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 22
5 Possible Approaches to Expanding Access Differences in the R&D structures and capabilities of U.S. and Japanese research in biotechnology and optoelectronics dictate that the possible solutions to remedy asymmetries between Japan and the United States will differ. In optoelectronics, logical steps are binational and institutional. The establishment of a binational research consortium for optoelectronics was discussed by participants at the U.S.-Japan meeting. In biotechnology, where the central issues are intellectual property protection and the limited out-licensing of Japanese technology, improved access to Japanese universities appears to be more important. A consensus emerged from the U.S.-Japan discussions that both sides must take concrete steps to make fundamental changes necessary to address the asymmetries. Japan must learn how to transmit ideas and information. The United States must learn how to receive by cultivating receptivity to foreign- generated ideas and information. U.S. technical personnel must step up their efforts to learn Japanese, follow the Japanese-language technical literature, and spend time at Japanese laboratories. These are fast and necessary steps toward cultivating a deeper and more broadly based understanding of Japanese scientific personnel and institutions. Furthermore, incentives should be established by U.S. industry and government labs as well as academia to reward those who spend time at Japanese laboratories by making full use of their knowledge and experience. . The internationalization (kokusai-ka) of Japanese science and technology must take on a deep substantive meaning, showing practical results. This means doing 22
OCR for page 22
23 more across the board to heighten Japanese efforts and awareness to make personnel and laboratories more accessible to foreign researchers. It means avoiding constant references to the "uniqueness" of Japanese structures and systems in favor of practical measures designed to enhance cooperation. At the conclusion of the U.S.-Japan meeting, both sides agreed that a broad dilemma is posed by the fact that Japan's R&D system has worked well for Japanese industry. There is, therefore, considerable "built-in" resistance to making significant changes. However, from a broader standpoint, the dangers of doing nothing are great. Political pressure has mounted to the point where restrictions on the U.S. market and technology could result if concerted and timely action is not taken. From the Japanese perspective, the United States has yet to adequately acknowledge the changes made over the past five years. Nevertheless, the need to work energetically to develop innovative approaches should also be emphasized. Recognizing the importance of the U.S.-Japan relationship and the role that science and technology can play in sustaining it, at the U.S.-Japan meeting both sides expressed a strong commitment to solving the problems of access and creating new modes for mutually beneficial cooperation in precompetitive research. In developing the following proposed solutions, participants from both countries agreed on the value of considering solutions in a multinational context. 1. Binational consortium. The United States and Japan could form a binational consortium in optoelectronics. In order to encourage optimal reciprocity, such a consortium could be comprised of two separate centers based in Japan and the United States, linked by state-of-the-art communications equipment. Each center could be codirected by an American and Japanese. The staff could work on a common research agenda, focusing on specific areas of fundamental research having broad applications, such as advanced optoelectronic materials (processing technology for optointegrated circuits) or optoelectronic devices (processing technology for display devices or silicon etching). In such areas, both countries could learn. From the Japanese perspective, the U.S. participants should include representatives of American industry.24 Establishment of a consortium would also require mutual agreement on a satisfactory arrangement regarding intellectual property nghts. 2. New biotechnology liaison institutions. In the field of biotechnology, the formation of new institutions may be required to facilitate access to cutt~ng-edge research carried out by Japanese university professors in fields such as biotechnology. Some suggestions under consideration are the creation of university-indus~y liaison programs open to foreign participation on the U.S. model, the establishment of licensing offices, and encouragement of sponsored 24 Some suggested that a U.S. industry organization comparable to the Optoelectronic Industry and Technology Development Association in Japan could be established for this purpose.
OCR for page 22
24 research by foreign organizations. From the perspective of the U.S. biotechnology industry, there is a need to address the asymmetry in access to university research, and the creation of new institutions in Japanese universities appears to be a prerequisite for systematic change. In this context it may be necessary to consider further relaxation of restrictions that limit formal consulting for industry by Japanese university professors. 3. Information center. An information center could be formed to collect, translate, and promptly disseminate information about R&D in Japan in one or both of these fields. A center focused on a single technology, as opposed to an information service, could be equipped to provide detailed and timely information of greatest interest to researchers in the United States. From the U.S. perspective, a wide range of information (including Republication abstracts of conference papers, announcements of upcoming technical meetings in Japan, reports of R&D under way in particular organizations, names of organizations wishing to license technology, patent data) is essential, as is the involvement of U.S. personnel fluent in Japanese to select the information. From the Japanese perspective, such a center could also function in an outreach capacity to inform policymakers and the general public about the opportunities for joint access to Japanese science and technology. 4. Mechanisms for evaluating access. There is a need for an ongoing effort to monitor progress in expanding symmetrical access to R&D in the United States and Japan. Such an effort could profitably include surveys of both United States and Japanese researchers concerning the current status and future prospects for U.S.-Japan collaboration in particular fields. For example, the preliminary survey conducted by the Office of Japan Affairs in conjunction with We meeting reported here could be translated and sent to similar groups in Japan. A comparison of the United States and Japanese results could contribute to focusing attention on specific problem areas and constructive avenues for expanded collaboration. A number of other structural differences in the R&D and systems of the two countries, some identified in this report, could also be the subject of analysis. Differences in research focus (such as the emphasis on "quantum" structures in optoelectronics research) and in the organization of R&D (such as the prominence of industrial consortia in Japan) could be analyzed, with an interest in the long-term implications for the respective economic and technology bases. The U.S.-Japan meeting on "Expanding Access to Precompetitive Research" demonstrated the value of candid exchange of views between leading researchers from industry and academe in particular fields in the two countries. In view of the growing recognition of the importance of precompetitive fundamental research in emerging fields, and the potential benefits of collaboration, a continuing series of discussions and information gathering may be appropriate.