East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (2013) 7:7–33
DOI 10.1215/18752160-2074955

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process: Research,
Scientific Community, and Administration in Japan’s
Chemical Biology
Masato Fukushima

Received: 14 July 2011 / Accepted: 7 March 2012
q National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Abstract This article analyzes the emergent new discipline known as chemical
biology as part of the rapidly developing postgenomic research agenda. Despite
chemical biology’s academic as well as political significance in terms of its expected
contribution to drug discovery, the international STS community has failed to pay
serious attention to its dynamism thus far. The objective of this paper is to fill this gap
by conducting a case study on the rapid formation of the Japanese Association ofChemical Biology, which is a global pioneer, in 2006. By bridging different theoretical concerns, namely laboratory studies in STS and the study of policy process, particularly the theory of policy window by Kingdon, this paper analyzes how threedifferent levels—laboratory practices, community of scientists, and policy process—are mutually constitutive, and why both Japanese scientists and policy makers
believe that chemical biology is important both in science and policy. This paper will
substantiate the all-encompassing notion of coproductionism given by Jasanoff, byemphasizing more specific instances such as the role of policy entrepreneurs, international competition, and sense of scientific tradition, which are crucial for enabling
coproduction.

I thank Hiroyuki Osada and the members of his laboratory, Tetsuo Nagano, Masatoshi Hagiwara, Minoru
Yoshida, Mikiko Sodeoka, and others for kindly answering our questions. I also thank Akira Ueno for his
collaboration, Joan Fujimura for general comments, Yannick Barthe for the comment on policy process, theparticipants of the “Asian Biopoleis” workshop at the National University of Singapore for their lively
participation and valuable comments, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions on
earlier drafts of this article. This research was conducted with the support of grants-in-aid for scientificresearch from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science titled “Research-path analysis of scientificpractice—qualitative study of its dynamism and innovation” (19300293 2007–9). I am also grateful to the
Murata Science Foundation for its financial support of my follow-up research in 2010 and 2011. Publication
was further supported by the “Asian Biopoleis: Biotechnology and Biomedicine as Emergent Forms of Lifeand Practice” Project, funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social
Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National
University of Singapore (NUS), Grant Number MOE2009-T2-2-013.
M. Fukushima (*)
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153 –8902, Japane-mail: maxiomjp@yahoo.co.jp

8

M. Fukushima

Keywords Laboratory studiespolicy processpostgenomic research
drug discoverycoproduction
1 Introduction: The Predicament of Postgenomic Research
Raymond Stevens, a well-known professor of structural biology at Scripps ResearchInstitute and discoverer of the lead compounds for Tamiflu, the most prescribed medicine for influenza treatment, described the current state of biology research thus:“We’re in a very target-rich but lead-poor post-genomics era for drug discovery”(Henry 2001: 1). This statement gets to the essence of the problem of so-called postgenomic research. The tentative completion of the Human Genome Project in 2000,
followed by the proliferation of such new research agendas as structural biology,
proteomics, and systems biology, has contributed substantially to the understandingof how genes and proteins function in the dynamic mechanism of intracellular activities (Atkinson, Glasner, and Lock 2009).
The rapid development of systematic research shown above fostered widespread
optimism regarding its immediate industrial application in the production of various
types of drugs, in response to a variety of “target” proteins that perform pivotal functions in cells (Gray 2006). However, just as the phrase “lead-poor” quoted above
implies, lead chemical compounds that combine with target proteins to control
their functions have not been fully explored despite the “target-rich” quality of theresearch on genes and proteins conducted thus far (FitzGerald 2008; Fujii, Ôtaka, andTamamura 2005).
Gary Pisano’s (2006) devastating analysis of bioventures corroborates this leadpoor quality by indicating the general failure of bioventures to make a profit. He
concluded that bioindustrialists wrongly believe that as long as the information technology is sound, the biological products will succeed; clearly, a new approach isneeded to improve the current situation.
It is easily imaginable that policy makers have had sleepless nights under increasing pressure to produce visible outcomes in order to justify enormous investments intolife sciences research. One possible response to this challenge is to ask for assistancefrom synthetic and other types of chemists whose research on small-molecule compounds may lead to the discovery of lead compounds for new drugs (Sehgal 2002;
Salemme 2003). This leads to the main theme of this article: the rise of the new field of
postgenomic research known as chemical biology.
1.1 What Is Chemical Biology?
Chemical biology is loosely defined as the study of biological systems usingsynthesized small-molecule compounds such as inhibitors or fluorescent bioprobes(Wikström 2007; Kugawa, Watanabe, and Tamanoi 2007). In contrast to traditional
biochemistry, which studies the chemical aspects of cellular activity, chemical
biology uses chemical compounds to study life phenomena.
The growing attention to chemical biology in international scientific circles isevident in the launches of such journals as Chemistry and Biology in 1994, NatureBetween the Laboratory and the Policy Process9

Chemical Biology in 2005, and ACS Chemical Biology in 2006. There are a total ofeight chemical biology journals at present. At some major American universities,
including Harvard, the chemistry departments have been renamed departments “ofchemistry and chemical biology” (Schreiber and Nicolaou 1997). Furthermore, theNational Institutes of Health in the United States launched the so-called Roadmap
Initiative for Medical Research (National Institutes for Health 2003) that called
for development of chemical compound libraries and screening centers essential forchemical biology research throughout the United States, in parallel with a plan foradvancing systems and structural biology, bioinformatics, and nanomedicine. Together, these form the five pillars of postgenomic biomedical research (Wikström 2007).
In contrast with the increasing interest in chemical biology by scientists, policy
makers, and industry, the reaction from the international STS community has thus far
been literally nonexistent. Even the authoritative handbook of STS research on genetics and society (Atkinson, Glasner, and Lock 2009) has no entry for this topic.
Compared with the mushrooming of STS industries in other streams of postgenomic
trends, this indifference is odd and represents a serious deficiency in understanding themassive ongoing realignment of scientific research and policy in the rising “biomedical platform” where bench and bedside are reformulated to create a systematic
continuum (Keating and Cambrosio 2003). Chemical biology is one of the missing
pieces in the complex jigsaw puzzle of emerging configurations of biomedicine,policy, and industry.
1.2 Purpose
This article intends to fill this research gap in existing research by presenting a casestudy of the development of chemical biology in Japan. There are two issues here. One
is the rapid organization of a formal society for chemical biology in 2006, which was
the global pioneer as a formal association (Nagano, Hagiwara, and Osada 2006). The
other is that leading researchers in Japan have repeatedly emphasized that chemical
biology is merely a new name for work that Japanese scientists were already doing andsuggested that Japan is the real birthplace of chemical biology.
The former issue is deeply related to the parallel development of three levels ofactivity: everyday practices in laboratories, the community of scientists, and thepolicy-making process. The latter issue addresses the practitioners’ sense of local“tradition” in scientific research in Japan, which in this case implies the long historyof the intermediate area of research between chemistry and biology in Japan. Althoughthese are deeply intertwined, because of space limitations this article’s main focus ison the parallel development of the three levels.
I focus in particular on the practices and career of chemical biologist Hiroyuki
Osada and his laboratory at RIKEN, the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research.1
Osada’s laboratory has had a major influence on both the establishment of chemical
biology as a discipline and its organization in Japan. I propose that the traditional

1 RIKEN is an official acronym of Rikagaku Kenkyûjo (Physical and Chemical Research Institute), which
was established in 1917, inspired by the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany. This acronym will be used in
the following pages.

10

M. Fukushima

approach to laboratory studies should be complemented by analyzing the interface
between micropractices in the laboratory and macrotrends in science and policy.
The fact that this laboratory is in a significant position in an influential national
research institute in the context of science policy contributed to organizing scientists
and influencing policy process. In order to analyze this complex process, this article isstructured in the following manner. Section 2 presents the theoretical background forreviewing two different research traditions—laboratory studies in STS and the studyof policy process in political science—and shows that the combination of the two canbridge the gap between these research domains and substantiate the meaning of“coproduction” of knowledge and society. Section 3 presents a case study of thedevelopment of chemical biology in Japan, which first describes scientific practices
in Osada’s laboratory and then analyzes how Osada collaborated with scientists fromdifferent fields to the point where these activities became coupled with the policy
process for the life sciences at the bureaucratic level. Section 4 reconsiders sometheoretical concerns indispensable to the understanding of these parallel developments. To make it more concrete and critical, the meaning of coproduction is revisited.

