Five Dialogues
for Future Researchand Science
with Early Career
Researchers

Program for the Developmentof Next-generation Leading Scientists
with Global Insight（L-INSIGHT）
Spin-off programmefrom HeKKSaGOn, 2021

Online Forum
23 November, 2021
17: 30- JST | 9: 30- CET
Tuesday

Opening

part i outline

The Commentary Offered by Guests

PART I̶OUTLINE

Most of the time, breakthroughs in issues that cannot be resolved individually are createdby third parties asking questions that seem ridiculous.
̶

KONO Yasuyuki

The awareness of differences in the historical and cultural backgroundsof researchers can serve as a driving force when resolving scientific questions.
̶

Stefan Norra

Making our questions shareable and relevant to the target is important.
̶

TANAKA Motomu

01

Introduction

PART I

Outline
02
03
04
05
06
07
08

PART II

Contents
Introduction
Topics & Speakers
Greeting 1
Greeting 2
Greeting 3
Programme

Dialogues
12
15
19
23
26

PART III

Dialogue 1
Dialogue 2
Dialogue 3
Dialogue 4
Dialogue 5

Commentary
30
31
32

Commentary 1
Commentary 2
Commentary 3

On 23 November 2021, L-INSIGHT held the event “Five Dialogues for Future
Research and Science with Early Career Researchers” that was organized in cooperation with Kyoto University, Heidelberg University, and the Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology (KIT). This forum supports next generation of researchers in forming
special international and inter-generational connections early in their careers in thehope of creating foundations for them to excel. This is a new initiative that was spun
off the friendly relationship between German and Japanese universities fosteredthrough the HeKKSaGOn (The German-Japanese University Alliance) framework,
which is now in its eleventh year.

part i outline

part i outline

Contents

During this inaugural event of this new format, L-INSIGHT fellows and early
career researchers mainly from the two German universities engaged in dialogues ontrans-disciplinary topics proposed by the fellows in five parallel sessions. Futhermore,
the group dialogues were chaired by 5 L-INSIGHT fellows of various fields. Up tofour researchers from Heidelberg University and the KIT participated actively in eachof these sessions and engaged in lively discussions, as did the audience comprised ofindividuals from a total of eighteen universities in Japan and overseas.
In the subsequent wrap-up session, the L-INSIGHT fellows who moderated the parallel
dialogues shared their insights related to differences and similarities in perceptions
between Germany and Japan and between different disciplines. They mentioned forexample that due to the trans-disciplinary nature of the topics in the sessions, suchopportunities for in-depth discussion are very much welcome. Also, they offered advice
on trans-disciplinary research and approaches to discussions about such topics. Throughthe commentary offered by guests from all three universities, it was confirmed thatdifferences in the historical and cultural backgrounds of researchers can serve as adriving force when resolving scientific questions. They additionally expressed theirhope that this forum will continue to serve as an interdisciplinary discussion platform
for early career researchers, and highlighted that it had, in fact, been an opportunity for
fruitful discussions that transcended disciplines and generations.
The event shall be a starting point for subsequent visits of the L-INSIGHT fellows toGermany to deepen and expand the experiences and discussions sparked through thedialogues.
L-INSIGHT will continue to be creative to perpetuate this program for early career
researchers as an open and international platform that transcends generations anddisciplines.
On behalf of the organizers
̶

Kyoto University
̶

NAKANO Asa

02

L-INSIGHT

The Program for the Development of Next-generation Leading Scientists with Global
Insight (L-INSIGHT) aims to develop, validate, and spread programs to train thenext-generation of world-class researchers with global insight who can spearhead newpaths to the future.
Program Director: Prof. Dr. YOSHIKAWA Minako Jen

HeKKSaGOn

The German-Japanese University Alliance (HeKKSaGOn) was founded in 2010 as an
association of three German and three Japanese universities. HeKKSaGOn stands for
the Heidelberg – Kyoto – Karlsruhe – Tohoku/Sendai – Göttingen – Osaka – alliance.
The partner universities of HeKKSaGOn share the conviction that important global
problems can be solved only through interdisciplinary and international cooperationand through the open exchange of knowledge. It places a strong value on high-quality
teaching within an environment of internationally competitive research.

03

Greeting 1
Kyoto University| Opening |Heidelberg University

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology| MC |

Sabine Schenk[Heidelberg University Office,Kyoto (HUOK)]

Opening remarks

Prof. Dr. TOKITOH
Norihiro[Executive Vice President]

Prof. YOKOYAMA Mika

In its first phase, which ended in 2018, it organized nearly 50 symposia and workshops,
exchanged more than 200 people, and co-authored 55 papers. Although the second
phase of the Alliance is currently obstructed by the pandemic with little direct contact,
we are able to organize events such as this one online, which is dedicated to the development of young researchers.

