steadily grown,
from about $200 million (1987 dollars) in 1973 to over $700 million, or
from 3 percent of academic research and development (R&D) to over 6
percent in 1987. Although this fraction is still small, its growth is indicative
OCR for page 43
43
of its importance to industry. Moreover, the magnitude of the support
is far from representing the whole of industry-academic linkages. Much
government supported research on campuses such as that of the U.S.
Department of Defense is strongly linked to industry. And universities
have been the source of much entrepreneurial activity-campus-originated
ventures, again R&D for industrial development.
For a moment I want you to think about this campus-based, industry-
linked R&D as America's form of cooperative industrial R&D. I know that
is perhaps an oversimplified point of view, but bear with me for a moment.
U.S. antitrust laws severely limited the amount of direct, precompetitive
cooperation among U.S. firms. But corporate sponsorship of academic
research, the formation of industrial affiliate programs on campuses, the
use of professors as consultants, sending industrial researchers back to
campus, and spinning oR entrepreneurial venture firms are all legitimate
activities. They have thus constituted the U.S. form of cooperative industrial
R&D. It has several notable characteristics: it is relatively open with only
modest direct advantages to the sponsors and participants compared to
others; it is relatively inexpensive to participate; and it is not usually highly
focused.
The Japanese forms of cooperative industrial R&D have been quite
different. Although such programs have not been the dominant factor
in Japanese success that many in the United States believe, there have
been productive instances. In part, cooperative programs like the Very
Large Scale Integration (VLSI) effort that ran from about 1976 to 1980
provided Japanese industry with research results that U.S. firms often get
from academic research in the United States. But, in contrast with the
relative openness of U.S. R&D, the Japanese programs were closed. As
I have already remarked, the current version of such a program, ISTEC,
though open is expensive.
This picture is another example of asymmetry in our systems that we
will have to deal with in promoting further exchanges. What does the
future hold? I believe that cooperative industrial R&D in the United
States will grow for two reasons: first the antitrust laws are now more
congenial to such enterprises and, second, the potential shortages of human
resources for R&D in the United States may give additional impetus to such
cooperation. Indeed, the trend has begun, with MCC and SEMATECH
being prime examples.
I hope that in the United States, this growth of cooperative industrial
R&D will continue to be tightly coupled to university research because
the linkage enriches the campus environment and the education of our
students. It will also help solve the shortage of human resources. But we
are going to have to be inventive in finding ways to preserve these linkages
because industry will be moving into areas of cooperation in which the
OCR for page 44
44
complete openness of traditional campus research may not be appropriate.
We also need to make sure that this growth is not at the expense of the
past productive arrangements and in fact adds to them.
But, either way, U.S. industry may look more closely at Japanese
participation in such programs. If it is not different from the past, and we
do not achieve reciprocity of R&D exchanges in some other way, then we
are going to have problems.
I would like to suggest that there are two Japanese strategies that
would contribute productively to establishing a balance. One, of course, is
to strengthen academic research in Japan, and, as Alex DeAngelis suggests
"the primary goal should . . . be to create a research environment which
in and of itself will naturally attract the best minds from all over." Doing
this would inevitably increase the number of U.S. researchers in Japanese
universities. But there may be a complementary way of partly affecting a
more equitable flow of R&D between the two countries and that is through
the kind of people sent from one country to the other. Heretofore, Japan
has sent researchers to the United States in large numbers who primarily
intend to learn new things and bring new research results back to Japan. But
Japan might help equalize the flow by sending senior researchers in larger
numbers to U.S. universities people who could bring the most advanced
results of Japanese research from industrial and government labs so U.S.
campuses. U.S. universities would be an elective way of disseminating such
expertise. This would be a means of partly equalizing the flow of research
that could be productive almost immediately.
In conclusion, I have tried to present the challenge facing us today as
we seek ways to increase the equitable exchange of academic researchers.