2 Theoretical Concerns
Here I analyze how the everyday practices of a laboratory are intertwined with thepolicy-making process. First I give a brief overview of laboratory studies in the STS
tradition and their relation to the study of policy process. I then move to theories ofpolicy process in political science, with particular emphasis on the theory of policy
windows. Finally, I show how this is related to the notion of coproduction of knowledge and society, now gaining currency in STS circles.
2.1 The Dynamics of Laboratories
Despite the rich inventory of descriptive analyses of laboratory activities (Latour andWoolgar 1979; Lynch 1985; Knorr-Cetina 1981, 1999; see also Fukushima 2009,2010), these early works have been criticized for failing to address the relationshipof those activities to the larger context of the policy-making process. For example,
Bruce Bimber and David Guston (1995) insisted that Bruno Latour and Steve
Woolgar’s (1979) approach failed to analyze the influence of science policy
on Roger Guillemin’s laboratory that had a research fund of $150 million (see also
Kleinman 2003).
Later researchers sought to expand their scope by putting the work of individuallaboratories in a broader context. Joan Fujimura (1996) analyzed genetic studies ofcancer to describe what she calls the “bandwagon,” the formation of a large stream ofresearch by sharing a “standardized package” of theory (the proto-oncogene theory)and method (recombinant DNA).
Alberto Cambrosio and Peter Keating further expanded the scope of their researchby focusing on the network of laboratories working on monoclonal antibodies andimmunophenotyping. In their analysis of the latter, they described a large number oflaboratories that shared a single theory, analytical tools, standardized procedures, andBetween the Laboratory and the Policy Process11

regulations that together constituted a wide collaborative infrastructure, which theycalled a “platform” (Cambrosio and Keating 1995; Keating and Cambrosio 2003).
Expanding the scope of research from intra- to interlaboratory processes brings theanalysis closer to the level of policy process. These studies, however, still fall short ofanalyzing the interface between research and political machinery. An analytical focus
on policy process is required to explore this topic.
2.2 Theorizing the Policy Process
2.2.1 From setting the agenda to opening a window on policy
I briefly summarize the tradition of theorization of policy process in political science.
Among various approaches to this issue, the analysis of agenda setting must be mentioned first. Roger Cobb and Charles Elder (1972) provided a schematic map that
formulated the process from issue creation, via initiators and triggering devices, to thesetting of particular agendas at the policy level. Here the point is how to bridge the gap
between various issue creators out of office and key decision makers in the government. Such bridging mechanisms are detailed below.
One influential theory is the “garbage can model” of organizational decision making. By observing the decision process within a university administration, Michael
Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen (1972; see also March and Olsen 1976)
satirically liken the ambiguous process of decision making in an organization tothrowing issues into an imagined garbage can, in which most issues are left untouched
as if they had already been discussed. Occasionally, however, some are taken out andexamined in a whimsical manner—the rare time in the decision-making process when
the issues receive critical consideration.
John Kingdon (1984) applied this model to the policy-making process. He called
the process of policy-related decision making a “stream.” He believes that three kindsof streams, problems, policies, and politics, are prerequisites to various issues becoming part of the policy agenda. The problem stream refers to the government’s perception of societal issues, the policy stream is the process of idea flow as it pertains topolicy or the specialist community, and the politics stream is the process by which
politicians assign priorities to political agendas.
These streams are thought to be independent. For a policy idea to become a policy
agenda item, the streams need to flow together, or “couple,” opening what Kingdon(1984) calls a “policy window.” Kingdon emphasized the contingent and unpredictable character of these policy windows (see Zahariadis 1999; Kojima 2003). The
advantage of this formulation is that it theorizes both the contingent character of
agenda setting—by modeling the ever-changing flow of the policy process—andthe institutional constraints on the process. The theory alleviates the conflict between
the theory of network (Marsh and Rhodes 1992; Marsh 1998; Latour 1987; Callon,
Law, and Rip 1986) and that of institutionalism (Meyer and Scott 1992; Steinmo,
Thelen, and Longstreth 1992). In addition, the notion of a stream can describe themomentum with which an issue attracts attention by emphasizing the bandwagon
effect of policy ideas (Kingdon 1984: 139 –41, 161 – 62), reminiscent of Fujimura’s(1996) notion of a scientific bandwagon mentioned above.

12

M. Fukushima

The case presented in this article largely concerns the problem stream (from government officials) and the policy stream (from scientists). The relative insignificanceof the politics stream in Japan can be explained by the domination of the Liberal
Democratic Party in the postwar period, although the success of the Democratic Party
in 2009 has changed this.
2.2.2 Policy community and policy entrepreneurs
In addition to the notion of streams and policy windows, two other theoretical concepts
must be mentioned. One is the “policy community,” which is closely linked to thepolicy stream (Kingdon 1984; Walker 1974). A policy community is a group of
specialists connected by involvement in a particular policy area, such as public officials, academics, and researchers.
Some researchers have emphasized the historical transformation of such policy
communities in the United States.2 But as Kingdon (1984) notes, the degree of openness of a policy community depends on the specific issue. For certain issues, a limitedgroup of community members have still greater authority in determining the agendasetting course, such as the case study presented in this article.
The other concept is that of “policy entrepreneurs,” which invest their resources in
the promotion of particular policy ideas in order to realize these ideas (Kingdon 1984).
Akin to analogous concepts, such as “cultural broker” (Geertz 1960) or even mischievous Hermes (Serres 1969), policy entrepreneurs take every necessary step to ensure
fruition of their ideas (Heclo 1978; Kojima 2003). In the following case study, theseconcepts are crucial for analyzing the complex interface of the three levels presented
above.
2.2.3 The STS tradition on science and policy
STS researchers have addressed the interaction between scientific community andpolitical machinery, such as Sheila Jasanoff’s (1990) research on the role of thescientific advisory board in regulating science. In a similar vein, David Guston(2000) emphasized the role played by intermediary institutions such as the Office of
the Research Integrity and Office of the Technology Transfer at the US National
Institutes of Health, which he calls the “boundary organization” coordinating thecomplex interaction of science and politics.
These researchers have focused on the bridge between science and politics rather
than the microscopic process of the formation of the policy community. As a result,these communities have been described as relatively monolithic for the purpose of
focusing on the boundary work between science and politics (Gieryn 1999), at theexpense of describing the internal complexity and contingent character of their development. The emphasis on the regulatory aspects of such committees or organizations
2 Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones (2009: 181) insist that the nature of such policy communities in
the United States has undergone a historical transformation from a relatively closed system, described as
subgovernment or the iron triangle of the Congress, bureaucrats, and interest groups (Theodoulou 1995: 6),
to more loosely structured issue networks (Heclo 1978) or advocacy coalitions (Sabatier 1988). They believethat the “traditional policy monopoly” has been challenged by the exponential growth in the number ofinterest groups represented by those related to the environment (Baumgartner and Jones 2009: chap. 9).

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process13

has left a gap for further analysis of the formation of “research strategies” (Jasanoff
1990) or the “redistributive side” (Lowi 1964) of science policy, which is of central
importance in the following case.
2.3 The Notion of Coproduction
At this point, a brief discussion of the notion of “the coproduction of knowledge andsociety” is essential. Jasanoff summarized the coproductionist approach as follows:“The proposition that the ways in which we know and we represent the world (bothnature and society) are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it”(2004a: 2). Jasanoff’s theory of coproductionism is almost identical to a comprehensive epitome of the approach taken by mainstream STS research, which is heavily
influenced by the actor-network theory, with emphasis on the symmetry of nature andsociety (Latour 1987).
Jasanoff also divides coproductionism into the constitutive approach, which focuses upon the aspects of scientific practice that produce both knowledge and specificsocial circumstances related to it, and the interactionist approach, which places greater
emphasis upon the interface between technoscience and relatively established aspects
of institutions, such as politics, state, and law. In addition, Jasanoff pinpoints four
themes essential to this approach: identity, to analyze how emerging aspects of sciencecan be both stable and unstable; institutions, to provide stability to the essentiallytransient flow of knowledge; discourses, to see how new knowledge appropriates theold; and representations, to understand the political usage of scientific representations(Jasanoff 2004b).
Despite the apparent kinship with the concern in this article, Jasanoff’s allinclusive formulation of coproductionism fails to provide specific clues about how
it is attained in a particular context. For example, the aforementioned themes are notconcrete conceptual tools but merely areas for researchers to focus on. For my own
analysis, I needed to use analytical concepts from both laboratory studies and policy
process. At the end of this article, I touch upon the limits of this coproductionist
approach and its emphasis on symmetry.
2.4 A Brief Note on Research Method
My research, initiated in 2007, was intended at first to analyze the relationship between
laboratory practices and their organizational history. RIKEN was chosen for its
importance in the history of Japanese science, and the antibiotics laboratory waschosen for its historical continuity. The main laboratory research lasted for two years.
The first half of the research mainly involved participatory observation of laboratory practices, from official weekly reports to actual experiments both in biology andin chemistry, for an average of two days a week. Formal interviews with twenty-two
researchers were conducted in and out of the laboratory during this period. I also
attended several seminars conducted by bioventures in order to understand how to
use their products. The second half was spent doing research on the development of14

M. Fukushimachemical biology. Much of the data used were documents, journal articles, government reports, and in-depth interviews with various key figures, in parallel with myobservations of the ongoing reorganization of the laboratory and RIKEN. Currently,
my research continues with occasional observation of the laboratory.