Prof. Dr. Matthias
Weidemüller
[Vice-Rector for

Innovation and Transfer][Deputy Executive

Vice-President,
Director of Kyoto University
European Center]

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to one of the key players, Professor Tanaka
Motomu of Heidelberg University for agreeing to be a commentator here today. I
would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Heidelberg University and Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology who immediately understood the significance of our proposal
and agreed to co-host this event.

| Parallel dialogues |Dialogue

1

Quantification, control, and modelingof mechanical and dynamical alterationof cell and tissue towards detection
and mechanistic understandingof disease
Dialogue2

What research do we need to do
to reconcile the conflicts
between biodiversity conservationand food security
in developing countries?

Dr. YAMAMOTO Akihisa

Dr. Falko Ziebert

and Physics (CiMPhy),
Institute for Advanced Study]

Research Group Physics
of Complex Biosystems[Center for Integrative Medicine

Soft Matter Physics,
Physics of Life

[Institute for Theroetical Physics]

Dr. HONGO Shun

Dr. Katharina Brotzmann

Dr. Hjalmar Kühl

African Area Studies]

Ecology and Toxicology,”
EU-Project Horizon 2020
“EU-ToxRisk,” Project“PharmaSea,” Centre for
Organismal Studies (COS)]

for Evolutionary Anthropology
Department of Primatology]

Ape Conservation

Dr. Carolin Klonner

Tim Kerlin[The Center forConservation Science,
Wildlife Management,
Primate Ecology[Research group “Aquatic[Max Planck InstituteDr. Jochen Ait Müller

Toxicology, Ecology, Zoology [Department: Instituteand Pharmaceuticalsof Biological Boundary Surfaces]
Molecular Biology

Dialogue3

Dr. TANAKA Tomohiro[Institute of Geography]
What engineering research is expected [Graduate School of Global
GIS
from society in this “full-of-informatics” Environmental Studies]
Civil Engineering, Hydrology(e.g. AI, Drone, ICT) era?
Any research fieldin the similar situations?

I’m very pleased to host the spin-off program in my capacity as Director of the Kyoto
University European Center that is also the HeKKSaGOn’s Liaison Office. As many ofyou know, HeKKSaGOn is a university alliance founded in 2010 by six German andJapanese universities.

part i outline

part i outline

Topics & Speakers[Institute for Water and River
Basin Management]

Hydraulic Simulation (2D)of Urban Flash Floods̶Flow
Resistance Parametrizationof Sheetflow
Dr. Ralf Loritz[Department: Institute for Water
and River Basin Management]

Hydrology

Now, the environment of research is not all that bright. I can see some of this anxiety
in the topics that the discussants today have chosen. However, I also hope that yourcuriosity will be broadened by the questions linked to these topics. I think it is important for ECRs to get in touch with other ECRs in the world to know each other.
I myself have now many good friends in European academia with whom I had had
opportunity to work together when I was an ECR like you now. I sincerely hope thattoday’s dialogue will stimulate your intellectual appetite and help you grow more
and more. The Kyoto University European Center will continue to support you bypromoting exchange between Japan and Europe and between Japan and Germany.
Thank you.
Kyoto University
Deputy Executive Vice-President,
Director of Kyoto University European Center̶Prof. YOKOYAMA Mika

Dr. Andreas Schäfer[Geophysical Institute]

Tsunami Risk and Hazard
Dr. Hoang Thai Duong Vu[Institute for Water andWatercourse Development]

Numerical Modeling
Dialogue

4

Clarifying the most energetic particles
in the universe

Dr. FUJII Toshihiro

Dr. Iryna Lypova

Dr. Markus RothAdvanced Research/
Graduate School of Science]

Gamma Astronomy

Observatory
Institute for Astroparticle
Physics (IAP)]

Dr. FUJII Yuri

Dr. Georg Lars HildenbrandPlanetary Science,
Astrophysics, Astronomy

Experimental Biophysics

Prof. Dr. KONO Yasuyuki

Prof. Dr. TANAKA Motomu Prof. Dr. Stefan Norra

Director International
Strategy Office]of Biosystems[The Hakubi Center for[Genter for Astromony]

Astrophysics,
Astroparticle Physics
Dialogue

5

How and where did life emerge?
What did the first life look like?
Is it possible to have other form of life?

[Group leader ―Pierre Auger

Cosmic Rays

[The Graduate School of Human [Kirchhoff Institute for Physics
and Environmental Studies](KIP)]| General discussion |Comments from Guests

Closing[Vice President,[Institute for Physical Chemistry] [Institute of Applied
Physical Chemistry
Geosciences]Prof. Dr. YOSHIKAWA
Minako Jen[Director, The Strategic

04

Development Hub
for Early Career Researchers,
Center for Enhancing
Next-Generation Research]05

