46th JAIF Annual ConferenceTokyo, April 24, 2013

Scientific Advice for Policy and Social
Consensus Formation- Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident -Nobuhide Kasagi, PhD FREng
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo
Principal Fellow, CRDS, Japan Science and Technology AgencyConsequences in the relationship ofscientists with government, media andsociety after the nuclear accident

Scientist as adviser

Scientific advice for energy policySummaryDisordered Relationship of Scientists toGovernment, Media and Society
Government
Ministries, CSTP,SCJ
Local Government,
Police, FirefightingOrganizations,
Defense Forces

Overseas
Countries
Governments,Citizens,Scientists,NGO, NPO

Scientists

TVs Newspapers,Internet,
SNs

Accidents,
Disasters

CitizenVolunteers, NPO Disruption in the chain of command without legal basis

and clear understandings on the responsibility and rolesof each sector at the time of emergency?
(Kasagi, Trends in the Sciences, Nov. 2011)

Disordered Relationship of Scientists toGovernment, Media, Society (Cntd.) Legally and morally ambiguous relationship between

those in charge of accidents and scientists– Did the government employ advice of scientists or not?
– How should scientists take proper action when summoned by the Houseof Prime Minister or Congress Members?
– How should scientists react to mass media when interviews or asked toprepare scientific explanations?

 Lack of coherent voice of scientists– Lack of information on accident progression, basic specifications of plants– Did the SCJ and scientific/technical societies dispatch the information
desired by society and their professional judgments timely?
– Principles and codes for disclosing professional jug dement? Multipleopinions? Conflicting views?

 Lack of reporting to overseas countries, academia andscientists– Insufficient reports on the accident, possible collaboration, feedback,thereby inviting distrust and a feeling of doubt on Japan

Overseas Voices

Nature, Vol. 480, 15 Dec. 2011, 291

Consequences in the relationship ofscientists with government, media andsociety after the nuclear accident

Scientist as adviser

Scientific advice for energy policySummary

“Scientist”
The word “scientist” here refers to researchers andspecialists engaged in activities that create newknowledge, or in the use and application of scientificknowledge, in all academic fields ranging fromhumanities and social sciences to natural sciences,regardless of which institution they belong to.

(Science Council of Japan, Code of Conduct for Scientists, 2006)

Modern Society Supported by Profession(Kasagi, Trends in the Sciences, Dec. 2006)

Society
Interface to Society(Professional Services)

ClinicalAdministrator

Educator

Researcher

Engineer

Medical Doctor

LawyerClergyApplied research(Synthesis)

Basic

Basic Research(Analysis)

Professions“Profession” = A disciplined group of individuals who adhere to high ethical standards and uphold themselves to, and are accepted by
the public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognized, organized body of learning derived from education andtraining at a high level, and who are prepared to exercise this knowledge and these skills in the interest of others. (Australian Councilof Professions)Two Roles of Scientists for Society
I. Creation of scientific knowledge for social benefit and its
transfer to the next generation （”Social Contract,” J.
Lubchenco, 1997)
I want tosatisfy mycuriosity

We want ourwishes fulfilled

Seeds-push research

Benefits

BeautyIssue-driven research

II. Responsibility of scientists as advisor to the public andthe policy (Science for Policy)(Kasagi, N. et al., AAAS Meeting, Boston, Feb. 2013)

Scientific Advice for Government and Society(Science for Policy)
 “Science for Society” as a undercurrent of modern science andtechnology as well as a central engine for social and economic
activities (ICSU, 1999)
 Necessity for utilizing scientific advice in policy making and R&D

strategy planning Ex. Foods, water, energy, manufacturing, medicine, education,transportation, information, environment Necessity for scientific advice in case of emergency
 Ex. Minamata disease, HIV-contaminated blood products, GHG,

nuclear accident
 Indispensable mutual understanding with society, government andmass media with regards to the role of scientists and a frameworkfor scientific integrity