3 Case Study
This case study first provides a detailed description of how chemical biology was
adopted by the antibiotics laboratory in RIKEN. Then the formation of the Japanese
Association of Chemical Biology in 2006 is examined, followed by a descriptionof how chemical biology was officially adopted as part of the government’s policy
agenda.
3.1 The Laboratory and Its Environment
The main subject of the study is Osada’s antibiotics laboratory at RIKEN, which prides
itself on its history of studying antibiotics for four generations. Antibiotic research was
initiated by the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1929, and mass
production of antibiotics began in 1942. In Japan, the history of antibiotics began in
1944, when a group of scientists was commissioned by the government to study
antibiotics (RIKEN 2005).
The classical method of studying antibiotics, as part of the chemistry of natural
products, usually entails the following steps: (1) search for living sources, mainly
microbes such as fungi or bacteria; (2) extract and isolate bioactive substances;(3) analyze the substances’ bioactivity and chemical structure; and (4) synthesize
promising substances, making them reproducible for more extended use in experiments (see Fig. 1). Following this process, the predecessors of Osada laboratory
produced one success after another, including the discovery of the plant growth hormone gibberellin by Teijiro Yabuta and Yusuke Sumiki and the discovery of polyoxin,
an antibiotic for treating rice plant disease, by Kiyoshi Isono (Ueno 2008).
Osada worked in the laboratory of Teruhiko Beppu, an influential applied microbiologist (see Beppu 1990). Upon launching his own laboratory at RIKEN in 1992,
Osada discovered a growing crisis in the traditional approach to antibiotics research,
symbolized by the global trend of removing the word from the title of laboratories.3
Although antibiotics research (and natural products chemistry in general) had a long,
successful tradition in Japan, the rapid development of molecular biology and theadvent of new analytical instruments such as ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy, nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and high-performance liquid chromatography inthe postwar period facilitated natural products research to the point that the researchitself came to be regarded as routine manual work rather than a creative process. On
top of this came the grim prospect that the effectiveness of new bioactive substances
could be exhausted (Suzuki 1987).

3

Nathan 2004; Hiroyuki Osada, interviews by the author, 8 August 2007 and 24 June 2008.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process

Fig. 1 Historical storage of Streptomyces in the laboratory

15

16

M. Fukushima

3.2 The Rise of Chemical Biology in the United States
Osada and his colleagues closely followed the rise of chemical biology in US labs.
Stuart Schreiber, a synthetic chemist at Harvard University, was one of its mostzealous proponents, although the term had already been in use at Harvard before
Schreiber made it a buzzword (Schreiber and Nicolaou 1997). Even in Japan, as
early as the 1960s, an agrochemist noted that agrotechnical chemistry should be asort of “chemical biology” (Mizushima 1964).
Schreiber, who trained in the laboratory of Nobel laureate Robert Woodward,
achieved prominence for his study of FK506, an immunosuppressant developed by
Japan’s Fujisawa Company (Hashimoto 2001). With the help of cell biologist Gerald
Crabtree, Schreiber identified the binding protein FKBP and then successfully characterized the complex cellular pathway in its entirety (Schreiber 1991; Liu et al. 1991;
Schreiber and Crabtree 1992). The uniqueness of Schreiber’s approach was in proposing a new type of biological research—not through gene knockout, the conventional method used by molecular biologists, but by controlling and manipulating thefunction of proteins using small protein-binding molecules. Schreiber called his work
chemical genetics or, more comprehensively, chemical biology (Wikström 2007).
To pursue their ambitious research, the chemical biologists had to produce andcollect large amounts of these small molecules and develop a mass screening technology to analyze the interactions between the molecules and proteins. This led to therapid development of so-called high-throughput screening technology and to the risein the 1990s of combinatorial chemistry, which was expected to produce an infinite
number of new chemical compounds by combinatorial synthesis with elementary
structures of basic compounds (Takemoto 2005; Takaoka 2005).
3.3 Reaction to the Rise of Chemical Biology
Osada and his colleagues were aware of Schreiber’s work on FK506 and of the chemical biology trend, as evidenced by the creation of a new journal, Chemistry andBiology, edited by Schreiber and Kyriacos C. Nicolaou, a doyen of organic synthetic
chemistry, in 1994. Schreiber actually tried to collaborate with Osada on synthesizing
the chemical compound reveromycin, but Osada declined because he wanted to do it
by himself.4 However, Osada and his colleagues then increasingly realized the coming
trend of chemical biology, witnessing the launching of Chemistry and Biology (Osada,
Imoto, and Yoshida 1998).
Osada and colleagues believed that chemical biology was simply a logical extension of their own work, going back as far as the 1920s. Osada’s background is inagrotechnical chemistry (nôgei kagaku), an umbrella discipline combining microbiology, natural products chemistry, biotechnology, and even synthetic chemistry,
since the time of its establishment in 1911 by Umetaro Suzuki, who is well known for

4

Osada interview, 24 June 2008.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process17

his discovery of Orizanin (vitamin B1).5 Chemical biology felt like a similar hybrid
field of research (Osada, Imoto, and Yoshida 1998).6
Osada and his colleagues aligned their research with Schreiber’s work in the UnitedStates, reconstructing their laboratory to fit the new current of research. The traditionalmodel of antibiotics and natural products research was modified to fit the new chemical biology regime, involving a balanced arrangement of chemists and biologists.
Here, balance implies a more specified form of collaboration between trained molecular and cell biologists, on one hand, and synthetic chemists, on the other. This newbalance was reflected even in the spatial arrangement of researchers in the laboratory:
biologists and chemists shared the same space, similar to that analyzed by Peter
Galison as the “trading zone” (1997). This was following what Schreiber called the“Kornberg experiment” after a well-known biochemist who reportedly experienced
difficulty in making chemists and biologists get along with each other (Hopkin 2004).
Chemical biology permeated a circle of researchers around Osada’s laboratory.
But the traditional method of random screening of natural products was inadequate tomeet the goals of chemical biology, which requires the whole set of bioactive compounds (Schreiber 2004). At a pan-Pacific chemical biology conference in Hawaii in
2000, Schreiber acknowledged to Osada that Japanese expertise in analyzing natural
products surpassed that of American researchers, so his team had decided to focus on
new technologies such as the use of chemical compound arrays.7
Schreiber also told Osada that academic institutions in the United States werebuilding the infrastructure for screening chemical compounds. At the same time,internal reviewers at RIKEN were advising Osada to upgrade his laboratory’s technology. Osada began to explore new technology such as high-throughput screening
systems (see Fig. 2) and a library of chemical compounds for basic chemical biology
research; he also hired more researchers.8
3.4 Spinning a Web of Allies within RIKEN
The process of establishing chemical biology involved other collaborators, including
Minoru Yoshida’s chemical genetics laboratory and Mikiko Sodeoka’s synthetic organic chemistry laboratory. Both Osada and Yoshida had studied at Beppu’s laboratory and shared an understanding of the importance of chemical biology from abiological point of view.9
Sodeoka came to believe that chemical biology would usher in a new era in synthetic chemistry by opening the gate to the expanding market of biological research.10

5 The analysis of the uniqueness of agrotechnical chemistry (nôgei kagaku) in Japan requires another fullarticle. Here, it suffices to indicate that agricultural chemistry in the West is limited to the chemical study ofthe soil, while nôgei kagaku encompasses a wide range of issues related to agriculture and nutrition.
6 Minoru Yoshida indicated that Schreiber’s new journal had the same name as the postwar review
journal of the agrotechnical chemical society in Japan, Kagaku To Seibutsu (Chemistry and Biology)(Yoshida 1994).
7 In place of declining combinatorial chemistry, Schreiber developed the idea of diversity-oriented synthesis, which was expected to produce druglike chemical compounds (see Borman 2004).
8 Hiroyuki Osada, interviews by the author, 24 June 2008 and 26 February 2010.
9 Minoru Yoshida, interview by Akira Ueno, 27 November 2008.
10 Mikiko Sodeoka, interview by Akira Ueno, 17 December 2008. See also Uemura and Sodeoka (2006).

