Prepared for the IIPS Symposium on

Globalization andJapan’s Science and Technology Strategy
19 – 20 November 2007
Tokyo

Session 2
Monday, 19 November 2007

Governance of Science and Technology—Innovation and Society—

Hideaki Shiroyama
University of Tokyo

Governance of Science and Technology—Innovation and Society—
By Hideaki Shiroyama

Introduction

The development of science and technology is accompanied by various risks and social
problems, as well as benefits. As the scope of this issue has grown wider, the range ofinterested actors has increased accordingly (Shiroyama, 2007).
For example, the development of nuclear physics and nuclear energy technology has
had the benefit of securing sources of energy, but it has also been accompanied byconstant safety risks and the security risks of nuclear proliferation. Alternatively, thedevelopment of life sciences and genetic engineering has raised issues of safety andethics, and there is particularly strong awareness of these issues in regard to
experimentation in gene therapy—the genetic manipulation of human beings. Moreover,science and technology that is pervading society—such as genetically modified crops—
is being assessed by a variety of actors and from diverse points of view, such as theperspective of economic efficiency, in a manner that goes way beyond purely scientificand technological logic.
Despite the fact that scientists would brand this talk as irrational and akin to vicious
harmful rumor, if this is the reality of society, the escaping from the use of specifictechnologies to avoid economic loss is highly rational as far as society is concerned (forexample, for agricultural producers and agricultural policy makers).
So far as society decides to make use of science and technology with diverse social
implications that encompass risk for society as well as benefit, there is a need forsystems throughout society for the management of the development and utilization ofscience and technology. In other words, governance of science and technology isrequired.
The following sections outline how the governance of science and technology might
be organized and then set out the functions that are required of it.
What is Governance of Science and Technology?

Science and technology have many implications for society. For this reason, society has
to form an assessment based on the various problems and points for deliberation thatexist at the borders where society meets science and technology. This function ofsocietal assessment will require certain mechanisms, and to cope with the various
issues, a specific style of institutional design will be vital. These mechanisms andspecific institutional design are what constitute the governance of science andtechnology. A variety of actors, such as experts in various fields, various levels ofgovernment (international organizations, national government, and local government),
various groups (such as professional groups and employers’ associations), and citizens
will then collaborate and share the effort in the governance of science and technology,
and—while they will sometimes come into conflict—they will manage the various
problems at the borders where society meets science and technology.
Governance and traditional government are often thought of as opposing forces.
Government is taken to mean the official institutions for governing, while governanceis understood as encompassing a wide range of systems—including customs of society
and markets—that are outside the official institutions of government, i.e. ―the whole
range of institutions and relationships involved in the process of governing‖ and―self-organizing, inter-organizational networks‖ (Rhodes 1997). Whereas theorganization of government is based on an internal vertical hierarchy, governance1

allows for structures that include horizontal relationships between entities such as
various societal groups and companies, and between various levels of government.
A wide range of actors has come to be involved in science and technology, in reaction
to the numerous social implications of science and technology in specific societal
contexts. Scientists and engineers also have a major role as individuals and are building
various independent professional organizations. The role of companies in the
introduction of technology to society is also significant. In recent years, companies
have also played a noteworthy role through CSR (corporate social responsibility). On
the other hand, at government level, while standardization is playing a major role at theinternational level, there are many matters that the national government and local
governments must deal with in accordance with local conditions. Thus, it could be said
that within the domain of science and technology, there is more of an appearance ofgovernance than government.
Functions of Governance of Science and Technology—Requisite Elements of Societal Judgement
Risk management
Clarifying risks and benefits