I have also looked at a couple of key features of the U.S. academic scene
that bear on this exchange and have made a couple of suggestions. The
challenge facing us is great, but it matches the benefits that would ensue
from success. If we and the subsequent workshops in this series come forth
with new ideas to improve the exchanges between our nations, both of us
will benefit immeasurably. If we fail to address the present issue and fail
to achieve the result we all desire, the consequences will be bad for both
of us. Failure will cause additional walls to be built around the R&D of
each country. This would be bad for both of us. We must not fail.
OCR for page 45
45
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Sogo Okamura
Professor
Tokyo Deny University
I am pleased to be addressing such an important and engaging
subject important because it contributes to human development, engaging
in the sense that it needs more attention so that research can flourish in
a fertile environment. 1b help us in our discussion of the differences and
similarities in the working environment for university research in Japan
and the United States, I would like to outline some aspects of the research
environment in Japan, including government policies, the culture of aca-
demic research, the research funding system, university-industry relations,
and international cooperation.
SCIENCE POLICY AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH IN JAPAN
Japan's education system was reformed after World War II. Since then,
economic development has brought about the expansion and popularization
of higher education. Increases in the number of students in higher educa-
tion have not only elevated Japan's intellectual level, but also contributed
to training the manpower required by industry. As higher education grew
more popular, what were once research institutions increasingly became
educational institutions. In its efforts to expand higher education, Mon-
busho (the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture) focused more on
establishing new universities in provincial areas than on promoting research
excellence. Through this policy several universities that were commonly ac-
knowledged as centers of excellence before the war suffered reductions in
financial and human resources.
Moreover, Japanese society's strong feelings against discriminatory
funding have created a system in which all universities are treated equally.
We cannot, therefore, classify Japanese universities as "research" or "teach-
ing" universities. As a result, university faculty are expected to engage in
research (considered an integral part of their activities) with "outdated
equipment and rundown facilities," and diluted research funds.
As of May 1987, there were 475 universities in Japan. Of these,
96 were national universities established by Monbusho, 37 were public
universities set up by prefectural or municipal governments, and 342 were
private institutions. Of the 475 universities, 288 had graduate schools, 198
of which included a Ph.D. program.
OCR for page 46
46
Monbusho's Science Council has held intensive discussions about ~m-
proving the working environment for university research. These discussions
resulted in two reports. Basic Policies for the Promotion of Science (October
1973) covered:
1. improvement and reformation of the research system,
2. expansion of research funding,
3. development of research manpower and research support systems,
4. promotion of international cooperation, and
5. improvement of the science information system.
Basic Policy of and Measure for the Improvement of the Scientific Re-
search System (February 1984) included:
1.
promotion of important science projects,
development of research manpower,
measures to meet the demands and expectations of society for
university research,
promotion of international cooperation, and
promotion of the humanities and social sciences in Japan.
Following these recommendations, an attempt was made to promote
centers of excellence in university research. It was, however, very difficult
to distribute the limited financial and human resources to many universities
and the attempt failed. Nevertheless, one of the most successful projects,
I believe, was the establishment of the National Interuniversity Research
Institutes. Most of these institutes focus on the natural sciences, particularly
the so-called "big sciences" such as accelerator theory, space, fusion, and
Antarctic research, but creative research in engineering has been rather
ignored.
CULTURE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN JAPAN
Many hypotheses have been offered from various fields about Japanese
"creativity":
Neuropsychology- the Japanese brain and cognitive patterns may
not be suited to creative research.
Psycholinguistics the Japanese lack of creativity may stem from
the Japanese language itself.
Cultural anthropology-the Japanese agrarian village mentality
discourages the strong-willed pursuit of individual opinions be-
cause rice farming was always done as a group. Moreover, ancient
belief structures were polytheistically ambivalent and tolerant of
other beliefs.
OCR for page 47
47
Rather than detail these and other hypotheses since I am not really
versed In these areas, I would like to mention that the Japanese people are,
by nature, fond of basic research. During the Edo period, which preceded
the Meiji Restoration In 1868, the Japanese government advocated a strict
isolationist policy, and international exchange of any kind was practically
nonexistent. Japanese academic circles were completely cut off from sci-
entific developments abroad. Nonetheless, the Edo period saw the growth
of some branches of domestic science. Japanese mathematics or wozan,
for instance, showed vital progress. Advanced formulae in differential and
integral calculus as well as analysis by matrix were invented completely
independently from Western mathematics, even before the discoveries of
Newton and Laplace. Moreover, some of these advanced mathematics,
such as calculation by progression, were learned simply for pleasure.