18

M. Fukushima

Fig. 2 High-throughput screener in the laboratory

For Osada and Yoshida, Sodeoka’s laboratory has complemented the chemical side ofchemical biology. The three scientists began to promote chemical biology within andoutside RIKEN.
3.5 Toward the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology
Others, including the editors of various Japanese publications on chemical biology
and those who wrote influential articles on the subject, also contributed to the establishment of the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology in 2006 (Osada 2006c).
However, in view of the objective of this article, the key actors who substantiallycontributed to influencing the policy level by playing the role of policy entrepreneurs
were limited in number. I believe mainly three actors were policy entrepreneurs:
Osada, Masatoshi Hagiwara of the laboratory of biochemical pharmacology atTokyo Medical and Dental University, and Tetsuo Nagano of the laboratory of chemistry and biology at the University of Tokyo.
Hagiwara contributed to the establishment of the first university course of chemical
biology in the School of Biomedical Science in 2003 (Osada et al. 2006) and played apivotal role in organizing the first meeting of the Japanese Association of Chemical
Biology in 2006. Nagano, a specialist in bioimaging technology, not only was the firstpresident of this association but also established the first public chemical library at hisuniversity, which is now developing as a hub for wider consortia for drug discovery inacademia. Links between chemical biology laboratories and government were heavily
promoted by the three men.
3.6 Hagiwara’s and Nagano’s Laboratories
In this section, I examine more closely the paths taken by Hagiwara and Nagano andhow they differed from that of Osada. Biochemical pharmacology, which inherited theBetween the Laboratory and the Policy Process

19

tradition of research on phosphokinase inhibitors, developed the method of using
small molecules as inhibitors of enzyme function in the 1980s, long before thework of Schreiber on FK506 received international attention. According to Hagiwara,
Japanese research in this area was quite advanced, and academic sessions on inhibitors
at international conferences in the 1980s were often monopolized by the Japanese.11
Hagiwara believes that the most significant event in the evolution of chemical
biology has been the National Institutes of Health’s 2003 Roadmap, which highlights
chemical biology as part of the postgenomic policy for biomedicine and calls forextending chemical libraries. He supports carrying out comprehensive screening ofdrug candidates using chemical libraries after the completion of human genomic
analysis to find all chemical compounds that are compatible with the full host of target
proteins. He admires the capacity of American policy makers for organizing such a
policy. Hagiwara’s reaction to this new American policy was to establish Japan’s firstchemical biology course.
Nagano, the first president of the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology, is
known for his research on bioimaging probe technology, with early attention to bioactive substances in the living body. Since he was registered in the Department ofPharmacology at the University of Tokyo, he suspected that his own department could
not succeed in developing drugs, even though it partially supported drug discovery andthe analysis of target proteins.
During his studies at the Duke University School of Medicine in his thirties, hebecame deeply impressed with the fact that the doctors there understood chemistry
well and could discuss structural formulas of chemistry with fluency. He told me hehas long believed in the importance of chemical libraries for drug discovery and was
inspired by the Roadmap’s call for expanding such libraries, without which hebelieved no serious infrastructure for drug discovery could be established.12
3.7 A Digression: Predecessors
The research backgrounds of the three men were distinct. The antibiotics laboratories
at RIKEN were largely concerned with agrochemicals, not drugs for humans, whichwere Nagano’s main concern. Hagiwara’s research—using chemical inhibitors for the
study of biological activity in medicinal settings—fell in an area between that of theothers.
I must also mention a predecessor who played an important, if indirect, role insetting the stage for the eventual collaboration of the trio. This helps to show that theircollaboration was rooted in Japan’s own scientific history and was not merely a
response to trends in the United States.
Hagiwara’s mentor, Hiroyoshi Hidaka, a professor of pharmacology at Nagoya
University, bridged the gaps between chemistry (inhibitors), biology (networks ofkinases), and drug discovery by studying inhibitors of the network of protein kinases
and by being a pioneer in the establishment of a bioventure. Before Schreiber made theterm chemical biology an academic buzzword in the United States, Hidaka realized

11
12

Nagano, Hagiwara and Osada 2006; Masatoshi Hagiwara, interview by the author, 19 March 2010.
Tetsuo Nagano, interview by the author, 6 April 2010.

20

M. Fukushima

almost all the aspects of chemical biology by himself. His research program “Biological Functions and Designed Probe Compounds” (1997 – 99) was one of the midwives of Japanese chemical biology. Hagiwara worked closely with him, and Osada
also participated in this research program, if indirectly.
This historical fact explains why people like Hagiwara felt a sort of déjà vu when
they heard the concept of chemical biology from the United States and wanted to react
to such a trend immediately.13
3.8 The Establishment of the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology in 2006
Osada, Nagano, and Hagiwara became acquainted with each other around 2005 but
did not work together until Hagiwara and others applied for a grant and were thenprompted by the Ministry of Education to join forces and apply together.14 This is arepeated theme—guidance from the government to scientists to form a group for aparticular objective—that I expand upon in the following sections.
In 2006 Hagiwara and colleagues finally won a one-year grant to research chemical
biology trends around the world. They launched a forum for discussing chemical
biology and invited Osada, Nagano, and others to a symposium on the issue, atwhich they agreed to establish a study group. Hagiwara entrusted the pivotal role ofnegotiator to Nagano in order to collaborate with policy makers, and Hagiwara himself
assumed the role of chief secretary of the new group.15
The first meeting of the Chemical Biology Research Group, later known as theJapanese Association of Chemical Biology, was held in 2006. Most of the participants
were from pharmacology, chemistry, and the biomedical sciences. A limited number
were from agrotechnical chemistry. There were twenty-nine oral presentations andsixty-eight poster presentations at the 2006 meeting. The presentations were largely
divided into two categories of research: the chemists, represented by studies of chemical tools such as imaging and screening techniques and synthesis of inhibitors, and thebiologists, represented by studies of various biological functions using these tools.
A number of key players from the international chemical biology community wereinvited: an editor from ACS Chemical Biology, another from Nature Chemical
13 Hagiwara interview, 19 March 2010; Osada interview, 26 February 2010; Hiroyuki Osada, personalcommunication, 19 December 2011; Nagano, Hagiwara, and Osada 2006. Hidaka’s name is rarely mentioned
in the brief historical narratives of chemical biology in Japan (for an exception, see Nagano, Hagiwara, andOsada 2006); this is because he was involved in a legal issue in 1998 and had left the academic circle.
Hidaka’s collaborator Masaaki Suzuki, a specialist in molecular imaging in chemistry from Nagoya University, succeeded Hidaka to supervise the program to its inconclusive end in 1999.
14 The earliest interaction between Osada and Nagano occurred around 2004 through the Japanese Societyof Chemistry’s Division of Life Science, when Osada, representing agrotechnical chemistry, becameacquainted with Nagano as a representative from pharmacology. However, their substantial collaboration
developed through their shared goal of establishing a public chemical library around this period, which is
discussed in the following sections (Hiroyuki Osada, interview by the author, 16 February 2010; Hiroyuki
Osada, personal communication, 23 December 2011).
15 Hagiwara interview, 19 March 2010. Another significant occasion for the society was Nagano’s five-year
grant for research on bioimage probing awarded in 2005 by Core Research of Evolutional Science andTechnology (CREST) of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST). This grant facilitated the work of
a substantial number of young researchers studying bioimaging and resulted in a large number of presentations on this theme in the upcoming Japanese Association of Chemical Biology (Osada interview, 16
February 2010).

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process

21

Biology, and the head of Germany’s Chemical Biology Core Facility. The largest
number of presentations was on imaging techniques. Notably, Nagano’s team provided seventeen out of sixty-eight poster presentations (Nihon kemikaru baiorojı̂
kenkyûkai 2006), which demonstrated the influence of his style of research inJapanese chemical biology.
Osada’s agrotechnical chemistry colleagues were less active at the meeting. Osada
told me that researchers in microbiology and the chemistry of natural products foundthe meeting’s focus too limited, and they may also have been alienated by Hagiwara
and Nagano’s undisguised orientation toward medicine.16 These differences later
caused a serious schism.
3.9 Coupling with Policy: Chemical Library as Policy Agenda
So far, I have described the gradual confluence of different lines of research toward a
common goal, the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology. However, the narrative
above is insufficient to clarify the role of public institutions—both policy makers andpublic research institutions such as RIKEN—in legitimizing the role of chemical
biology in public science policy. I discuss separately the key figures’ efforts to establish public chemical libraries, which were essential for chemical biology to take root.
This process, taking place in parallel with the activities described above, demonstrates
the complex interplay between scientists and policy makers.
3.9.1 Institutional politics of a chemical library in RIKEN
To understand the intricate politics involved in establishing a public chemical library,
it is necessary to expand upon the role played by RIKEN, as such a library depends
upon the support of such an institution.
To understand RIKEN’s role in the landscape of Japanese science, we must firstlook at the recurrent conflicts between Japan’s Ministry of Education, which is incharge of universities, and the Science and Technology Agency, which used to deal
with public research institutes such as RIKEN. Although the agency was integrated
into the Ministry of Education in 2001, divisions have remained to date.17
The chief scientists at RIKEN’s core facility, the Central Research Institute, until
recently enjoyed relative autonomy despite pressure from the ministry (Miyata 1983).
However, this autonomy was eroded by growing general pressure in the government to
privatize Japan’s national research institutes, which forced them to differentiate themselves more visibly from universities by becoming more project oriented. This trend isevidenced by the establishment of limited-time research centers, such as the Tsukuba
Life Science Research Center in 1984, in line with the national policy of promoting
molecular biology (RIKEN 2005).

