To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
As long as the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) continues to reject any proposals for its reform, there may be no point in endlessly discussing how to review the details of the organization’s management.
The content of the reform should be decided at the initiative of the government to make the council a highly transparent organization.
The Cabinet Office’s advisory panel of experts, which is headed by Teruo Kishi, a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, is considering how the council should be run, and its working group has compiled reform proposals.
At the end of last year, the Cabinet Office decided on a policy to change the SCJ’s status from its current “special national organization” to a corporation independent of the central government. Based on this policy, the working group has been studying the specific institutional design.
The reform proposals first called for changing the current method of selecting new members, which is based on recommendations from existing members. While allowing the recommendation system to be maintained after incorporation, the working group proposed an additional step in which members would vote to select candidates from among those recommended.
It is said that the SCJ tends to attract researchers with similar specialties. The introduction of a voting system is aimed at selecting personnel with broader perspectives to solve various social issues.
The council receives nearly ¥1 billion in national funds each year.
While allowing the council to continue to receive the funds after incorporation, the working group proposed formulating a medium-term action plan and establishing an evaluation committee to examine its performance. The reform proposals also call for a government-appointed auditor to audit the financial status and other matters of the council.
If the council relies on the government for its operating funds, it is quite natural to inspect what results have been achieved and whether national funds are being used appropriately. National university corporations that receive grants from the government have also introduced such an auditing system.
However, the SCJ issued a statement in response to the reform proposals, saying, “They are totally unacceptable because they would impede the activities of the academy.” The council also calls for the maintenance of “its status as an organization representing the nation,” “a stable financial base” and “autonomy in membership selection.”
The council’s attitude of telling the government to keep its nose out of the council’s activities even while it goes on receiving national funds is too selfish. Does the SCJ really think it is possible to gain the understanding of the people, who are taxpayers, by continuing to turn its back on its reform?
The Cabinet of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida attempted to submit to last year’s ordinary Diet session a bill to amend the Law on the Science Council of Japan so that outside experts would be involved in the selection of council members. But then, as the council also opposed the bill, the submission of the bill was put on hold.
Meanwhile, it cannot be said that the council has played a sufficient role in the COVID-19 pandemic. And while effectively approving research on dual-use technology that can be utilized for both military and civilian purposes, in reality the council has been negative about it, which has become a stumbling block to research and development of equipment. Organizational reform of the SCJ should be urgently implemented.
