On Dec. 8, 1941, Japan declared war against the United States and the United Kingdom. Japan’s battlefields expanded sharply, from China to Pacific islands, and the war ended in its devastating defeat in 1945.

This is a day when all Japanese should reflect on Japan’s postwar history as a pacifist nation and ponder its current state.

One important bulwark for peace is Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees academic freedom. This provision was not included in the Constitution of the Empire of Japan, or the Meiji Constitution.

Tokujiro Kanamori (1886-1959), who was the minister in charge of answering questions about the drafting of the postwar Constitution, said Article 23 was designed to “prevent the state from hindering the activities of researchers through intervention.”

Behind this provision was the nation’s bitter suppression of academic freedom before and during the war.

In those days, the government decided which academic theories were correct and persecuted academics who had dissenting views. There were a series of cases of such researchers losing their jobs at universities and other academic institutions.

Under the close surveillance of authorities, academics were denied freedom to engage in research or education. Many were mobilized against their will to help develop weapons, including atomic bombs.

Free pursuit of truth produces new discoveries and knowledge. Even if they are at odds with the dominant values in society or inconvenient for the powers that be, suppressing such activities by force only darkens the future of society.

This is a valuable lesson learned by Japanese who experienced the tremendous damage caused by war.

The scope of academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution has expanded over years, with some landmark rulings by the Supreme Court incorporated into the mainstream view about the issue.

It is now widely accepted that academic freedom referred to in Article 23 encompasses not just freedom of research but also freedom of publishing research results, teaching at academic institutions like universities and even the autonomy and self-governance of universities.

The current controversy over Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s decision to reject six of the nominees to the Science Council of Japan needs to be seen from the viewpoint of the history of debate on academic freedom in this nation.

Suga has yet to clearly explain his decision not to appoint the six researchers on the council’s list of 105 candidates for Science Council membership. But there is no doubt that some of these rejected researchers’ activities, including announcing views critical of the government’s policies, were among factors behind the move.

The views of academics are based on their long years of research. If they are punished for holding views that are disfavored by the government, academic freedom is a dead letter.

Such government action also intimidates other researchers and even students learning from them.

To defend Suga’s decision, some have argued that academics can carry out research freely without joining the council. This argument is clearly wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the essence of the issue.

Some people have also claimed that the council itself is violating freedom of research by continuing to support its past statement about rejecting military research. They also got it all wrong.

In the first place, the council has no power to force universities or individuals to do something. Military research, by its nature, is incompatible with the principles of autonomy and openness that are at the core of academic freedom.

The council’s statement is important because it points to the threat military research poses to these principles and reconfirms scientists’ social responsibility.

This is an era when use of expert knowledge is more important than ever because of the need to tackle such global crises as the novel coronavirus pandemic and climate change.

Improving the quality of academic freedom, which supports the foundation of such expert knowledge, is the way for Japan to serve the interests of humankind. The true value of Article 23 is at stake.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 8