16

Hiroyuki Osada, interview by the author, 15 February 2010.
Until integrated with the Ministry of Education in 2001, the Agency of Science and Technology in the
Ministry of Internal Affairs took charge of large-scale scientific projects. After 2001, some divisions, such as
the Life Science Division, as the descendant from the agency, still show their character as inclined toward big
science projects, such as the Protein 3000 Program, described further below.
1722

M. Fukushima

In 2003 RIKEN was made an independent administrative body. Its new director,
Ryôji Noyori, a 2001 Nobel laureate for his work in synthetic chemistry, moved tomake RIKEN’s social contributions more conspicuous with such projects as integrating RIKEN’s various centers throughout Japan to establish an infrastructure for morecoordinated research as a whole. (Noyori 2003).
Noyori’s statement, “Better a lead compound than an article in Nature,” impressed
Osada. Noyori, despite not having a background in life sciences, quickly realized thepotential of chemical biology and became an important supporter of Osada’s proposal
for a public chemical library. A chemical biology research group was established
at RIKEN in 2003, followed by a RIKEN Director Fund grant for a chemical libraryin 2004.18
3.9.2 A chemical library in public: Intersections with political machinery
For Osada and his allies, this was a step toward a larger plan for a library for an “allJapan team” open for all the Japanese researchers. Osada’s emphasis was also on alibrary of chemical compounds based on natural products. Such compounds wereusually stored in laboratories and often discarded when the researchers retired.
Osada’s plan was to collect these compounds for use by a wide range of researchers(Kakeya, Saito, and Osada 2007).
But various ministries “turned him away at the door, saying that it’s simply
impossible, unjustifiable, or even it is hard to understand its necessity,” as Osada
recollects.19 Only the Life Sciences Division in the Ministry of Education showedsome interest in his proposal. However, the division informed him of two things: thathe should collaborate with other petitioners and that the proposed library should bepart of the Protein 3000 Program.20
3.10 The Protein 3000 Program and Chemical Biology
The Protein 3000 Program—probably the first “big science” program in Japanese life
sciences—was an ambitious project for determining the basic structure of three thousand proteins. The Ministry of Education invested 53.5 billion yen (approximately US$618 million) into the program for five years, beginning in 2002.
This program was intended to rally the limited contribution of Japanese scholars to
the Human Genome Project, with only 6 percent completion, through an intensive
investment in structural biology that deals with the structure of proteins. However,from the beginning, this project stirred heated controversies regarding its huge budget,
as well as the feasibility of determining structures of such a large number of proteins ina period of only five years (Ôshima 2007; Tsukihara and Nakamura 2008; Cyranoski
2006; Yokoyama et al. 2007; Isaji 2009).
One of the most acute problems for policy makers was that the program made novisible contribution to medicine because of its focus on basic proteins of a smaller size—

18 Osada interviews, 8 August 2007 and 26 February 2010; Hiroyuki Osada, personal communication, 29
December 2011.
19 Osada interview, 8 August 2007.
20 Osada interviews, 24 June 2008 and 26 February 2010.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process

23

not the proteins that are crucial for medical purposes, such as membrane proteins. In theface of mounting criticism, policy makers were forced to change direction and movetoward a more concentrated focus on drug discovery (Ministry of Education 2006).
Shigenori Yokoyama, an internationally known structural biologist at RIKEN andthe chief scientist of this program, began to focus on chemical proteomics as a sort of
new combination of structural biology and chemistry. He also began to actively communicate with key chemical biology figures such as Osada and Nagano.
At this point, the concept of drug discovery entered the stage of policy for life
sciences, and the purposed proper method for this was roughly identified with the ideaof establishing a chemical library, to form a new stream of concrete policy. The
Division of Life Sciences’ suggestion to Osada that he link the chemical librarywith the Protein 3000 Program is what Kingdon (1984) calls the coupling of the
problem stream (how to end the Protein 3000 Program for policy makers) and thepolicy stream (the creation of a chemical library for scientists), leading to the openingof the policy window, which resulted in the Targeted Proteins Research Program.21
3.11 The Targeted Proteins Research Program and Chemical Biology
The Protein 3000 Program was succeeded by the Targeted Proteins Research Program,which began in 2007 and represented a drastic change in objectives. The new program
focused on proteins important for medical research but difficult to analyze, such as
membrane proteins and those of large molecular size. Another change was the conspicuous inclusion of a chemical library as a pillar of the research plan (see Fig. 3).
Thus, the chemical library acquired a legitimate position in national policy (Ministryof Education 2007; 2011).
In the process of transitioning from one program to the next, however, the symbolic
meaning of the chemical library also changed. Osada, with the help of RIKEN andvarious scholars, was involved in preparations for the new program. He created a
preparatory committee for the establishment of the library with the emphasis on
natural products.22
However, in this process, conflicting anticipations for the library came to the surface. Osada wanted the library to be for an “all-Japan team,” namely, open to all theJapanese researchers, but the Ministry of Education disagreed because it went beyond
the competence of the ministry. A new preparatory committee was formed, and Osada
was replaced with Nagano.23
This replacement had an important political implication because of the authority of
the new steering committee to decide who would be in charge of the new library. Aftermuch deliberation, it was decided that the library would be located at the University
21

Osada interview, 24 June 2008.
Osada interview, 24 June 2008; Osada, personal communication, 29 December 2011. Nagano, for hispart, became acquainted with Yokoyama about two years before the end of the Protein 3000 Program. It was
mainly on Yokoyama’s initiative, when he and his collaborator, a pharmacologist from the University ofTokyo, came to see Nagano to explain the rough plan for drug discovery in the future. This developed into a
more concrete collaboration when Nagano was invited to give a lecture on chemical biology at the publicforum on the upcoming project (Nagano interview, 6 April 2010; Tetsuo Nagano, personal communication,
17 December 2011).
23 Osada interview, 24 June 2008; Osada, personal communication, 29 December 2011.
22

24

M. Fukushima

Fig. 3 A schematic illustration of the Targeted Proteins Research Program (English added by the author),
courtesy of the Targeted Proteins Research Program at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology, Japanof Tokyo. As a result, Nagano’s laboratory became the hub of the network of screening
centers in Japan, while Osada’s library—the RIKEN Natural Products Depository—
pursued a separate path, collaborating with the Max Planck Institute in Germany
and the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (Osada 2006a,
2006b, 2007).
The largest difference of interpretation between Osada and Nagano with regard to
the role of the library is that while Osada adhered to the importance of natural products
as the weapon to compete with the American style of chemical libraries based onsynthesized compounds, Nagano was not concerned with its contents as long as it
helped accelerate the process of effective drug discovery.
The schism between Nagano and Osada was broadened by the government’s
budget allocations by public hearing ( jigyô-shiwake) in 2009, when there was alarge cut to the national science budget (Cyranoski 2009). Nagano, responsible forthe budget of the library section of Targeted Proteins Research Program, concentrated
the budget to his own library at the University of Tokyo, indirectly distancing himself
from the idea of the library based on natural products.24 As a result, the temporary
confluence of scientists and policy makers began to show clear and ominous signsof falling apart, as if reaffirming the well-known Buddhist tenet that “all things
must pass.”

4 Theoretical Considerations
4.1 The Parallel Development of Laboratory Practices, Scientific Community, andPolicyThus far, I have attempted to describe the relationship between collective decisions by
a few laboratories and the administrative policy process. I have shown that behind the24

Osada interview, 26 February 2010; Nagano interview, 6 April 2010.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process25

rapid establishment of the Japanese Society for Chemical Biology, scientists fromdifferent research traditions found a loosely defined common ground. I have also
shown that this process progressed in parallel with the establishment of the public
chemical library.
In both processes, the role of the national administration was of substantial importance. Even the formation of the community of chemical biology researchers cannot
be described simply as a bottom-up process like “spontaneous order” (Polanyi 1951;
Von Hayek 1979), because the administration played an indirect role as a catalyst forbringing together scientists of different orientations.
The administration’s role was more evident in the establishment of public chemical
libraries. I have employed both the perspective of laboratory studies and Kingdon’stheory of policy windows to show the process of the gradual formation of a policy
community with the help of policy entrepreneurs, such as the trio mentioned
above, and the opening of the policy window by the coupling of the problem stream(post –Protein 3000 Program) and policy stream (the idea of the chemical library).
The strength of the policy window theory is its capacity to theorize both the contingent character of agenda setting and the institutional constraints in which the process is embedded. The adoption of a public chemical library as part of the national
science policy agenda was contingent upon the timing of the proposal by scientists topolicy makers who desperately needed an acceptable exit strategy. The appropriateness of Kingdon’s framework is corroborated by the fact that if the idea had been
proposed any later than 2007, this coupling might not have been realized, because theexplosive new scientific discovery involving induced pluripotent stem cells that began
in 2006 would have drastically changed policy priorities among the core policy
makers.
Notwithstanding the temporal success of coupling these streams, the narrative
above ended by hinting at the probable schism among the main characters with regard
to both the nature of the chemical library and chemical biology itself. The disagreement over the meaning of chemical biology, seen in the different approaches describedabove, is not confined to Japan.
In the United States, Schreiber was oriented toward basic research in the early days,
while the National Institutes of Health emphasized the use of chemical biology for
drug discovery. This resulted in Schreiber’s establishment of the Broad Institute of
MIT and Harvard in order to pursue his ideas without the help of the National Institutesof Health (Schreiber 2004; Kotz 2007).
Despite these differences, however, both approaches to chemical biology require achemical library to attain their goals. In this sense, the chemical library is an example
of a “boundary object” (Star and Griesemer 1989) that connects heterogeneousgroups—in this case, scientists—and mobilizes them in the direction of a sharedpublic policy. Yet this can work only as long as the actors believe that they are working
toward a shared goal. The schism described above suggests that a boundary object has
its own “life,” and we are witnessing its possible death, and even its afterlife, which
can also be theoretically predicted by the idea of policy windows, because the window
may close when the proper timing for the coupling of streams is past.

