Home > Policy > White Paper, Notice, Announcement > White Paper > Annual Report on the Promotion of Science and Technology 1999 > Part1 Chapter3 Section1 2

Achieving the goals of science and technology requires the formation of a consensus among R&D implementators and the users of R&D achievements as to what the nation's priority areas of R&D should be. This consensus can form the basis of guidelines for the investment of national resources.

The reason that R&D fields are not designated here is that under the conventional approach of thinking of scientific and technological fields as separate and as associated with the subject of research, academic fields, or technological applications, the danger exists of losing the perspective on important areas encompassing two or more fields, or on the dynamic expansion of such areas. Moreover, the act of merely designating an important field is often limited to simply stating that a field, such as life science or information science and technology, is important, without answering the question of what must be done in terms of specific R&D activity.

The intent here is not to deny the need for conventional field-specific R&D plans. Rather, it is hoped that designating important R&D areas will encourage prioritization in R&D plans in those areas; lead to R&D plans that have an important R&D area as a common ground and which are tightly interconnected by the goal of expanding the overall system of scientific and technological knowledge; and promote nationally consistent, coordinated R&D activity.

Similar examples of the designation of important technologies can be seen in the U.S., UK, France and other countries.

U.S.: Approximately 30 areas of technology and 80 sub-areas are designated as National Critical Technologies.

UK: 27 technology development topics and 18 related priority topics concerning infrastructure improvement was designated through the consideration producing Technology Foresight Programme (e.g., the science and technology promotion infrastructure, basic research, finance and regulations).

France: Approximately 100 technologies seen as vital to French industry over the next 5 to 10 years have been selected.

What must be underscored here is that it is knowledge produced through basic research that supports technology. Thus, an important goal of science and technology policy is not merely to designate technologies, which are an outlet for socioeconomic and other applications, but also to use that as the basis for designating important R&D areas that are the source of such knowledge.

In designating important R&D areas, it is important to specify the possible socioeconomic applications and implications of results achieved in each important R&D area, to state goals for attaining those results, and to clarify the most efficient approach. It should also be noted that in addition to new knowledge, the amalgamation of existing knowledge is also sometimes needed to achieve the goals of science and technology.

The examples of the U.S., UK and France show that the key to such endeavors lies in having predefined criteria for determining relative importance and assuring the participation of the users of results. Criteria for relative importance include market potential, expected role in solving problems, and the current level of science and technology in that R&D area. Relative importance should be determined through comprehensive evaluation based on such criteria.

Japan's technology foresight surveys are a potential basis of consideration to identify important R&D areas. Although the survey process does not have a system for incorporating the viewpoints of cultural and social science exports, corporate managers, representatives of government agencies and other users of science and technology, and various nonspecialists, such a system would be usable in the overall process of creating an important technology list. In the UK, fifteen panels representing various industrial sectors used the results of Delphi method-based surveys concerning approximately 1,000 technology development topics to make 360 proposals concerning research and related policies, human resources, and regulations. Based on this, 27 priority topics in science and technology and 18 priority topics concerning the related infrastructures (the science and technology promotion infrastructure, basic research, finance and regulations, etc.) were selected ( Fig. 18 ).

Fig. 18: Generic priorities in science and technology - relative assessment of attractiveness and feasibility

In addition to important R&D areas, it is also necessary to designate priority topics concerning the improvement of R&D environments as a means of promoting R&D. This entails environments that foster entrepreneurialism; the creation of new products, services and industry, and other forms of innovation by the private sector through the use of new knowledge or the amalgamation of existing knowledge.

Innovation is generally seen as the results of the overall system comprising factors that influence the activities of corporations, national research institutes and universities; the flow of resources (e.g., knowledge and personnel) through interaction among those institutions; and the flow of those activities and resources (for instance, government regulations and incentives, financial policy, employment policy, and education and human resource development policy).

The OECD advocates the belief that the role of government lies not just in policies that compensate for market failures by increasing total R&D (e.g., R&D subsidies and tax incentives), but also in correcting the types of systemic defects that interfere with the functioning of the innovation system, inhibit the flow of knowledge or technology, or lower the relative efficiency of R&D efforts. This belief entails cooperative efforts in various policy fields, such as finance, employment, and education, among others.

Analysis of the innovation system is carried out on a national level in the U.S. In Japan, as well, it will be increasingly important to pursue continuous analysis of the effects of the innovation system on the national level.