The Science Council of Japan on Dec. 21 adopted a statement calling on the government to reconsider its proposed organizational reforms of the academic body, saying such changes could compromise its independent status.

Independence is the fundamental raison d’etre for the group of scholars that represents Japan. The government should carefully discuss the matter without setting a foregone conclusion or a time limit.

The government initially said it would present a reform proposal in summer but delayed it until Dec. 6.

It also presented a “draft plan for fleshing out” the proposal to a meeting of the Science Council’s General Assembly on Dec. 21.

The plan’s pillars include reviewing the council’s organization and setting up a third-party panel that would have a say in the selection process of council members.

Other pillars include extending the terms of incumbent council members by around one-and-a-half years to prepare for electing members for the following terms under the proposed system, as well as preparing to submit relevant bills to the next ordinary Diet session, which will convene early next year, to revise the law concerning the council.

The council’s members raised a succession of objections to the plan. They repeatedly asked about the composition of the third-party panel and how it would have a say in the member selection process.

However, Cabinet Office officials in charge of the matter stopped short of giving any clear and specific indications.

In the meantime, the officials referred to a plan for increasing the number of Science Council sections from the current three to four during a Dec. 8 meeting of the General Assembly.

The Science Council’s statement raised a number of concerns: no reason had been presented for the need to revise the law; the third-party panel could intervene in the council’s autonomous selection of its own members; and the overall reform proposal is motivated by political and administrative judgments and infringes upon the body’s independence.

The statement also said while it is important for the government and the council to work together, the proposal fails to take into account that academics cannot always “share concerns and time frames, among other things” with the government based on the proposal’s assumptions.

Science Council President Takaaki Kajita has, “with grave determination,” called on the government to reconsider its proposal, saying it could change the character of the council, obstruct sound development of Japan’s sciences and hurt mutual trust between the government and the council.

The nation’s leading body of academics came under the spotlight in 2020 when then Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga refused to appoint six candidates the council had nominated for membership.

Debate over the matter prompted the Science Council to work out its own reform plan, which it has put into practice.

The government should not be allowed to proceed with legislative measures without taking that into account and holding sufficient discussions.

The change being proposed would be the biggest for the Science Council since it was founded. The government should first listen to the views of not only the council but also of a broad range of people in academia.

Both the government and the council agree on the importance of working together and that academic knowledge should be drawn upon in policymaking.

A smooth reform requires rebuilding the mutual trust that was hurt over Suga’s rejection of the six candidates. A rash government move for legal amendments would only worsen relations to the benefit of no one.

The government’s stance of pressing ahead with the changes without sufficient discussions or explanations is reminiscent of its shift in policy concerning national security and nuclear power.

Policy decisions that fail to take into account diverse views are prone to overlook major defects and create future problems.

The Science Council is independent like similar organizations in other nations. One should not forget that such independence enables the council to uncover viewpoints that have escaped the government’s notice and issues that have yet to become visible.

At the same time, it is worth questioning whether the Science Council, for its part, has been fully demonstrating that its existence matters.

The council should proceed thoroughly with its own reform plans and improve its capabilities to send out messages through, for example, presenting proposals to settle social issues and promote government policymaking.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 25