Also from my side, a warm welcome to all the participants. Great to see all these
happy faces despite these, let’s say complicated times. Of course, we would have loved
to see each other in person. We all know this, but times are different. As was alreadymentioned by Dr. Yokoyama, this HeKKSaGOn collaboration is very dear to the heartof the university, having these strong links with Japanese Universities as well with
our partners in Germany: the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and the University of
Göttingen. This is a wonderful network that is created, and I can also say personally,
since I’m a quantum physicist by training, I have actually visited all of these places inJapan, also due to my scientific endeavors.
It’s always great to be in Japan. I can imagine, I’m already missing the great food there
and exchanging views with you, but that’s what the times are currently about. When I
look at the program, as we said already, we’re facing really challenging times, but at thesame time, you might also say we are facing amazing opportunities because there areso many interesting problems, and I should say that for physicists, the word problem ispositively annotated.
We are facing lots of interesting problems that we have to solve and the time is there,
and the possibilities are there, and what I can see here from the program, there’s also
this wonderful crowd of people around that is capable and able to solve these problems.
If I look at your program, these are wonderful topics that they have chosen for thisprogram. They are all being very timely, all being very important, and I have to say, I
wish I had more time today to also sneak into one or the other session in particular, ofcourse, the ones on most energetic particles in the universe or the questions, how life
actually emerges, so wonderful topics, and it’s great to be able to form these connections, even despite the fact that this is still in this kind of like virtual rooms. I’mlooking forward to this great meeting. I wish you great success, and of course I hope
to see all of you either here in Heidelberg next time̶in the virtual background you
can see the building of my office and labs̶or during one of my visits when coming tothese great places in Japan next time when this is possible. Enjoy the meeting and havea great time.
Heidelberg University
Vice-Rector for Innovation and Transfer
̶Prof. Dr. Matthias Weidemüller

Greeting 3

On behalf of Kyoto University, I’d like to welcome all of you to the launch of thespin-off program from HeKKSaGOn 2021. This program is an initiative among
Heidelberg University, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and Kyoto University.
L-INSIGHT, which I will explain shortly, is pleased to bring you the “Five Dialogues
for Future Research and Science with Early Career Researchers”.

part i outline

part i outline

Greeting 2

As you know, the role of researchers has become much more diverse as the nature ofsociety and the industrial structure have changed. Young researchers will be engaged
in a changing society that mankind has yet to experience. The human perspectives will
broaden and thus provide the basis for success in specialized spheres if young scientists
take on more challenges of future-oriented activities by building special connections at
a young age and traversing different research fields, generations and national borders.
I, therefore, would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort made by all parties
involved in the HeKKSaGOn Alliance, which has fostered the strong relationshipbetween German and Japanese universities for the past 11 years since its inception.
It is worthy of note that the Alliance now provides a platform open to many
young researchers.
At Kyoto University, a new dynamism has evolved, L-INSIGHT, that is Program
for the Development of Next-generation Leading Scientists with Global Insight. The
program is sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, Japan (MEXT), and aims to assist young researchers in equipping abilities
to span various boundaries with broad overviews, astute perceptions, and foresight.
L-INSIGHT Fellows selected five trans-disciplinary topics today that they believe
important in discussing future research development, including research environment
and ideas in other spheres of research. I hope that highly motivated young researchers
from Japanese and German Universities will acquire valuable insights through active
discussions. It is hoped that a program like today’s initiative can activate individualexchanges so that researchers will be able to build multilateral relationships acrossvarious boundaries.
I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Motomu Tanaka from Heidelberg
University, Professor Stefan Norra from KIT, and Professor Yasuyuki Kono from Kyoto
University, who have kindly agreed to take part in the young researchers’ discussions
as commentators.
Let me conclude by encouraging all of you, including online participants, to engage
yourselves actively in asking questions and/or sharing your comments.
Please enjoy today’s forum. Thank you.
Kyoto University
Executive Vice-President̶Prof. Dr. TOKITOH Norihiro

06

07

JST

CET

17:30

09:30

| Opening |Opening remarks

17:40

09:40

| Parallel dialogues |Dialogue1

Dialogue2

Dialogue3

Dialogue4

Dialogue

5

Quantification, control, and modelingof mechanical and dynamical alterationof cell and tissue towards detection
and mechanistic understandingof disease
What research do we need to do
to reconcile the conflicts
between biodiversity conservationand food security
in developing countries?

part ii dialogues

part i outline

Programme

PART II̶DIALOGUES

What engineering research is expectedfrom society in this “full-of-informatics”(e.g. AI, Drone, ICT) era?
Any research fieldin the similar situations?

10:55

19:25

11:25

Comments from Guests

19:40

11:40

Closing| General discussion |Wrap-ups from each group (5min.×5groups)

dialogue 3

18:55

dialogue 2

How and where did life emerge?
What did the first life look like?
Is it possible to have other form of life?

dialogue 1

Clarifying the most energetic particles
in the universe

dialogue 4
dialogue 5

08

09

dialogue 3

H.E.S.S.
Pierre Auger Observatory

FAST

Dr. Iryna Lypova(Heidelberg)
Dr. Markus Roth(KIT)

Gamma-rays
1012 eVThe most energetic particles
1020 eVDr. Toshihiro Fujii(Kyoto)Kyoto University

Dr. TANAKA Tomohiro

Dr. FUJII Toshihiro

Dr. FUJII Yuri

Heidelberg University

Heidelberg University

Heidelberg University

Heidelberg University

Heidelberg University

Dr. Carolin Klonner

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Dr. Iryna Lypova

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Dr. Hjalmar Kühl
Dr. Jochen Ait Müller