What is Scientific Advice ?
• Science: A system of knowledge based on rationale anddemonstration• Is science objective ?
– Approved by peer and external reviews with secondary opinions
as appropriate• Professional’s knowledge? Co-benefit or dis-benefit ofauthority?
– Confidence (uncertainty) of scientific knowledge, demarcationfrom subjective judgment
Ref. Torahiko Terada (Physicist), “The negative effect of authority is not afault of a person of authority, but of those who blind believe in such aperson.”Enabling Independent, Non-biased andFair Scientific AdviceScientists’ independence and fairness as a social contract, but not anassumption（１）Scientists themselves should establish their code of conduct andalso concrete guidelines as a basic rule at the interface with society,politics and media


Rules of publicizing advice, peer review, and additional opinion（２）The government should introduce a system in which scientific advice
is fully and fairly utilized in policy making process（３）Scientists keep dialog and cooperation with the media in order todevelop a better framework of dispatching scientific information
Internationally equivalent code of conduct and guidelines throughinternational network of science community

Relationship between Government and Scientific
Advise in the UK
Independence

academic freedom
professional status & expertise

respect & value
Democratic mandate of
the government

Transparency
and openness

respect & value

When the policy is not consistent with
scientific advice, the government shall・publicly explain the reasons・accurately represent the evidence

Government
prejudice and political interference

Scientificadvisers“ Scientific advisers should respect the democratic mandate of the Government to takedecisions based on a wide range of factors and recognize that science is only part of theevidence that Government must consider in developing policy.”
UK Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills, "Principles of Scientific Advice toGovernment"（ March 24, 2010）

Framework of Building Scientific Advice
 Required scientists’ code of conduct and guidelines forscientific advice in policy making process
 Science Council of Japan composed of merit-based co-opted members– Academic societies composed of disciplinary members
 Council of Sci. and Tech. Policy, committees andcommissions in the government– Transparency, legitimacy and justification of appointments
 Advisory scientists for prime minister and ministers
 Public think-tank– NISTEP, CRDS(JST), GRIPS, RIETI, ……

Code of Conduct for Scientists byScience Council of Japan
I. Responsibility of Scientists

II. Fair Scientific Research
III. Science in Society【Dialog with Society】 Scientists should participate actively in the dialog andcommunication with the citizen in order to cultivate better mutual
understanding. …...
【Scientific Advice】 Scientists should make research work for the purpose of
public benefit and provide fair advice based on scientific evidence. ……..
【Scientific Advice for Policy Makers】 Scientists regard scientific advice would
be sufficiently respected when they offer it to policy makers, but at the sametime accept it should not be a single unique basis for political decision. …….

IV. Legal Compliance(extracted from the revised version as of Feb. 2013 and translated by NK)

Connection of Scientist’s Code of Conductto Professional Code of Conduct
Political Code ofConduct

Clinical Code ofConduct
Scientist’sCode ofConduct

Legal Codeof Conduct

Educational
Code of Conduct

Management
Code of Conduct

Engineering
Code of Conduct(Kasagi, Trends in the Sciences, Nov. 2011)

Risk Communication System
 Scientific explanation to the public; importance of reasoning

for judgment- Reliability, transparency, timeliness, lay-language

 Risk communication in conformity with the scientist’s codeof conduct; best and worst scenarios; safety affirmative
action with minimum damage- Adequate modes of expression of the information and judgment withcontingency and uncertainty

 Utilization of scientific knowledge to contain accidents at thetime of emergency- Information service for disaster development (diffusion of radioactivematerials), utilization of information with uncertainty, panic avoidance

 Justifiable assessment and judgment of risk withextraordinary damage of extremely small possibility

Network for Scientists’ Urgent Advice
 Tree-structured network of scientific experts making case-adequate
scientific advice through Science Advisor and Science Academy at
the time of emergency
 Network formed with elementary and systematic knowledge
depending on classifications of possibly great disasters with a risk ofmany lives and social damage; classified not by academic disciplines,
but by disaster types–––––––––––

Earthquake, tsunami
Volcanic eruption
Abnormal weather, typhoon, torrential rain
Abnormal event in ocean and space
Nuclear power plant accident, radioactive exposure
Infectious disease, disease-causing germs
Foods contamination, live stock infection
Environmental contamination, aerial pollution
Information and communication system failure, leak and loss of data
Economic crisis
Terrorism, invasionPublic Trust vs. Safety and Security
Degree ofConfidenceEasy