The development of technology can entail an increase in various risks as well as
various benefits. To cope with this state of affairs, risk assessment and risk
management are being attempted by various segments of society (Shiroyama, 2007).
Risk assessment generally involves multiplying the probability of the occurrence ofdamage by the scale of the damage. Scientific knowledge based on immunological data
and animal test data is essential for this assessment. As a matter of course, the scope ofrisk assessment can vary greatly, according to whether it is based on the number ofdead or on the number of victims (such as the sick and injured), and on whether aqualitative distinction is drawn between large-scale catastrophic disasters and smaller
disasters. On the other hand, risk management refers to the activity of deciding whereto draw the line and what level of risk to allow—based on the risk assessment—before
proceeding with the overall project.
When taking risk management decisions, it is necessary to consider how the risks arebalanced by the benefits of the technology concerned. Without taking this factor into
account, it would be impossible to understand why the car—which risk assessment
regards as entailing a high level of risk in numerical terms—is accepted by society.
When the benefits are assessed, the question of distributive implications (that is, towhom do the benefits accrue) is also important. Society may reject a certain technology,
even if the overall benefits are considerable, if the benefits are directed mainly towards
a certain sector. It is recognized that society has not readily accepted nuclear power
generation or genetically modified foods—despite the fact that their risks are assessed
as low. One reason that can be cited for this is that it is corporations who are the direct
beneficiaries of these technologies (in terms of perception, at least).
Often, some risks are ignored or exaggerated. When a company engages intechnological development, it is possible that it will not publicly disclose the relevantrisk information—even if it is aware of the risks that accompany the technology —outof consideration for its return on investment from the development of the technology.
When a company conducting technological development on site fails to disclose
information, it is extremely difficult—at least in the short term—for society to obtain
this information separately and independently. On the other hand, the main thrust of
opposition to a particular technology (which may even emanate from a competing2company) may exaggerate some of the risks. The problem in this type of situation is
how to conduct comprehensive and balanced risk mapping. For the experts too, theperceived areas of risk vary between different specialist fields.
Benefits too can be inadequately presented or exaggerated. In the cases of genetic
modification technology and nano-technology, it is a long way from these technologies
to concrete benefits for society. Certainly the arguments can be made that the
introduction of genetically modified crops will allow increased volumes of food indeveloping nations, which will alleviate poverty, or that the introduction of medical
diagnostic technology employing nano-technology will enable preventive medical carebased on simple continual monitoring, leading to reduced medical costs. However,there are a number of variables external to the introduction of a technology that mustcome into play in order for its effectiveness to be realized. Thus, technology developers
are discontented, because when a technology is assessed, the risks alone are adequately
addressed while the benefits are not. On the other hand, technology developers tout theeffectiveness of a technology in their quest to obtain research funding, and it is claimed
that—as there are many variables in play that influence its effectiveness—they are apt
to exaggerate the effectiveness.
Moreover, there is uncertainty over both risks and benefits. This represents both
uncertainty over scientific understanding, as mentioned earlier, and uncertainty overutilization of the technology.
As regards expectations of risk assessment from science, society often expects a
definitive answer, despite the fact that, as mentioned previously, science comprises a
degree of uncertainty. It is of course possible that the uncertainty will recede as science
progresses; however, it will be difficult to eliminate it completely. For society, thequestion thus arises of how to assess a certain acceptable level of uncertainty. The
choice between the ―precautionary principle‖ or the ―no-regret policy‖ expresses thedifference in attitudes to this uncertainty. The precautionary principle refers to theattitude of taking preventive control measures (even while uncertainty remains as towhether anything will happen), because if something does happen, the resulting
damage will be enormous. In contrast, the no-regret policy refers to the attitude oftaking only meaningful precautionally measures (even if nothing is going to happen),instead of reacting during the period of uncertainty on the assumption that something
will happen. Which of these two attitudes to select is a policy selection problem forsociety.
There is also uncertainty over benefits. As mentioned earlier, one of thecharacteristics of technology is that it can be used for numerous purposes. There arealso many technologies that are used in ways that differ from those envisaged by theirdevelopers. There are also technologies that are used in a manner quite distinct fromtheir original purpose. Technology developers also sometimes advance the argument
that, although in the initial experimental stage of any technology it is easy to foreseecertain risks, the eventual actual benefits do not become clear until some time has
passed (particularly in the case of revolutionary ground-breaking technologies), andthat at the outset it is very difficult to explain the benefits, even if asked to do so.
However, it should probably also be acknowledged that there are also risks that do not
become evident for some time.
The multi-faceted nature of risks and benefits

Both risks and benefits are multi-faceted. For example, there are many cases in which
the same technology entails different risks and benefits after the international relations
dimension has been factored in.
3