Dr. Georg Lars HildenbrandKarlsruhe Institute of Technology

Mr. Tim Kerlin
Dr. Ralf Loritz
Dr. Andreas Schäfer
Dr. Hoang Thai Duong Vu

Dr. Markus Roth1 2 3 4 5
15p

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Dr. Katharina Brotzmanndialogue 4

dialogue 4

Dr. HONGO Shun

Dr. Falko Ziebertdialogue 3

Clarifying the Most Energetic Particles in the Universe

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Kyoto University

Dr. YAMAMOTO Akihisa

12p

10

Kyoto University

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

Kyoto University

part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Kyoto University

19p

23p

26p

11

In the discussion part, we talked about how we can understand the molecular mechanisms which determines the cell movement and deformation. It’s always difficult toconnect the physics to biological problems because the physics is trying to generalize
the phenomena, and it is very important in biology to understand what each moleculeand protein are doing in the system. We talked about how we can understand thephysical properties of cells by utilizing the novel techniques such as optogenetics thatcan control cells with the light as external stimuli to change the expression level of themolecules.
We also had some questions from the audience about how we can understand thatcancer metastasis from the perspective of the stiffness of the tissue, and if it isimportant to understand all the molecular mechanisms behind which determine thedynamics of the cells. There are still a lot to discuss, especially to make the physics andmedical science get closer. We need more opportunities for scientists from the naturalscience and medical science to talk about the problems and potentials of what we cando together.

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

The important point is, in physics, there are still a lot to explore, to understand theliving system. I believe there should be a lot of things that is unclear in the field of
medical science that the physics can help understand. This was quite active and stimulating discussion at least for me, and I hope everyone shared the excitement. Thank youvery much.

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Soft Matter Physics, Physics of LifeIn Dialogue One, we discussed the quantification, control, and the modeling of celland tissue for understanding the disease. In the beginning, I and the other speaker,
Dr. Falko Ziebert, presented each research. From my side, I talked about how cancer
cells move and deform in the experimental system, how the tissue changes its collective
order of cells depending on the disease, and how we can use the quantitative tools tounderstand or discriminate the disease state in single cell and tissue scale. Afterwards,
Dr. Ziebert gave a presentation about how we can understand the migration and deformation of the cells by developing the theoretical models with the equations, which isapplicable not only for just single cells, but also for the collective cells. He also talked
about how one can describe the movement of cells depending on the surrounding
environment of cells.

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Dr. YAMAMOTO Akihisa
Dr. Falko Ziebert

Summary

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

Quantification, control,and modelingof mechanicaland dynamicalalterationof cell and tissue
towards detection
and mechanistic
understandingof disease
Background12

1

part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Dialogue 

Research Group Physics of Complex Biosystems

The genetic and molecular properties of cells have been intensively studied, andchanges in molecular signatures are utilized for detection of disease and deteriorationof living organisms. On the other hand, the effect of such alterations on mechanicaland dynamic properties of cells and tissues is still not well understood. In order tounderstand how the progression of diseases is associated with the change in physicalproperties of cells and tissues, orchestration of clear and minimally invasive observationof structure, fine control of external stimuli and environment, and theoretical modelingof mechanics and dynamics is essential. It is also critical to comprehensively understandhow these changes arise from the alteration of molecular mechanisms and metabolism.
Unraveling mechanical and dynamic properties of cells and tissues can be also a novel
tool for disease detection, which can be complementary to conventional approaches.
Dr. YAMAMOTO Akihisa

13

Dialogue 1

Quantification, control, and modelingof mechanical and dynamical alteration of cell and tissue
towards detection and mechanistic understanding of disease Disease in living system is associated withthe change in genetic and molecularproperties of cells and tissues:
Gene, protein, metabolism, …

 How does the change in genetic andmolecular profile affect on the physicalproperties of cells and tissues, and viceversa?

 Informatics has been drawing wide attention:
Big data, multiomics, machine/deep learning, …

 How much can we understand theprogression of disease throughmechanics and dynamics?

In this dialogue, we aim to share and exchange ideas about physics ofliving systems, and its future relationship to medical science.

Dr. Falko ZiebertInstitute for Theoretical Physics,
Heidelberg University

Soft matter physics, Physics of life

Physics of complex biosystems

20 μm

 Structural ordering of regenerated tissue Elastic phase field model of cell monolayer

Dialogue topics

Conservation Science, Wildlife Management, Primate Ecology
Toxicology, Ecology, Zoology and Pharmaceuticals
Ape Conservation
Molecular Biology

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

100 μmDr. HONGO Shun
Dr. Katharina Brotzmann
Dr. Hjalmar Kühl
Dr. Jochen Ait Müller

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

20 μm

 3D cell migration model

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

 Dynamics of cancer cell morphology

What research
do we need to do
to reconcile theconflicts
between biodiversity
conservationand food security
in developing
countries?