With the Meiji Restoration, however, the Japanese government re-
al~zed the importance of science and technology to industrialization and
emphasized applied research and development (R&D). Thus it has only
been over the relatively short period of the past 100 years that the Japanese
have placed high priority on applied research and development a minor
interlude in the whole history of Japan. Even today, pure basic research is
considered to be more noble than efforts in applications.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JAPAN'S RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Japanese industry has recently made remarkable progress, proving its
ability to adapt to changing demands and making the most of opportunities
in the world market. This progress, however, has brought about serious
trade friction. Japan has been criticized for using foreign technology in
the manufacture of new products without contributing to the store of
human knowledge through basic research. It is only fairly recently that
the Japanese government has come to recognize the importance of basic
research and the need for international cooperation in such endeavors.
The basic principles of Japan's current science and technology policy
are founded on a cabinet resolution of March 1986 called "General Guide-
lines for Science and Technology Policy." This resolution was based on the
recommendations of the Council for Science and Technology in a report
entitled Comprehensive Fundamental Policy for the Promotion of Science
and Technology Focus on the Current Changing Situation from a Long-term
Perspecave of November 1984. The Cabinet guidelines stressed three major
. .
O Electives:
promotion of highly creative basic research,
development of science and technology in harmony with humanity
and society, and
OCR for page 48
48
3. promotion of international activities.
What will this mean in practice? The financial and human resources
devoted to research and development reveal much about Japan's interna-
tional position in science and technology. Japan has shown tremendous
growth in both R&D expenditures and personnel. Japan currently spends
8,120 billion yen on R&D, a threefold increase over 10 years ago. As a
percentage of gross national product, Japan's total R&D expenditure levels
have risen annually, reaching 2.8 percent in 1986, approximately equal to
or a little higher than that of the United States.
A gap remains, however, between the ideals and principles set forth
in the cabinet guidelines and their realization. I hesitate to say that
the establishment of basic research systems in Japan will go smoothly. The
Japanese government has a far smaller share of national R&D expenditures
than do the governments of the United States, West Germany, France, and
the United Kingdom. Moreover, the ratio of public funding to total R&D
expenditure has been declining in Japan.
The number of researchers in Japan appears to be rising, but statistical
data on the number of researchers expressed in full-time equivalence is not
available in Japan. It is, therefore, difficult to compare the Japanese
R&D personnel situation with that of other countries. University faculty
in Japan are expected to conduct research as part of their professional
activities. Accordingly, even foreign language teachers who teach beginner's
courses and could hardly be expected to conduct research are customarily
counted as full-t~me researchers. Consequently, the number of university
"researchers," especially in the humanities and social sciences is probably
highly inflated.
Industry, higher education, and national and public laboratories claimed
approximately 61 percent, 31 percent, and 8 percent, respectively, of the
total Japanese research personnel in 1986. The number of R&D scientists
is increasing, but nowhere so much as in the private sector.
Finally, the Japanese government's budgeting system is extremely rigid.
Even requests for basic research funding must be accompanied by concrete
specifications of expected results. This system places a great burden on the
researcher.
Thus it seems that the Japanese government is making empty promises
to strengthen basic research systems with no real intention of implementing
them.
National universities and related research institutes are funded by
Monbusho, which covers expenses for personnel and management, research
and education activities, and the construction of research and education
facilities. Research and education activities are funded by general funds or
OCR for page 49
49
specific funds, such as special research funds for facilities and equipment,
research grants, and so on.