26

M. Fukushima

4.2 Elements beyond the Laboratory and Policy Processes
So far, I have analyzed how three levels—the laboratory, the community of scientists,
and the policy process—have developed in parallel by joining different theoreticaltraditions. I have also made reference to a number of elements beyond the laboratory
and policy process that I believe have facilitated, or even accelerated, these developments: the peculiar character of policy entrepreneurs, the international environment,
and the cultural mood, which together promote such parallel developments.
4.2.1 The role of policy entrepreneurs in promoting parallel development
I have focused on how policy entrepreneurs created bridges between domains, such as
the traditional sciences and chemical biology, and between scientists and policy
makers. Science and institutions or, more generally, new knowledge and society are
not simply coproduced in the manner of autogenesis but are consciously managed by
the efforts of these concerned policy entrepreneurs to attain their goals.
Policy entrepreneurs are political animals who do not hesitate to spend their timeand energy extravagantly to achieve their goals, which not every scientist is suited for.
Even among the actors discussed in this article, the degree of political entrepreneurship varied, and the one who seemed to have the strongest “animal spirits” (Keynes1936) appears to have won the game to make his ambition materialize in the formof both the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology and the public chemical library.
I believe this aspect of policy entrepreneurship deserves further research.
4.2.2 International environments
Still other factors have influenced the developments I have discussed. Most notable
is the role of international competition and perceived scientific trends in the
United States.
Both scientists and policy makers in Japan are keenly attentive to trends in scientificresearch and policy in the United States. The term chemical biology was coined there,
and the three Japanese researchers highlighted in this article initiated their activities in
response to American trends. Naturally, the Japanese government also paid attention
to what was happening in American science policy. The coupling of these different
streams apparently was facilitated and promoted by similar perceptions of the international environment.
4.2.3 A particular “mood” (kûki) for drug discovery
The third factor that facilitates the parallel development can be dubbed as symbolic or
cultural: a vague theme of drug discovery (sôyaku). If we take this concept as arhetorical device, its importance is revealed by its appearance in various contexts
with a different emphasis on what it actually means.
My detailed analysis elsewhere of its use at the laboratory level has revealed that its
definition varies among different types of researchers (Fukushima 2011). Those whoare engaged in basic research tend to regard drug discovery at a very rudimentary leveland feel they could contribute to the process even by establishing a new assay system.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process27

In contrast, for those who have closely experienced its actual process, the term signifies more concrete elements, such as clinical testing and marketability, so theirassessments of the laboratory situation could be critically negative (Fukushima2011). In fact, Nagano agrees that the notion of drug discovery is used in a veryvague manner in Japan, and he is not sure what is signified by the concept—whether
it is about basic research, lead compounds, clinical trials, or about releasing the drug inthe market.25
Despite such ambiguity, the term shares an undeniable aura of legitimacy similar toother political buzzwords like eko (“eco-”) or kyôsei (“symbiosis”) in Japanese politics. As an administrative catchphrase, the concept of drug discovery is most palatablein the context of the political trend toward shakai-kangen (to plow back profits into
society) of scientific results, which both bureaucrats and even STS researchers havepromoted. In fact, the superficial—and very problematic—kinship of chemical
biology with the concept of drug discovery attracts both researchers and administrators in their own context. This tendency can be regarded as a vague atmosphere, asort of zeitgeist, or in a more specific cultural term, kûki (mood, literally “air”) that wasonce analyzed by Japanese social critic Yamamoto Shichihei (1983) as a societal andemotional mood that binds and leads people to specific directions.26
4.3 Revisiting Coproductionism
Having expanded upon the process of parallel development by specifying the factorsthat facilitated it, I must return to Jasanoff’s coproductionism (2004a, 2004b). I
believe there are several aspects of her approach that should be revised.
First, her general distinction between constitutive and interactive coproduction
does not work well in the case presented here. Although chemical biology is an
emerging field that demands both new knowledge and new institutional settings(hence constitutive), this newness should be formulated in the context of scientifictraditions of various scientists, as well as institutional backgrounds such as RIKEN
and the bureaucracy (hence interactive). This also suggests the general importance ofinstitutional settings—or what I call the “network of constraints”—that largely restrict
any efforts directed toward so-called constitutive network building, which followersof the actor-network theorists are now being criticized for underestimating (Kleinman
2003).
Second, while acknowledging that Jasanoff’s four themes of coproductionist
research—identity, institutions, discourses, and representations—partially fit the
topic of this article, the three factors that enable the parallel development I discussed
do not fit neatly into her categories. For example, behind the repeated themes ofcompetition and contrast between American and Japanese science lies what I call

25

Nagano interview, 6 April 2010.
To perceive the kûki of the situation correctly is an important cultural guideline in Japan. A recent topic in
the mass media, the slang of KY (pronounced kei-wai) that is in fashion among young people as an adjective
for denouncing those who are insensitive to kûki (e.g., kûki yomenai: “cannot read kûki”) is believed bysome academics to show the increasing public pressure for conformity among Japanese youth. Yamamoto’s(1983) criticism of this phenomenon in the 1980s also pointed to the tendency toward mass hysteria at thattime and he further contended that an act of war had been attributed to kûki.

26

28

M. Fukushima

the “global geopolitics of science,” which I believe does not represent the coproductionist approach, which, with its emphasis on symmetry, cannot deal with it appropriately. In this geopolitical context, the rivalry between the two countries is but asmall part of the international politicoscientific order in which the US hegemonicstatus in science is still felt as both the point of reference and a constant challenge
among the researchers I have observed thus far.
This means that the parallel development of the three levels in this study was within
the constant influence of a type of “electromagnetic field” of a hegemon or hegemons
that could not easily be avoided. However, this does not mean that this electromagnetic
field, so to speak, is unilaterally deterministic, as neo-Marxist theorists may assume.
Rather, on each occasion of this recurrent theme of international competition, with
the United States as the powerful center of science, both policy makers and policyconscious scientists have sought the appropriate way to play the game, which is
exemplified in cases like the Human Genome Project, the Protein 3000 Program,and even the stem cell research competition.
Chemical biology has been interpreted by various researchers, including the trio I
have focused on in this article, as “old wine in a new bottle.” In a published trialoguecommemorating the establishment of the Japanese Association of Chemical Biology
in 2006, the trio emphasized that chemical biology was a name given to the area of
research that had been the forte of Japanese researchers (Nagano, Hagiwara, andOsada 2006). This powerful sense of scientific tradition legitimized the establishmentof chemical biology in Japan not as a copy of American trends but as a counteroffensive in the international competitive arena in postgenomic research.
By highlighting the overwhelming influence of the hegemon(s) in the international
politicoscientific order, I have already departed from the coproductionist assumptionof symmetric anthropology. This departure is amplified by another recurrent theme:
the cultural meaning of advanced science or, in this case, chemical biology.
This topic is too large for me to develop here. Suffice it to say that the theme of thisarticle is deeply related to another theme: scientific researchers’ sense of local “tradition.” There is a need for research on the relationship between cultural tradition
within and beyond scientific research in such global geopolitics of science. To be fair,
Jasanoff also refers to the importance of this line of research, asking “how culture may
condition the process of scientific inquiry, producing a different style of research on
the ‘same’ problem of knowledge” (Jasanoff 2004b: 36). But so far, inclusion ofcultural elements has been rather neglected in STS research.

5 Conclusion
Chemical biology is a neglected field of STS scholarship on the rapidly expanding
realm of postgenomic research. I have attempted to show that the development ofchemical biology in Japan resulted from an intricate interplay among laboratory
practices, the community of scientists, and policy processes. To understand this development, I exploited the rich tradition of laboratory studies in science and technology
studies and the study of policy process in political science, looking also at policy
entrepreneurs, the influence of global science, and even the cultural meaning of drug
discovery, while trying to overcome the limitations of symmetric coproductionism.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process29

I conclude this article by briefly commenting on the significance of studying science and politics in countries like Japan. Since the early introduction of Westernscience more than one hundred years ago—or as early as the late eighteenth century,
since the publication of the translation of a Dutch anatomical textbook—Japanesescience has occupied a unique position in the global context of science: it is advanced
yet also entangled with a complex web of institutions, and its distinctive cultural
practices are different from major Western traditions. In view of this unique historicalexperience, I hope that this case study, if at all possible, will stimulate further researchrather than simply blur the boundary between nature and society (Latour 1993) andwill help to overcome other obsolete conceptual dichotomies, such as those involving
West/East (or the obscure notion of “Asia”), advanced/developing, high science/local
culture, and so forth, which still seem to (if implicitly) haunt STS scholars’ minds andare in need of unrelenting academic re-examination. In this sense, this study, together
with the other articles in this special issue, is expected to introduce a series of newqueries, which have been neglected by scholars from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean,in order to prove that the Pacific Rim, which all of these articles are concerned with,is not a vast empty backyard of the West but is, in fact, a cornucopian terra nova
scientiae, impatiently awaiting further exploration.