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Dr. Aki Yamamoto
Center for Integrative Medicine and Physics,
Kyoto University

2

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

Speaker

Dialogue part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Slide How much have we understood the living system?
 What are our next challenges/targets towards the detection
and mechanistic understanding of disease?
 How can we get the generalization in physics and thespecificity in biology/medical science closer?
 How can we better understand the progression of disease
and its relation to mechanics and dynamics? What kind ofbreakthrough are desired in the theory and technology?
14

BackgroundMy research perspective is local: I aim to develop a wildlife management system inrural areas of African rainforests to mitigate conflicts between local people and conservation officials. However, even if rural people can manage wildmeat production bythemselves, urban needs of wildmeat may remain high, and the population in developing countries continues to grow. How can we resolve the conflicts at different scales
between food security and biodiversity conservation? I would like to hear the views of
researchers in different disciplines with a national, regional or international perspectiveon this issue. My interest is mainly in meateating, but the scope of discussion could be
extended to cereal production.
Dr. HONGO Shun15

We had four speakers from Heidelberg University, KIT, Max Planck Institute, andKyoto University. We discussed the research required to reconcile conflicts between
biodiversity conservation and food security, especially on wild meat and hunting in
Africa. We also focused on the communication between researchers and other stakeholders on different scales.
We first talked about the local level̶collaborations with the local people, such as
indigenous hunter-gatherers. Of course, we had different ideas, but I think we needmutual communication to manage the biodiversity and wildlife population with them.
Some speakers said indigenous people have the knowledge: They are keenly aware of
their nature and resources. But we also find poachers coming from outside the local
community for hunting and selling wild meat in urban areas. Some participants
pointed out the possibility of domestication of wildlife to address the issue.
Also, we will need to learn from behavioural change research: Methods that reduce
the amount of alcohol and tobacco consumption could also be applied to reducing thedemand for wild meat. This was interesting to me. And an audience pointed out theneed to investigate the wastage of wild meat in urban areas.

Dialogue 2 | Speakers• Katharina Brotzmann• Heidelberg University• Jochen A. Müller

• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology• Hjalmar S. Kühl

• Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology• Shun Hongo• Kyoto University

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

Finally, researchers have to publish not only papers but also grey literature facilitating communication between people at different layers̶international communities,
national governments, urban people, and the local community.

Slidepart ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Summary

Dialogue 2 | Theme

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

What research do we need toreconcile conflicts between
biodiversity conservation andfood security in developing
countries?

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

My Research | Wildlife management in
the Congo Basin
Blue duiker (forest
antelope)

16• Estimate population densityof mammals hunted forbushmeat using camera traps

17

My Research | Wildlife management in
the Congo Basin• Estimate population densityof mammals hunted forbushmeat using camera traps• Find a simple indicator thatare useful for management(Hongo et al. in submission)

Issue• The community-based management can curb overhunting
and reduce conflicts between local people and conservation
officials• However, problems on larger scales continue to favour wildmeat
• Urban needs for wildmeat remain high• Human population in developing countries continues to grow18

• How can we resolve the conflicts on different scales
between food security and biodiversity conservation?
• What roles should researchers play for this and relatedi

Background

dialogue 5

dialogue 5(Hongo et al. in submission)—dialogue 4

dialogue 4• Establish a communitybased wildlife management
system in rural areas

Civil Engineering, Hydrology
Dr. TANAKA Tomohiro
GIS
Dr. Carolin Klonner
Hydraulic Simulation (2D) of Urban Flash Floods Flow Resistance Parametrization of Sheetflow
Mr. Tim Kerlin
Hydrology
Dr. Ralf Loritz
Tsunami Risk and Hazard
Dr. Andreas Schäfer
Dr. Hoang Thai Duong Vu Numerical Modelingdialogue 3

dialogue 3• Find a simple indicator thatare useful for management

What engineeringresearch is expectedfrom society in this“full-of-informatics”(e.g. AI, Drone, ICT) era?
Any research fieldin the similar
situations?

dialogue 2

dialogue 2• Estimate population densityof mammals hunted forbushmeat using camera traps

3

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

My Research | Wildlife management in
the Congo Basin

Dialogue part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Slide

In many engineering fields such as civil engineering or mechanical engineering, thefundamental advancements in fluid dynamics, structural dynamics, aerodynamics,
mechanical dynamics have been seen at present. Hence, many early-career researchers
in such research fields feel that the remaining issues are marginal deepening of theexisting research directions would not yield drastic achievements done in the former era
not only in academia but also in society. Applied science and technology such as AI or
Drone are interesting topics, but not basic engineering research in a sense that people
without any background in fluid dynamics can apply AI to predict river discharge,
rainfall, wave, surge, landslide and so on. However, with the increasing capacity of
informatics technology like AI, the mechanism-oriented theory/technology might
be replaced with AI according to societyʼs needs. I would like to make discussion on
possible ways for mechanism-oriented research in forthcoming AI (black-box learning)era in broader research fields.
Dr. TANAKA Tomohiro