AC

Degree ofSafety
Risky

SafeDB
UneasyRegulations andStandards

Public sense of safety on artifacts depends on the trust on scientists !
(Kasagi, Trends in the Sciences, Nov. 2011)

Role of Scientist as Advisor and its
Paradox• Pure Scientist– No-interest in decision making and simply share some fundamental
information about factors involved– May compel a particular decision outcome (stealth issue advocacy）• Science Arbiter– Service ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker
thinks are relevant, but does not tell what he/she ought to prefer– May compel a particular decision outcome (stealth issue advocacy）• Issue Advocate– Ventures into telling the decision-maker what he/she ought to preferby making the case for one alternative over others• Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives– Expands (or at least clarifies) the scope of choice for decisionmaking in a way so that the decision-maker can reduce choicebased on his/her own preferences and values– A collection of experts working together with a range of views,experiences, and knowledge: Ex. IPCC(R. A. Pielke, Jr., The Honest Broker, 2007)

Role of Journalism and Mass Media

Report the message and voices of the government andscientists with plain language, and make constructive criticism
as appropriateSometimes, their own incentive and motivation of utilizing
scientists as well as scientific information with biased filtering

Lack of rational principles for treating professionals and theirexplanations– Comparison of information from different sources?



Consequences in the relationship of scientists
with government, media and society after thenuclear accident

Scientist as adviserScientific advice for energy policySummary

Redesigning “Basic Energy Plan”
Primary Energy Breakdown in 2030
Gl-coeTotal 592
Renewable etc.

Total 517

Nuclear60 (10%)

Renewable etc.
self-supply rate

Coal
130 (23%)~40%
Nuclear122 (24%)

Natural Gas
105 (19%)

Oil
244 (39%)Coal
88 (17%)
About 50% of fossil
fuels by independentdevelopment

Natural Gas
81 (16%)

Oil
141 (27%)

2007

Planned for 2030

Great EastJapanEarthquake

New energy
plan options for2030 with
nuclear power
fractions of:

a.
0%
b.
5%
c. 20~25 %and renewablesof 25~35%Assessment Indices for Technology Options
Energy Security

Environment (Safety)• Resource reserve(geophysical/geopoliticaldistribution), Reserve-production
ratio (fossil and nuclear fuels)• Security and stability of resource
feedstock (import dependence,independent development)• Stability of international market
fuel price• Time-dependent fluctuation, rates
of availability and operation(natural energy resources)• Rate of plant operation (periods ofinspection and repair)• Response to load fluctuations• Disaster countermeasures andenergy supply to isolated areas• Climate change (GHG)• Radioactive wastes, radioactive
contamination (nuclear power)• Atmospheric contamination(NOx, SOx, soot, particulates),
Ozone layer destruction (CFC),
thermal discharge• Compatibility to food production,Condensation of specificmolecules (N, P) (biomass,biofuels)• Impacts on ecology andbiodiversity

Economy (Cost)• LCA, energy profit ratio, energy
payback time
• Fuel costs (mining, transformation,transportation, storage), material
cost, energy price, electric power
price• Business continuity stability against
fuel price fluctuation• Costs for R&D, equipment, plant
construction, land, installation,environmental countermeasures• Length of periods for environmental
assessment and construction• Costs for maintenance, waste
processing, decommissioning• Costs for countermeasures toterrorism and disaster, recovery
cost and time, compensation• Economical impact as energy
industry (energy equipment, electric
power market, fuel businesses),
employment(Kasagi, Energy and Resources, Mar. 2012)

Evaluation Indices for R&D Theme Assessment
5 （favorable）～ 1（not favorable）
CategoryA.
Stability ofSupply

Index

Description

A-1 Quantitative impact

Quantitative influence to national energy flow

A-2 Easiness of procurement

Difficulty in securing energy resources and avoiding
various risks*1

A-3 Supply stability

Time-dependent (hourly, daily, monthly)
fluctuations and irregularity

A-4 Adaptability to stringency andAdaptability to natural and accidental disasters
accident

B-1 GHG emission

Amount of annual emissions of GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O,HCFC) [t-CO2]