In domestic terms, nuclear technology is an energy technology and has the benefit ofproviding energy. On the other hand, it also entails safety risks. However, with theaddition of the international relations dimension, the picture changes. With regard to
decreasing the imports of oil, the principal energy source (most of which comes from
the Middle East), nuclear power generation has the benefit of increasing energy security(although maintaining this option requires imports of uranium). On the other hand,possessing the technology for nuclear power generation (particularly technology for the
nuclear fuel cycle) raises the risk of nuclear proliferation on the international level.
The same applies to space technology. Normally, the benefits of maintaining thecapability to launch satellites go no further than satellite communications and satellite
broadcasting. However, factoring in the international dimension, the technology yields
security benefits, in the form of spy satellites. In addition, in a domestic context,
dual-use technology is normally technology for public civilian benefit; however, it isrecognized that there is a risk that, with the addition of the international dimension, its
diversion to military use may contribute to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Moreover, the benefits of technology have changed due to society’s changing
objectives. For example, up until now, the provision of energy has been recognized as
the sole benefit of nuclear power generation. However, as society has come torecognize global warming as a problem, the fact that it does not emit carbon dioxide—a
substance that causes global warming—has come to be recognized as an additional
benefit.
Conversely, when coal-fired power generation technology is discussed in the societal
context of global warming, emphasis is placed on the risk entailed in its high levels ofcarbon dioxide emissions—a global-warming culprit. However, as factors such as
rising oil prices increase concerns over energy security, the use of coal-fired power
generation technology is seen to have energy security benefits, since the regions for
production of the coal on which it relies are relatively spread out throughout the world.
Assessment of trade-offs

Thus, in the debate over the introduction of a new technology to society, diverse risks
and benefits must be considered. Once these risks and benefits have been considered,
there is then the problem of what kind of societal assessment should be carried out,
based on these diverse risks and benefits. In the current context, there are various
trade-offs that must be made when this societal assessment is performed (Graham andWeiner, 1998).
Risk trade-off refers to the fact that the efforts made to reduce specific risks
conversely end up increasing other risks as a result. For example, if car bodies are madelighter in order to improve gas mileage, they become less collision-resistant and safetylevels fall. In this case the global-warming and energy security risks are reduced, but
the safety risk increases. In addition, certain products used as substitutes for CFCs
(which destroy the ozone layer) have led to reduced destruction of the ozone layer, buthave accelerated global warming. In this instance, the risk of the destruction of theozone layer and the risk of global warming are traded off against one another. Further,methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant to lower food-related risks, increases therisk of destruction of the ozone layer. In this instance, the food safety risk and the riskof destruction of the ozone layer are traded off against one another.
In regard to the AIDS cases caused by contaminated blood products, the division
chief of the ministry in charge was found guilty in the criminal cases, since the switchfrom unheated blood products that allowed the possibility of AIDS infection to safer
heated blood products was not made quickly. In the case of this trial too, there was an4

implicit trade-off assessment involved—albeit one that was tangential to the verdicts inthe cases. Even before the heated blood products option had come into general use, thedecision could have been made to revert to using cryo products—a possible treatment
for AIDS and an option which had been available since before unheated blood products.
The reason why this decision was not taken seems to have been that the risks entailed inusing unheated blood products were judged to be low compared to the benefits—unheated blood products were highly effective and convenient for hemophiliacs.
However, since some professional organizations were in fact championing a reversion
to cryo products, logically a different decision could have been made (Hirono, 2005).
Assessing issues of values

When societal assessment of technology is carried out, it is necessary to consider issues
that relate to values as well as conducting an assessment of the risks and benefits. To be
more precise, the two should be carried out in concert with one another.
In regard to societal assessment of technology, it has been mentioned that acomprehensive assessment should be carried out after the risks and benefits have been
widely clarified. However, when a comprehensive assessment is carried out, there is an
important factor to be considered that will function as a ―trump card‖—whatever theother risks and benefits. This is the issue of values, as they relate to individual rights
and human dignity. This frequently emerges as a key issue in the realms of life sciencesand genetic engineering, which have advanced rapidly in recent years.
For example, there is now a problem in Europe with children themselves filing―wrongful life‖ lawsuits in complaint over their lives lived with disability or over theircongenital disabilities (van Beers, 2007). These lawsuits are admissible in the
Netherlands but have been banned in France. France claims that allowing these lawsuits
would signify an admission that there are some lives that have no value, and that as thisconstitutes a eugenics-based view of human life, this violates the dignity of human life.
On the other hand, the Netherlands adheres to the concept of the dignity of human lifein the shape of empowerment that emphasizes giving people suitable powers as humanbeings, and believes instead that permitting lawsuits by children born with disabilities
which could have been prevented comports with values of human dignity. This could
be said to reflect differing conclusions over the importance to human dignity of values
that stress the intrinsic sacred value of every living person or the need to protect thevery integrity of the human body, and over whether to place an emphasis on values ofself-determination or economic emancipation. This issue has now become a real
problem, as technology for ante-natal diagnosis has advanced, making it technicallypossible to detect whether a person is disabled before birth.
Further, underpinning the current controls on animal experimentation being led by the
UK is the utilitarian idea of the alleviation of suffering. This viewpoint requires that
suffering be reduced as much as possible, but does not require that animal
experimentation which provides experimental data essential to the development ofscience and technology be banned. On the other hand, if the view is based on the valuesof animal rights, as these were to be accorded the same importance as human rights, theconclusion could instead be drawn that animal experimentation cannot be permitted—
no matter what the benefits.
Societal assessment of technology has also come to involve the issue of the image ofsociety. With the growth of nano-technology, in recent years interest has risen in fields
that integrate areas such as nano-technology, bio-technology, and information
technology—that is, in converging technologies. In response to this, research is
progressing in the USA and Europe on the implications for society of this technology.
Research into the implications entails both finding out what the benefits for society
5would be and finding out what issues exist (for example, issues relating to the
management of data collected using bio-sensors that employ nano-technology, andprivacy issues). It could be said that there are certain different kinds of technology
assessment, and in the course of this process, attempts have been made to differentiate
between the respective aims of converging technologies in the USA and Europe. In theUSA, the notion of ―converging technologies for improving human performance‖ isasserted (Roco and Bainbridge, 2002), while in Europe the concept of ―converging
technologies for the knowledge society‖ is stressed (Nordmann, 2004). In other words,
it could be said that in the USA this technology is being positioned as a means toimprove facets such as human military capability and memory capacity, whereas inEurope the intention is to apply it for purposes that are more oriented towards society.
Promoting the generation of knowledge