19Group Three had six members in total. First, they introduced themselves with theirresearch topics. We confirmed that they are coming from the variety of approaches
around water-related disasters and future change projections for tsunami or riverflooding: the risk communication, participatory tools and feedback to its prediction ofnatural disasters or urban flood modeling, machine learning approaches to these natural
disasters, the remote sensing approach in hydrology and the climate change issues.
What is the awareness we shared from this group was the paradigm shift of natural
disaster research, especially the prediction or disaster reduction researches from themodeling or process-based understandings to the more application or implementation.
Also, as in the title of the group, the AI, emerging as a new technology, potentiallyreplaces the conventionally focused research. Most of our group agreed with this awareness. We don’t have much significant difference in the perceptions. Throughout thediscussion, we found many common points, e.g. both in Germany and Japan, both fortsunami and river flooding, AI is a powerful tool sometimes replacing classical physicalbased modeling and other times combined, we need for more efficient prediction. Its
integration is very important, and integration is not only limited to the AI. Before theworkshop, I expected some conflicting relationship between the AI versus the physicalmodeling; it was not necessarily the case in this group.

My major research theme is development of techniques/framework of integrated
flood risk management in society. In this broad topic, my expertise covers
1) river flooding simulations based on hillslope hydrology and hydraulics,
2) statistics for extreme phenomena for assessing flood risk, and3) translation of climate change projections into flood impact assessment.
These have been extensively studied and achieved in some quality. As academic
achievements, early-career researchers are, in general, required to publish
papers that refines existing techniques. On the other hand, if their performancealready meets basic requirements in problem-solving (here, flood risk
management), over-performance in technologies might be less important thanintegration, i.e. inter-disciplinary collaboration with social/economic sciences orinter-sectoral collaboration with local municipality and residents. Expecting thesimilar situation occurs in Germany, I would like to gain insights/information forresearch trends (e.g. research initiative, major research projects, position ofsocio-hydrology) in Germany or Europe. I would like to talk with some working
for flood risk research in such context if any,

1

December 10, 2021

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

Research outline

Tomohiro Tanaka

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Rainfall-runoff
monitoring/modelling

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

At the same time, we have also a modeler in group members, who mentioned about
the importance of understanding what the model prediction needs for both users andmodelers, otherwise the miscommunication between the engineering model development with the direction of the understanding may happen. It may not result in proper
contribution to risk reduction. This kind of communication between the disciplines
should be necessary for the future direction, and as a next opportunity of this group,
we can discuss more. Thank you very much.

Deepening or integration?
Tomohiro Tanaka

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

One discussant majoring risk communication suggested another aspect: the human or
society, in other term, the appropriate use of the prediction of disasters for the communication with local people or governments. Without this perspective, the naturalscience research outcome do not yield results in reduction of the risk, and previouslythat was of course pursued by many researchers, but not the main research topic in thefield. Today, it is becoming one of important research issues and yielding paper works,
so it’s a kind of another paradigm shift.

Slidepart ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Summary

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Multi-river flood probability

Residence decision-making modellingRiver A

Development

River B

Return period [yr]All-Japan climate change
impact assessment

December 10, 2021

20

Low

High
Flood risk

Agent (Household)Movement (Buy house)

221Tomohiro Tanaka

Example of the discussion theme
Roundabout?

Flood-resilient society

Return period [yr]Now!!
ImproveaccuracyMore straightforward?
Return period [yr]Legislation
Citizenship
Urban planning

Flood-prone society

4

Dr. FUJII Toshihiro
Dr. Iryna Lypova
Dr. Markus RothAstrophysics, Astroparticle Physics

Clarifying the mostenergetic particles
in the universe
Gamma Astronomy
Cosmic Rays

Roundabout?
dialogue 1

dialogue 1

Engineering
techniques 1990-2000s
research era

Dialogue 

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Improve accuracy Now!!
December 10, 2021

3

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Background22

part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Slide

The origin and nature of the most energetic particles in the universe, called ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), remain an open question in astroparticle physics.
Motivated by the need for an unprecedented sensitivity for further advancements,
we propose the Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel Telescopes (FAST) as anext-generation ground-based UHECR observatory that aims to cover a huge area
by deploying a large array of low-cost fluorescence detectors. We will install a microarray of the FAST prototype at the Pierre Auger Observatory in Mendoza, Argentina,
commencing a remote stand-alone observation of UHECRs.
Dr. FUJII Toshihiro

23

SlideClarifying the Most Energetic Particles in the Universe
Toshihiro Fujii

The Universe's Highest Energy Particles (1020 eV)
Only 1013 eV achieved by the Earth's largest
particle accelerator
Generate an extensive air showers
Extremely Infrequent

Extensive Air Showers

E > 5x1019 eV, 1 particle/100 km2/yr
Huge effective area, ~3000 km2
Long term observation, over 10 years