The general funds system has sometimes been criticized as inefficient
and wasteful. "Since each professor receives an equal amount of funds
available for general research support, some funds go to faculty members
who are not actually pursuing serious research." General funds are, how-
ever, more flexible than specific funds, which must be used as set forth
in the proposal submitted to Monbusho. It is extremely difficult to adjust
specific funds to research progress. Moreover, although general funds are
allocated to universities according to a standard formula based essentially
on the number of researchers and the nature of the koza, universities can
distribute them to faculties, departments, or individual staff members, based
on their activities. In practice, however, because it is difficult to evaluate
research activities across disciplines, general funds are most commonly
distributed according to a standard formula. This system poses another
difficulty in promoting research excellence.
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS
About a hundred years ago when Japan started to devote herself to
industrial development, highly educated researchers were hard to come
by. Most of them were employed by national universities and government
research institutes rather than industry. In addition, university professors
and government officials had more opportunities for study abroad than did
engineers in industry. Therefore, industry relied heavily on universities for
scientific knowledge. In those days, university engineering professors were
real leaders in their fields, not only in theoretical work but also in practical
matters. They maintained close relations with related industry and were
often asked to design and make specifications for new products.
After World War II, however, this changed. lbo many universities
flourished in Japan, and the authority and social status of university pro-
fessors diminished. Furthermore, Japanese industry developed its own
research and development activities, which eventually became remarkably
strong. Japanese industry thus became independent from the research
work of the universities. In addition, university professors became more
immersed in theoretical work and less familiar with practical affairs. This
attitude led to the disintegration of university-industry cooperation, partic-
ularly university-industry research interaction.
It is also noteworthy that the innovation process in Japan is somewhat
different from that in the United States and Europe. In the United States
and Europe the innovation process is usually considered a linear process. In
Japan, however, it is seen as a kind of network. In either case, universities
are responsible for basic research while industry engages in development,
OCR for page 50
so
production, marketing, and distribution. In the United States and Europe,
there is a tendency on the part of industry to expect the innovation process
to begin with the results of basic research conducted by universities and
research institutions. In Japan, the innovation process does not always start
in the research stage; it often begins in development, production, marketing,
and distribution. When industry recognizes the need for research during the
marketing or production processes, for example, it immediately launches a
new research project to solve the problem; it does not have time to seek
assistance from university researchers. This approach to the innovation
process may be one reason for the unexpected lack of university-industry
research cooperation in Japan.
Although formal cooperation between universities and industry is very
poor in Japan, significant collaboration has been conducted indirectly or
informally. Quite a few university professors become project leaders, ad-
visers, or investigators in government-sponsored projects or join academic
society research committees where university and industry researchers con-
duct research jointly. Industry also asks university professors for free advice.
In return, industry provides generous support to university professors by
making experimental instruments, research devices, and other materials
available free of charge or at reduced prices. Finally, since a number of
high-level managers in industry are graduates of engineering schools, they
can easily collaborate informally with their former professors.
These forms of cooperation, however, are only available to well-known
professors from first-class universities. In addition, rapid changes in the atti-
tudes of young people in Japan may make cooperation between universities
and industry even more difficult in the future.
Many opinions and recommendations about how to strengthen the
linkages among universities, industry, and research institutions have been
made, and the government has tried to improve and expand cooperation
between universities and industry. Unfortunately, however, I must say
that systematic cooperation between industry and universities in Japan lags
behind that of the United States.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
In looking at recent reports and recommendations made by various or-
ganizations, both in government and the private sector, there is at least one
common element- the emphasis on the importance of international coop-
eration. Japan once more is behind in efforts at international cooperation.
In order to carry out international cooperation successfully, I believe Japan
must become more sensitive to and develop a better understanding of the
fact that the world is made up of different societies, cultures, languages,
beliefs, historical backgrounds, traditions, and so on. Bearing that fact in
OCR for page 51
51
mind Japan must maintain funding mechanisms that are flexible enough to
be useful in pursuing a program of international cooperation.
Japan's international relations started only about a hundred years ago.
~day, she still lacks experience in international society. We should strive to
overcome this handicap and to learn from the United States. We would also
hope that the American people will keep an open mind and be sympathetic
to the fact that few Japanese get an opportunity to interact with foreigners.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
university professors