The points that have been considered so far—how will society make use of science andtechnology, and what concerns must society take into account in its assessment ofthem—have been premised on the existence of science and technology. However, theexistence of scientific knowledge and technology is not self-evident. For these to
emerge, society must foster those groups of people to whom we refer as scientists andtechnologists, and must stimulate their research activities. What kind of knowledge
generation, then, deserves to be stimulated?
In this context it is necessary to try and revisit the role of the legal concepts of―academic freedom‖ and ―freedom of research‖ (Yamamoto, 2007). These concepts
have often been considered as justification for the concepts of ―science for the sake ofscience‖ and ―research for the sake of research.‖ However, it seems that they could
instead be retasked as the organizing principles for stimulating the generation ofknowledge. In other words, simply carrying out research work under the directions ofsuperiors in a hierarchical organization is insufficient to the generation of intellectual
innovation. Certainly, implementation is a necessary component of research, andmechanisms to support this are essential; however, ideas—the essential component ofresearch—are born of spontaneous investigative activity. According to this way of
thinking, by enabling numerous trials and experiments in a bottom-up fashion,academic freedom and freedom of research have the resultant function of stimulating
intellectual innovation, which contributes to society. The construction of a voluntary
network that spans different disciplines is vital to this process. In addition, thesignificance of ensuring diversity in scholarship and research is that this can lead to justsuch intellectual innovation. Free and autonomous forms of organization made up of
those involved (such as researchers) which stimulate spontaneous trials andcommunication are necessary to stimulate the generation of knowledge, and these aredifferent from hierarchical organizations. In fact, promoting the generation ofknowledge is essential even for risk assessment, which was mentioned earlier. A
system of laws on experimentation that will allow various types of experiments isessential to stimulate the production of the information needed for risk assessment. Ifsuch a system of laws is absent and experiments cannot be carried out, there is noalternative but to rely on import of the knowledge and information needed for
performing risk assessments. It has been pointed out that since safety regulations inJapan are often stringent, even the data needed to apply for approval and authorization
under the safety regulations cannot be generated in Japan, and that instead foreign
experimental data is used. This kind of situation does nothing to encourage theaccumulation of the information and knowledge on which risk assessment is based.
6