Surface Detector Array

Fluorescence Detector

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0 µs

400

30
20

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

Time
15 deg100 µs

30
20

200

− 30

0

400

45 deg

30

40
30
20
10

20

600
600

10

600

600

30
20

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0

200

400

600

200

400

600

60
50
40
30

600

Npe / 100 ns

0

− 20

− 30

− 30

0

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

40
30
20

0

0

0
− 10

− 20

400

600

0

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

− 20

− 30
200

600

10

10

− 10

0

400

20

0

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

200

30

10

− 30
400

10

− 20

20

− 20
200

20

− 10

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

− 10

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]− 30
0FAST prototype (= low cost fluorescence detector)
4 photomultiplier-tubes (20 cm), 1 m2 aperture
Segmented mirrors in 1.6 m diameter

Simulation
E = 4x1019 eV
θ = 50°800
1000Time bin [100 ns]

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

40

0

400

− 30
0

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

10

5

− 30
400

600

− 30

20 km

10

− 20
200

400

− 20
200

− 10

0

200

− 10

− 20

800
1000
− 30
Time bin [100 ns]0

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0

− 30

0

50

0

− 20

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

60

10

− 10

600

− 10

400

200

400

40
30

− 10

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

0

− 10

0

− 20

− 20
400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

Npe / 100 ns

200

− 30
0

300
250
200

200

400

600

40

0

50
− 20

0

Gamma-rays
1012 eV

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

−5

FAST

Dr. Iryna Lypova(Heidelberg)

Pierre Auger Observatory

H.E.S.S.
Radio

Pierre Auger Observatory- 3000 km2, Argentina- 2004 ~ over 17 years

E > 1019 eV, ~40,000 events

OpticalPlanck Collaboration

10

0

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

30
20
10

0

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

80
60
40

0

− 20

− 30
200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]− 40
0Npe / 100 ns

0

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

60
40

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

0

0

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

40
30
20
10
0
− 10
− 20

− 20
200

40
20

200

0

0

− 20

60

− 20

20

20

− 10

0

− 20
− 40
0

− 30
200

120
100

40
20
0

− 20

− 30

180
160
140

80
60

− 10

− 20

x [km]

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

10

200

400

600

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

− 30
0

2

Latest Results and Future Perspectives
J (E ) × E 3 (eV2 cm-2 s-1 sr-1)

Dr. Markus Roth
(KIT)

5

500 stations→ 150,000 km2

Telescope Array Experiment- 700 km2, Utah, USA- 2008 ~ over 13 years

Dr. Toshihiro Fujii(Kyoto)

0

20

0

0

−10

60

30

10

− 10

800
1000
Time bin [100 ns]

20

150
100

− 50
0

12 telescopes / station30
20

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Npe / 100 ns

−10

0

20

The most energetic particles
1020 eV

Joint Laboratory of Optics Olomouc – March 20147

Npe / 100 ns

60

Clarifying the Most Energetic Particles in the Universe

20
10

40

− 40
0

construction is still in development30

Npe / 100 ns

80

Npe / 100 ns

100

Npe / 100 ns

140
120

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

−5

160

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

40

− 20

0

200

0

0

Variable angles of elevation– steps.
− 30
600

0

20

0

− 20

Npe / 100 ns

400

Npe / 100 ns

200

30

10

− 10

Npe / 100 ns

− 20

20

0

20

Npe / 100 ns

− 20

30

10

40

0

− 10

200

60

0

10

− 20

0

80

20

Segmented mirror telescope0

Npe / 100 ns

40

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

0

60

0

− 30
0

− 10

− 20

Npe / 100 ns

20

− 10
− 20

20
10

40
20

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

Npe / 100 ns

60

30

10

30

y[km]

Npe / 100 ns

Signal waveform80

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

p.e. / 100 ns

Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel Telescopes

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

If we see the sky with different wavelengths and also different messengers, thesefigures are the radio and the optical, you can see the Milky Way here, and if we go
to the slightly higher energies, X-ray, you can see the Milky Way and some sphericalstructure, and also going further higher energy, this is the gamma rays, and also
recently, scientists discovered the high energy neutrinos. This is distributed almost
uniformly, and also what we are doing collaborating, Markus and myself, is the mostenergy particle. We have recently seen some clustering of the signal, but definitely
need to collaborate to understand and unravel the mystery of the extremely energetic
phenomena by multi-wavelengths and also multi-messenger astronomies. This is the
key message of our group. Thanks a lot.

Npe / 100 ns

We have addressed the clarifying the most energetic particles from the universe. We
have three very active members, myself and the Dr. Markus Roth from Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology and Dr. Iryna Lypova from the Heidelberg University. We
discussed some connections of our research, and we, myself and Markus, are doing
the most energetic particle. The energy is 10 to the power of 20 electron Volt and
Iryna doing the gamma ray up to 10 to the power of 12 electron Volt. We discussed
the possible synergy and some future collaborations. Firstly, we addressed what’s ourtargeted physics in the current decade. Of course, we need to continue the operation of
the current ongoing observatory, and also to build the future generation of observatoryfor gamma rays and the most energetic particles. To achieve it, what we needed toaccomplish is to continue the data analysis of the current ongoing observatory, and also,
we need to think the autonomous detector and precise resolution required. Also, weneed to develop a new detector like radio, optical, and those mixture, and one key pointthat we needed to build really cheaper and low-price detectors are essential to cover thelarge area with more cost effectively. This is a common understanding among us. As apossible synergy and the collaboration, one of the key messages is the multi-messenger
and multi-wavelength connection, meaning among the most energetic particle and the
gamma ray, and the other messengers.

part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Summary

FAST T. Fujii et al., PoS (ICRC2021) 402- 30,000 km2(effective)- 2030 ~ ?