References
Atkinson, Paul, Peter Glasner, and Margaret Lock, eds. (2009). Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping
the New Genomic Era. London: Routledge.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones (2009). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Beppu, Teruhiko 別府輝彦 (1990). Ôyô biseibutsugaku wa shu no tayousei ni hajimaru 応用微生物学は種の多様性にはじまる (Applied Microbiology Starts from the Diversity of Species). Tokyo: Mita.
Bimber, Bruce, and David H. Guston (1995). Politics by the Same Means: Government and Science in the
United States. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff et al., 554 –71.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Borman, Stu (2004). Rescuing Combichem: Diversity-Oriented Synthesis Aims to Pick Up Where Traditional Combinatorial Chemistry Left Off. Chemical and Engineering News 82, no. 40: 32–40.
Callon, Michel, John Law, and Arie Rip, eds. (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology:
Sociology of Science in the Real World. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Cambrosio, Alberto, and Peter Keating (1995). Exquisite Specificity: The Monoclonal Antibody Revolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cobb, Roger W., and Charles D. Elder (1972). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of AgendaBuilding. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, Michael D., James C. March, and Johan P. Olsen (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational
Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17, no. 1: 1– 25.
Cyranoski, David (2006). “Big Science” Protein Project under Fire. Nature 443: 382.
Cyranoski, David (2009). Democratic Fallacy. Nature 462: 389.
FitzGerald, Garret A. (2008). Drugs, Industry, and Academia. Science 320, no. 5883: 1563.
Fujii, Nobutaka 藤井信孝, Akira Ôtaka 大高章, and Keiwa Tamamura 玉村啓和 (2005). Kemikaru
puroteomikusu ni yoru sôyakukiban no kakushin: Jôhô kara seigyo he ケミカルプロテオミクスによる創薬基盤の革新－情報から制御へ (Innovation of Infrastructure for Drug Discovery by Chemical Proteomics: From Information to Control). Saibô kogaku 24, no. 11: 1181–86.
Fujimura, Joan H. (1996). Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fukushima, Masato 福島真人 (2009). Risâchi-pasu bunseki: Kagakuteki jissen no mikurosenryaku ni
tsuite リサーチ・パス分析―科学的実践のミクロ戦略について(Research-Path Analysis: On theMicro-strategy of Scientific Practices). Nihon jôhôkeiei gakkaishi 29, no. 2: 26 –35.

30

M. Fukushima

Fukushima, Masato 福島真人 (2010). Chishiki iten no shinwa to genjitsu-baiokei rabo deno kansatsu kara
知識移転の神話と現実─バイオ系ラボでの観察から (Myth and Reality in Knowledge Transfer:
Based on Observations in a Laboratory of Life Sciences). Kenkyû gijutsu keikaku 24, no. 2: 163– 72.
Fukushima, Masato 福島真人 (2011). Soshiki toshite no raboratorı̂: Kagaku no dainamizumu no minzokushi 組織としてのラボラトリー─科学のダイナミズムの民族誌 (Laboratory as Organization:
An Ethnography of the Dynamism of Scientific Practice). Soshiki kagaku 44, no. 3: 37 –52.
Galison, Peter (1997). Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1960). The Javanese Kijaji: The Changing Role of a Cultural Broker. Comparative Studies
in Society and History 2, no. 2: 228–49.
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gray, Nathanael S. (2006). Drug Discovery through Industry-Academic Partnerships. Nature Chemical
Biology 2, no. 12: 649–53.
Guston, David (2000). Between Politics and Science: Assuring Integrity and Productivity of Research.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hashimoto, Michimasa 橋本道真 (2001). Men’eki yokuseizai FK506 (kakuronimusu) no hakken to kaihatsu 免疫抑制剤 FK506 (タクロニムス) の発見と開発 (The Discovery and Development of Immunosuppressant FK506 [Tacrolimus]). Paper presented at the 2001 Conference of the Kanto Branch of theJapanese Society of Agro-technical Chemistry, Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan, 20 October 2011(http://jsbba.bt.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp/past/taikai01/symp3.pdf, accessed 16 July 2007).
Heclo, Hugh (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political
System, edited by Anthony King, 87– 125. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research.
Henry, Celia M. (2001). Structure-Based Drug Design. Chemical and Engineering News 79, no. 23: 69– 74.
Hopkin, Karen (2004). Elvis, Nixon, and Stuart Schreiber. Scientist, 13 September, 56.
Isaji, Makishi 伊佐治真樹史 (2009). Kagaku purojekuto hihan no yôin: Tanpaku 3000 purojekuto wo rei
toshite 科学プロジェクト批判の要因ータンパク３０００プロジェクトを例として (Factors
Affecting Criticism of Scientific Projects: The Case of Protein 3000). Master’s thesis, Department of
Political Science, Waseda University.
Jasanoff, Sheila (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jasanoff, Sheila (2004a). The Idiom of Co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of
Science and Social Order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, 1–12. London: Routledge.
Jasanoff, Sheila (2004b). Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, 13–45. London: Routledge.
Kakeya, Hideaki 掛谷秀昭, Akiko Saitô 斉藤安貴子, and Hiroyuki Osada 長田裕之 (2007). Biseibutsu
taishasanbutsu yurai no shôbunshi raiburarı̂ no riyôgijutsu: Sukurı̂ningu to kemikaru baiorojı̂ kenkyû
微生物代謝産物由来の小分子ライブラリーの利用技術ースクリーニングとケミカルバイオ
ロジー研究 (The Use of Technology to Organize Small Molecules Derived from Microbial Metabolites: Screening and Chemical Biology). Baio-indasutori 24, no. 7: 48–54.
Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio (2003). Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the
Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keynes, John M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.
Kingdon, John W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.
Kleinman, Daniel L. (2003). Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual
Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kojima, Hiromitsu 小島廣光 (2003). Seisaku keisei to NPO hô: Mondai, seisaku, soshite seiji 政策形成とNPO 法－問題、政策、そして政治 (The Formation of Policy and the NPO Act: Problems, Policy,
and Politics). Tokyo: Yûhikaku.
Kotz, Joanne (2007). Chemical Biology at the Broad Institute. Nature Chemical Biology 3, no. 4: 199.
Kugawa, Fumihiko, Masaru Watanabe, and Fuyuhiko Tamanoi (2007). Chemical Biology/Chemical Genetics/Chemical Genomics: Importance of Chemical Library. Chem-Bio Informatics Journal 7, no. 3:
49 –68.

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process31

Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts.
London: Sage.
Liu, Jun, Jesse D. Farmer, William S. Lane, Jeff Friedman, Irving Weissman, and Stuart L. Schreiber (1991).
Calcineurin Is a Common Target of Cyclophilin-Cyclosporin A and FKBP-FK506 Complexes. Cell 66,
no. 4: 807–15.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World
Politics 16, no. 4: 677–715.
Lynch, Michael (1985). Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a
Research Laboratory. London: Routledge.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Marsh, David (1998). Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Marsh, David, and R. A. W. Rhodes, eds. (1992). Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Meyer, John W., and W. Richard Scott, eds. (1992). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality.
London: Sage.
Ministry of Education 文部科学省 (2006). Tanpakushitsu kenkyû senryaku suishin sagyôbukaihôkokokusho タンパク質研究戦略推進作業部会報告書 (Report of the Committee of Strategic
Development of the Research on Proteins Working Group) (http://www.tanpaku.org/pdf/
evaluation05.pdf, accessed 9 August 2008).
Ministry of Education 文部科学省 (2007). Tanpaku 3000: Jigo hyôka hôkokushoタンパク3000事後評価
報告書 (Official Evaluation Report of Protein 3000 Project) (http://www.tanpaku.org/old_project/protein02a.php, accessed 9 August 2008).
Ministry of Education 文部科学省 (2011). Homepage for Targeted Proteins Research Program (http://www.tanpaku.org/, accessed 3 June 2011).
Miyata, Shinpei 宮田親平 (1983). Kagakushatachi no jiyû na rakuen: Eikô no rikagaku kenkyûjo 科学者たちの自由な楽園ー栄光の理化学研究所 (A Liberating Paradise for Scientists: RIKEN’s Glory
Days). Tokyo: Bungei shunju.
Mizushima, Shôji 水島昭二 (1964). Nôgei kagaku to kagaku-seibutsugaku 農芸化学と化学生物学(Agrotechnical Chemistry and Chemical Biology). Kagaku to seibutsu 2, no. 4: 223– 24.
Nagano, Tetsuo 長野哲雄, Masatoshi Hagiwara 萩原正敏, and Hiroyuki Osada 長田裕之 (2006). Teidan:
Nihon de tanjô! Sekai hatsu no kemikaru baiorojı̂ kenkyûkai 鼎談ー日本で誕生！世界初のケミカル
バイオロジー研究会 (Trialogue: The Birth of the World’s First Japanese Study Group Devoted to
Chemical Biology). Baionikkusu 23: 52 –55.
Nathan, Carl (2004). Antibiotics at the Crossroads: Are We Making the Right Choices to Bring New Drugs to
the Marketplace? Nature 431, no. 7011: 899–902.
National Institutes of Health (2003). About the NIH Roadmap. (http://commonfund.nih.gov/aboutroadmap.aspx, accessed 9 August 2008).
Nihon kemikaru baiorojı̂ kenkyûkai 日本ケミカルバイオロジー研究会 (2006). Daiikkai Nihon kemikaru
baiorojı̂ kenkyûkai yôkôshû 第一回日本ケミカルバイオロジー研究会要綱集 (Proceedings of theFirst Meeting of the Japanese Chemical Biology Study Group). Tokyo: Nihon kemikaru baiorojı̂ kenkyûkai.
Noyori, Ryôji 野依良治 (2003). Dokuritsu gyôsei hôjin rikagaku kenkyûjo rijichô ni shûnin shite 独立行
政法人 理化学研究所理事長に就任して (Becoming the Director of RIKEN). RIKEN nyûsu 268(http://www.riken.go.jp/r-world/info/release/news/2003/oct/index.html#mokuji, accessed 3 May 2009).
Osada, Hiroyuki 長田裕之 (2006a). Biseibutsu taisha kagôbutsu wo kiban ni shita kemikaru baiorojı̂ 微生
物代謝化合物を基盤にしたケミカルバイオロジー (Chemical Biology Based on Microbial Metabolite Compounds). Gendai kagaku 2006, no. 6: 44 –49.
Osada, Hiroyuki 長田裕之 (2006b). Kemikaru baiorojı̂ no chôryû-biseibutsu yurai baiopurôbu no riyô ケミ
カルバイオロジーの潮流―微生物由来バイオプローブの利用 (Trends in Chemical Biology:
The Use of Bioprobes Derived from Microbes). Baionikkusu 23: 26–31.
Osada, Hiroyuki (2006c). The Japanese Society for Chemical Biology. ACS Chemical Biology 1, no. 1: 8.
Osada, Hiroyuki 長田裕之 (2007). Biseibutsu kagaku no fukken 微生物化学の復権 (The Revival of
Microbial Chemistry). Baio-indasutorı̂ 24, no. 7: 5–11.