On the other hand, it cannot be said that academic freedom and freedom of researchcommand universal respect. For example, it is necessary to compare risk involved in
the areas of safety and security. It is necessary to come to a decision on whether risks tosafety ought to be considered and academic freedom and freedom of research curtailed,or whether shortsightedly placing the emphasis on safety and restricting research
reduces the possibility of long-term innovation and increases society’s vulnerability.
Step-by-step clinical trials and medical technology for medical and pharmaceuticalproduct trials are perfect examples of this. If Japan is to be independent in areas such as
nuclear power technology, a legal system that enables experimentation is also requiredin the quest for independent technological innovation. A further issue is whether
security risks should be emphasized and the publication of research (a key componentof academic freedom and freedom of research) ought to be stopped when there are fears
that research results might be applied by terrorists.
Institutional mechanisms for stimulating the generation of knowledge also include
various other elements. Another bone of contention is whether intellectual property
rights ought to be used to boost incentives for researchers. On one hand, if intellectual
property rights are used as an economic incentive to spur researchers on to research
success, the use of this mechanism will promote intellectual property rights. On theother hand, with people whose motivation to generate knowledge is not economic
incentive, but rather the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity or the acclaim of fellow
experts, the use of intellectual property rights in this fashion will not work. In addition,
there is also the consideration that it will be difficult to put together knowledge by
combining a variety of elements, if intellectual property rights are establishedseparately for each component element. The basis of the traditional researchcommunity used to be the active use of the academic commons. Within researchcommunities there has been an ethical emphasis on giving credit for an invention where
it is due; however, the method that has come to be adopted involves sharing research
results with the research community as soon as possible, and allowing them to be used
for free, so as to stimulate the creation of further research results—and not to go to thelengths of obtaining intellectual property rights or to keep results secret. Whether tomaintain the traditions of the academic commons or whether to make more use of
intellectual property rights is a choice that will be crucial to the generation ofknowledge.
In addition, other key issues will be how to design structures for the provision ofresearch funding and how to plan the evaluation of research results. To make effective
use of academic freedom and freedom of research, it will not be enough to simply
preserve the autonomy of organizations—rather, it will be essential to allocate humanresources and financial resources that will enable such activities. On the other hand, if
resource allocation is carried out by the government, it is inevitable that there will be acertain level of evaluation, so as to maintain accountability; however, if short-term
evaluation of individual projects is carried out, the goals of preserving diversity andmaintaining the foundations for wide-ranging intellectual innovation will not be
achieved.
Conclusion

This paper has outlined the substance and functions of science and technology
governance. Two final points are worth identifying as fundamental science andtechnology governance issues.
First, it is noteworthy that different actors within society hold different viewpoints. It
is important to understand the framework within which perceptions of the major issues
are framed. There then has to be a from where the multiple viewpoints are shared and7the interests are coordinated. Problems of science and technology must not be confinedto the experts in the science and technology fields in question, but must be opened up toother interested parties as well. In the process, dialogue between experts and citizens isimportant; however, it is also important that there be dialogue between experts ofdifferent areas, and that language be devised that enables them to understand one
another. There is a need for stakeholder analysis as a means to this end, and for leaders
who will link together experts from various fields.
Second, it is not necessary for all the actors involved in the decision-making ingovernance to share a common vision. The notion of ―sharing the same bed, but
dreaming different dreams (Doushouimu)‖ is an important one. As has already beenemphasized, the actors within society have different viewpoints and concerns. In thiskind of situation, it is rare for visions of the various actors to be in accord. For example,
some actors may be interested in nuclear power technology or bio-mass energy
technology as measures to combat global warming, while others may be interested inthese technologies as a means to achieve energy security.
In these instances, although the perspectives that inform the concerns of the actors
differ, they will be able to form a united front in support of a particular technology
choice.
Conversely, clarifying the various benefits and risks for the various actors throughstakeholder analysis will not only provide the data for decision-making, but also look
for the potential for coallition formation between the actors, based on the notion of―same bed, different dreams.‖
Bibliography
John D. Graham and Jonathan B. Weiner (1998), Risk vs. Risk—Tradeoffs in Protecting Healthand the Environment, translated by Tsutomu Sugahara, Showado.
Hideaki Shiroyama (2007), Risk Assessment and Management Systems, Hideaki Shiroyama and
Yoichi Nishikawa, Remaking the Law III: Law and the Development of Science andTechnology, University of Tokyo Press.
Hideaki Shiroyama (2007), Governance of Science and Technology, Toshindo.
Yoshiyuki Hirono (2005), ―Towards a Social Theory Analysis of the Science and Technology
Issues Relating to AIDS from Contaminated Blood Products‖; Yuko Fujigaki, Social Theory
Techniques in Science and Technology, University of Tokyo Press.
Britta van Beers (2007) ―A right not to be born? Human dignity in French and Dutch legal
debates on wrongful birth and wrongful life claims‖; Hideaki Shiroyama and Yoichi Nishikawa,
Remaking the Law III: Law and the Development of Science and Technology, University ofTokyo Press.
Takashi Yamamoto (2007), ―Scholarship and the Law‖; Hideaki Shiroyama and Yoichi
Nishikawa, Remaking the Law III: Law and the Development of Science and Technology,
University of Tokyo Press.
Alfred Nordmann (2004), Converging Technologies—Shaping the Future of European
Societies, European Commission.
R.A.W. Rhodes (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity
and Accountability, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge. eds. (2002), Converging Technologies for
Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology andCognitive Science, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia.

8