The bill to revise the Act on the Science Council of Japan — Not to be proposed in order to recover relationship of trust with the government

The Science Council of Japan held a general assembly from April 17 to 18, 2023 and adopted a statement recommending that the draft revision of the Act on the Science Council of Japan, which the government is considering, not be submitted to the Diet, and calling for a forum for dialogue to examine the nature of the Science Council within the overall Japanese academic research system, rather than a one‐sided explanation.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida instructed Minister in charge of Economic Revitalization Shigeyuki Goto to conduct an honest discussion with the Science Council so as to reach a conclusion at an early stage. The Prime Minister decided not to recommend the bill to the current session of the Diet. The discussion on the reform of the Science Council, which has been non‐transparent since some members' appointments were rejected, is directing popular attention to the question of whether transparent discussion will be made in the forthcoming days.

In the general assembly on the afternoon of the April 17th, the Cabinet Office elaborated on the content of the bill, and various objections were raised. When evening came, the participants started to discuss how they should respond to the issues facing the Science Council. They argued, "We should resolve our objection to the bill" or "We should not object to the bill but should ask the Kishida administration not to submit the bill and should ask them to provide an opportunity to discuss it in the first place." In response, President Takaaki Kajita of the Science Council of Japan and the Executive Board deliberated on what to do until late in the night of the same day. At the general assembly held on the next day, April 18th, the Executive Board presented their draft recommendation as well as their draft announcement. The recommendation was adopted unanimously despite different views and opinions.

The government and the people close to it had their own original, strongly held views; that is, they would follow the due procedure for the resolution in the Cabinet meeting on April 28th. In the international sphere, however, they were preparing for the G7, and both the academy from each country and each country's Nobel laureates expressed their concerns. At home, the opposition parties voiced their opposition to the government, potentially complicating deliberations in the Diet. Given the circumstances, it seems that the government has given up on submitting the bill to the current session of the Diet.

On April 20th, Kajita commented as follows: "We heard that the government decided to refrain from submitting the bill to revise the Act on the Science Council of Japan to the current session of the Diet. We welcome this decision. As already proposed by the Science Council of Japan, we expect that we should recover a relationship of trust between the government and academia and they should provide an open arena for deliberation to review the whole academic system in Japan comprehensively and thoroughly."

Above all, what damaged the trust between the Science Council and the government was that the organizational restructuring took place behind closed doors and reflected some inappropriate motivations.

There have been two major organizational restructurings to date, including the selection of the membership of the Science Council. As part of the revision that occurred in 1983, the system for selecting the membership evolved from a public selection system to the recommendation system managed by academia and other entities. Initially, as researchers selected their representatives, the organization was called the 'Diet of scholars.' Over time, however, the number of researchers who had no interest in the selection increased, and the members were thus selected through organized votes cast by certain members. One consequence was the loss of soundness.

Subsequently, Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the 17th session, summed up the ideal direction of reform as follows: "We are not a large petitioners' association as we used to be." As a result, activities such as those for profit‐making, which had been done in the past, came to be suppressed.

On the other hand, the function of recommending reviewers for Grants‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research and the process of selecting members through recommendations from academic societies were interrelated, and in some fields, profit induction was made through the reviewers. To tackle this issue, another selection system has been introduced, in which twice as many candidates as reviewers are recommended, and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science chooses from among them. Consequently, no members are recommended by reviewers currently.

In the course of self‐examination of these situations together with the trend of administrative reform, the current co‐optation system was introduced in 2004 as part of an organizational restructuring of membership selection. In April 2001, an expert examination committee was established in the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (current CSTI), where experts from academia, research organizations, private companies and others gathered, pursuing vigorous and proactive open discussions until the final report in February 2003.

In summary, the discussions about reform up to the present day have been conducted with a view to further improving Japan's academics, which has resulted in some reforms, including to the membership selection process.

On the other hand, the present‐day reform is in accordance with the following procedure: the Cabinet Office prepares a draft bill based on the reports from the Science Council of Japan, CSTI (deliberation not disclosed) and the project team in the Liberal Democratic Party (deliberation not disclosed); some explanation is offered and minor corrections made at the Science Council; and finally further explanation is provided after detailed amendment is made. The request from the Science Council, which requests dialog, not explanation, seems to be a natural response.

The present recommendation has stated that the bill should not be submitted, and the Science Council should have an open forum to review the whole academic system comprehensively and thoroughly. The Science Council may not need three years as they did the last time. The ability to achieve the first step toward recovering a relationship of trust will depend on whether the government and the Science Council can have an open forum for discussions that may last for some time.