32

M. Fukushima

Osada, Hiroyuki 長田裕之, Masaya Imoto 井本正哉, and Minoru Yoshida 吉田稔 (1998). Zadankai: Baiopurôbu kenkyû no genjô to tenbô 座談会―バイオプローブ研究の現状と展望 (Trends and Prospects Regarding Bioprobe Research: A Round Table Discussion). Baio-indasutorı̂ 15, no. 7: 56 –62.
Osada, Hiroyuki, Masatoshi Hagiwara, Kazunobu Toshima, and Masaya Imoto (2006). The Education
System for Chemical Biology in Japanese Universities. ACS Chemical Biology 1, no. 8: 492 –94.
Ôshima, Yasurô (2007). Tanpaku 3000 ga nokoshitamo no: Ôshima Yasurô hakase ni kiku タンパク3000が残したもの－大島泰郎博士に聞く (The Legacy of the Protein 3000 Project: Interview with Dr.
Yasurô Ôshima). Gendai kagaku 434: 14 –21.
Pisano, Gary P. (2006). Science Business: The Promise, the Reality and the Future of Biotech. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Polanyi, Michael (1951). The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
RIKEN 理研 (2005). Riken 88 nen shi 理研88年史 (88 Years of RIKEN’s History) (http://www.riken.go.jp/r-world/info/release/riken88/book/, accessed 22 January 2007).
Sabatier, Paul (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented
Learning Therein. Policy Science 21, no. 2/3: 129 –68.
Salemme, F. Raymond (2003). Chemical Genomics as an Emerging Paradigm for Postgenomic Drug Discovery. Pharmacogenomics 4, no. 3: 257 –67.
Schreiber, Stuart L. (1991). Chemistry and Biology of the Immunophilins and Their Immunosuppressive
Ligands. Science 251, no. 4991: 283 –87.
Schreiber, Stuart L. (2004). Stuart Schreiber: Biology from a Chemist’s Perspective, interviewed by Joanna
Owens. Drug Discovery Today 9, no. 7: 299–303.
Schreiber, Stuart L., and Gerald R. Crabtree (1992). The Mechanism of Action of Cyclosporine A and
FK506. Immunology Today 13, no. 4: 136 –42.
Schreiber, Stuart L., and Kyriacos C. Nicolaou (1997). What’s in a Name? Chemistry and Biology 4, no. 1:
1– 2.
Sehgal, Anil (2002). Drug Discovery and Development Using Chemical Genomics. Current Opinion ofDrug Discovery and Development 5, no. 4: 526–31.
Serres, Michel (1969). La communication: Hermès I. Paris: Minuit.
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer (1989). Institutional Ecology, “Translations,” and Boundary
Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social
Studies of Science 19, no. 4: 387–420.
Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth, eds. (1992). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suzuki, Akinori 鈴木明憲 (1987). Tennenbutsu yûkikagaku: Tennenseiri kasseibushitsu no kagaku 天然物
有機化学ー天然生理活性物質の化学 (The Organic Chemistry of Natural Products: The Chemistryof Naturally Bioactive Substances). In Nôgei kagaku no hyakunen 農芸化学の百年 (One Hundred
Years of Agrotechnical Chemistry), edited by Nôgei kagaku gakkai 農芸化学学会, 79–83 (http://
www.jsbba.or.jp/about/about_history.html, accessed 18 September 2008).
Takaoka, Yûji 高岡雄司 (2005). Kagôbutsu raiburarı̂ no sekkei 化合物ライブラリーの設計 (Designing
the Chemical Library). Pharmacia 41, no. 2: 134– 38.
Takemoto, Hiroshi 武本浩 (2005). Haisurûputto sukurı̂ningu no tôjô de tansaku kenkyû ha dô kawattaka?
ハイスループットスクリーニングの登場で探索研究はどうかわったか？ (How Has the Adventof High-Throughput Screening Changed Exploratory Research on Drugs?). Pharmacia 41, no. 2:
129 –33.
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995). The Contemporary Language of Public Policy: A Starting Point. In Public
Policy: The Essential Readings, edited by Stella Z. Theodoulou and Matthew A. Cahn, 1–9. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tsukihara, Tomitake 月原冨武, and Haruki Nakamura 中村春木, eds. (2008). Tokushû: Tanpaku 3000
purojekuto no undamono 特集―タンパク3000プロジェクトの産んだもの (Special Issue: “WhatProtein 3000 Has Left Us”). Tanpakushitsu, kakusan, kôso. 53, no. 5: 597–657.
Uemura, Daisuke 上村大輔, and Mikiko Sodeoka 袖岡幹子 (2006). Seimei kagaku he no tenkai: Gendai
kagaku he no nyûmon 生命科学への展開ー現代化学への入門 (The Development of the Life Sciences: Introduction to Contemporary Chemistry). Tokyo: Iwanami.
Ueno, Akira (2008). Nagai rekishi wo motsu raboratorı̂ no soshikiteki chishiki ni kansuru kenkyû 長い歴史を持つラボラトリーの組織的知識に関する研究 (The Organizational Knowledge in a Historic
Laboratory: A Case Study of Applying the Genealogical Approach to Laboratory Work). Discussion
Paper No. 50. Tokyo: NISTEP (http://www.nistep.go.jp/achiev/results01.html, accessed 20 July 2012).

Between the Laboratory and the Policy Process

33

Von Hayek, Friedrich A. (1979). The Political Order of a Free People (vol. 3 of Law, Legislation and
Liberty). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, Jack L. (1974). Performance Gaps, Policy Research, and Political Entrepreneurs. Policy Studies
Journal 3, no. 1: 112 –16.
Wikström, Martin A. (2007). Chemical Biology in the USA, Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies(http://www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/Verksamhet/Bioteknik/Rapporter_Life_Science/Chemical%20Biology.pdf, accessed 21 July 2012).
Yamamoto, Shichihei 山本七平 (1983). ‘Kûki’ no kenkyû「空気」の研究 (On Kûki). Tokyo: Bungei.
Yokoyama, Shigeyuki, Thomas C. Terwilliger, Seiki Kuramitsu, Dino Moras, and Joel L. Sussman (2007).
RIKEN Aids International Structural Genomics Efforts. Nature 445, no. 7123: 21.
Yoshida, Minoru 吉田稔 (1994). Bunshi seibutsugaku to yûki kagaku no yûgô: Sogaizai kenkyû no yukue
分子生物学と有機化学の融合ー阻害剤研究の行方 (The Fusion of Molecular Biology and Organic
Chemistry: Future Research on Inhibitors). Nihon nôgei gakkaishi 68, no. 10: 1443–44.
Zahariadis, Nikolaos (1999). Ambuiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the Policy Process:
Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, edited by Paul A. Sabatier, 73– 93. Boulder, CO: Westview.