B-2 Environmental risk

Contamination of air, water, soil except for B-1

B.
Environmental B-3 Radiation risk
ImpactPossibility and seriousness of accident

B-4 Impact on food productionand ecosystem© 2013 Environment and Energy Unit,
Center for Research and Development Strategy

Compatibility with food production andconservation of biodiversity, and otherenvironmental conformity*1 Ex. geopolitical risk, market risk (price stability), amount of availability

Evaluation Indices for R&D Theme Assessment

C. Economy

D. Policy
relevanceand R&D
investment
risk

C-1 Economic impact

Expected industry size (market, employment),
finance-equivalent impact on energy flow

C-2 Cost performance

Cost-benefit performance, business incentive (ex. EPR,EPT, lead time etc.）

C-3 Int’l competitiveness andoverseas expansion

Possibility of product export and business overseas
deployment

C-4 Spillover effectInduction of related and peripheral industrials,
demerit avoidance

D-1 Policy relevanceCompatibility with national energy-related policies

D-2 Int’l R&D competitivenessCurrent competitiveness of R&D on target
technology*3

D-3 Int’l technology
competitivenessCurrent competitiveness of technology and industry

D-4 Scientific merit and impact

Scientific originality, novelty, degree of challenge*4

D-5 R&D Fundamentals, humanresource development

Size of research community and technical societies,
level of activities, and R&D environment

D-6 Barrier to market
introduction

Social barriers against technology introduction tomarket (regulations, opportunity*5, roadblocks*6)© 2013 Environment and Energy Unit,
Center for Research and Development Strategy※2 R&D cost, initial cost, operational cost, grid stabilizing cost etc.
※3 Basic, applied and development research※4 Includes R&D themes which are not completely new, but very important in science※5 Intangible policy measures (subsidiaries, deregulation, FIT), change in social acceptance※6 Regulatory degree, openness of market, conservativeness of industry, fragmented administration, etc.

Separation and Quantification of Scientific Basisand Political Judgment
Evaluator
Objective

Scientist

・Policy maker・Citizen etc.

Assessment of target
technology → pi
Relative assessment of target
technologies
A B C D …

Subjective

Weight for assessment
index → wi

• Clear distinction between scientific assessment andsubjective judgment; clarification of the basis for selection
and the rationale for discussion• Help for decision makers in making rational thinking andfinding essential difference in different opinions

Weighted assessment index (prioritization)：NNii

P = Σ wi pi, Σ wi = 1.0

Social Wish in Different Regional Contexts
Stable andsustainablesupplyEnvironment1(Generalizedsafety)

Growth andprosperity2(Competitiveeconomy, betterlife)Japan

East Asia

WorldNational security

Harmonization

Sustainability

Eagerness tosafety andsecurity

Technology
transfer andenvironmental
conservation

Consensus
formation

Sustainable
prosperity

Economiccooperation(Climate changeprevention)

Equity1. Difference between time scales of climate change and disaster2. Economic growth (quantitative expansion) vs. social prosperity(qualitative development)

Need for Rational Methodology for Scienceand Technology Policy Need for policy-making process aiming at achieving andsolving societal issues (The 4th S&T Basic Plan) Inherent difficulties in logical, objective, evidence-based
policy-making only being overcome by demarcation ofobjective assessment and subjective judgment
 A fair and transparent process indispensable to build
public trust in the national science and technology policyConsequences in the relationship ofscientists with government, media andsociety after the nuclear accident

Scientist as adviser

Scientific advice for energy policySummaryFor Scientists to Better Serve Society andPolicyUrgent need to establish a fair and transparent system to exploit
scientific advice effectively in societyCode of conduct in scientific advice with common understandings ofindustry, academia and governmentInternationally equivalent operation by learning good practices in othercountries



Science advisor, public think-tankScientists’ continuous effort required to build public trust and havescientific advice utilized for rational consensus building underdemocracy

As for the national energy policy, reexamination necessary fromvarious viewpoints including domestic and international situations withpolitical judgment rigorously separated from independent scientificadviceGood relationship of science with politics, media and society only
possible with long-term experience and training based on the mutual
understanding