The Ishiba Cabinet adopted a bill on March 7 to transform the Science Council of Japan, a governmental agency, into a corporate entity. This legislation represents a significant alteration in the council’s framework, potentially undermining its ability to play a meaningful role in both national and societal interests. Such “reform” poses a substantial risk of detrimental consequences for the future of Japanese academic endeavors.

BEGINNING OF THE END?

The proposed restructuring of the council, known as the “parliament of scholars” and a representative body for academic researchers, is widely perceived by the academic community as a threat to academic freedom. Takaaki Kajita, a noted physicist and former president of the council, has expressed grave concerns, stating that this move could signify “the beginning of the end” for Japanese academia.

Scholarship has traditionally developed autonomously, driven by precise and long-term research across specialized fields. Yet, history shows that under the axiom “knowledge is power,” there have been instances where political forces have sought to manipulate academic pursuits for their own ends, thereby distorting academia’s roles and functions.

In the period before and during World War II in Japan, the government dictated accepted theories, ostracizing scholars who dared to contradict them. This suppression not only affected scholars but also eroded the mental freedom of the general populace.

Reflecting on these historical abuses, Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees academic freedom, has been upheld. To preserve the autonomy and integrity of the pursuit of truth and academic research, it is crucial to safeguard this freedom and independence from political meddling. The essence of academic freedom transcends the mere liberty to research freely; it involves the protection of scholarly pursuits from external influences.

The pursuit of truth, including theories such as heliocentrism, has historically conflicted with prevailing political and social norms and assumptions. Today, this struggle continues as global warming, universally recognized by scientists as a consequence of human activities, faces widespread skepticism and denial.

Academia’s independence and freedom are precisely what enable it to advance and make meaningful contributions to humanity and society by identifying problems and devising solutions. By enhancing scientific and technological capabilities, academia plays a crucial role in supporting national development.

IS THIS REORGANIZATION BENEFICIAL TO THE COUNTRY?

Under the proposed legislation, the Science Council of Japan will continue to serve as the “organization representing the scientists,” retaining its right to make recommendations to the government.

Additionally, the bill introduces a new “evaluation committee,” housed within the Cabinet Office. Members of the committee will be appointed by the prime minister and tasked with reviewing the council’s activities and offering insights. A “selection advisory committee” will also be established to oversee the nomination of council member candidates, with the General Assembly responsible for their election, rather than appointment by the prime minister. Furthermore, independent auditors, external to the council, will be appointed by the prime minister to monitor the operations of the council.

While it is important for the council to consider external opinions, the combined measures outlined in the bill could create excessive constraints on its activities. The government contends that incorporation will bolster the council’s independence. However, once a system to offer “advice” to the council is legally formalized, the council will be compelled to adhere to the advice given, potentially undermining rather than bolstering its independence.

Additionally, the bill stipulates that “the government can provide the amount of financial assistance it deems necessary,” which could allow the government to exert financial pressure on the council.

Reforms undertaken to incorporate national universities resulted in increased government constraints, hindered their research activities, and ultimately diminished their research capabilities--a mistake that must not be repeated. Like its international counterparts, the Science Council of Japan is expected to offer independent recommendations, made by its highly knowledgeable members, free from government influence. Its essential purpose is sometimes to provide opinions that may be uncomfortable for the government to hear.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party and others have encouraged the council to align with the government and industry, sharing awareness of problems and timelines. While timely responses to urgent issues are valuable, the council’s fundamental role involves adopting a long-term perspective and offering insights distinct from those of the government and industry, including the identification of emerging issues. It is crucial to preserve this diversity of thought.

DANGEROUS EXCLUSION OF DISSENTING VOICES

The government initiated the reorganization of the council following former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s controversial rejection of six member candidates. This action marks a significant departure from the longstanding stance of the government that had explained in the Diet that the prime minister’s appointments are merely “formal,” making light of the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Despite claims of making a “comprehensive and bird’s-eye view” judgment, the government has yet to provide clear reasons for the rejection. This lack of transparency in excluding specific scholars without explanation leaves the academic community uncertain about what might trigger government interference, potentially leading to guesswork, undue consideration of the government’s motives and self-censorship to avoid conflict.

The issue of appointment rejections was sidelined as the LDP and the government advanced their agenda for reforming the council. This push for reform was not simply a change of subject but deeply rooted in a backlash against the council’s policies on military research.

In its 2017 declaration, the Science Council of Japan reaffirmed its commitment to refrain from conducting research for military purposes. It recognized that research might inadvertently be appropriated for military uses and advocated for a system to scrutinize such research on technical and ethical grounds, assessing its purpose, methodology, and the reasonableness of its potential applications. The declaration highlighted the inherent conflict between military research and the principles of academic freedom and the sound development of science.

The argument in the government and the LDP that the council’s prohibition of military research undermines academic freedom is not only fundamentally flawed but also factually inaccurate.

The opinions of the Science Council of Japan may not always align with government policies. The government might not appreciate the council’s actions that contradict its policies while operating on state funding. However, using scholars merely for policy endorsement, as is the case with a rigged advisory panel, does not effectively utilize their expertise. The notion that “since they receive tax money, they should follow government policies” is misguided.

The genesis of the Science Council of Japan reflects the regret of scholars who contributed to Japan’s war efforts. Trying to rally the entire country, including scholars, around the government by using a tense international situation as a pretext could lead the nation back to pre-war and wartime thinking. To prevent the government’s “runaway,” maintaining an organization that can occasionally express dissenting voices is essential as the country’s “safety valve.”

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 8