1020

TA ICRC 2019

Auger PRD 2020

FAST 1 yr (95%CL)

1019

FAST 10 yr (95%CL)

18.5

19

19.5 20 20.5log(E (eV))

21

21.5

×10 statistics→ Next-Generation
Astronomy

E > 1019.7 eV, Only ~1000 events

X-raysGAIA Collaboration

eROSITA Collaboration

Unraveling mysteries of extremely energetic phenomena
by multi-wavelength and multi-messenger astronomies
Arrival directions of most energetic neutrino events

24





⊗

⊕


⊗

TXS 0506+056⊗

Neutrinos-90o

Fermi Collaboration

⊗

North

 South⊕Galactic Plane

⊕

6.6
6.2

best-fit direction IC170922A
IC170922A 50%
IC170922A 90%

5.8
5.4
5.0
4.6

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Fermi -LAT Counts/Pixel

Gamma-rays⊕

Earth absorption

Declination

⊕

⊗

⊕


⊗
⊕
⊗⊕ 
⊗⊕ ⊕ ⊗
 ⊕
⊕ ⊕

⊕ ⊗
⊕
⊕



 ⊕
⊕

⊗

⊕ ⊕
⊕
⊕ 
⊕
⊗
⊕
⊕
⊕ ⊗
⊕
 

⊕
⊕ ⊕
⊕

⊕
⊕ ⊕
 
 
⊗
⊗
⊕
⊕⊕
⊕



⊕
⊕
⊗⊕

⊗
⊕

⊕
⊕
⊕
  
⊕
 
⊕

⊕⊗
⊕
 
⊗
⊕
⊗
⊕
⊕
⊗
⊕
⊕
⊕
Galactic
⊕
⊕


⊕
180o

Energetic
particles

78.4 78.0 77.6 77.2 76.8 76.4
Right Ascension

IceCube Collaboration

Figure 4: A sky map of highly energetic neutrino events detected by IceCube. Shown are the best-fit directions
for upgoing track events [15, 16] collected in 8 years of IceCube operations (j), the high-energy starting events(HESE) (tracks i and cascades h) [17–19] collected in 6 years, and additional track events published as publicalerts (j) [20] since 2016. Note that the angular resolution for the different event categories varies from ,1 deg
for high-quality track events to -10 deg for cascade-type events. The distribution of the events is consistent
with isotropy once detector acceptance and neutrino Earth absorption are taken into account. The locationof the first candidate neutrino source, the blazar TXS 0506+056, is marked with a star. Shown in the inset
are the related Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) measurements of the region centered on TXS 0506+056
around the time that the high-energy neutrino IC-170922A was detected by IceCube (September 2017) [4].
The uncertainty on the reconstructed arrival direction of IC-170922A is shown for reference.

Pierre Auger and Telescope Array Collaborations25

5

We didn’t talk much about the second question, instead, we talked more about thethird one. We discussed approaches regarding the chemical perspective of the environment on the bodies of our solar system. When people think about astrobiology, theymainly focus on liquid water. But, we talked about other possibilities, such as a form oflife based on non-water solvent. We also considered the possibility of non-carbon-basedorganisms, such as the usage of silane and/or crystals, and also the perspective ofsilicon-chip-based life, i.e. AI as life form.
For the future collaborations, we talked about the effects of heat sources on the impact
for biogenesis. For example, we are interested in the distribution of radionuclides, suchas aluminum 26 and/or geothermal effects of bodies in the early solar system and othersystem on the main sequence. We came up with some ideas for potential collaborations,but, we still need more time to get ready and actually start.
We were asked if we had any issues due to different cultural or research backgrounds.
As we mainly talked about things outside of the earth, we don’t think we were affectedby the cultural differences. We are from different fields, but the discussion topics
were interdisciplinary, and we share the interests. So, we didn’t feel differences in theperspectives. We had a very nice discussion. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

dialogue 3

dialogue 3

dialogue 4

dialogue 4

dialogue 5

dialogue 5

Background26

For the first question, of course, this 1.5 hour time period is not enough to make aconclusion, but we shared some ideas. For your reference, there are some researchers
who think that life has emerged in interstellar space, but we both agreed that we needpresumably relatively large body, planetary-sized body, with atmosphere. This is mainlyfor protection against impacts and/or radiations. We also think air/water pressure isneeded to develop stable structures of organisms.

dialogue 2

dialogue 2

Planetary Science, Astrophysics, Astronomy
Dr. FUJII Yuri
Dr. Georg Lars Hildenbrand Experimental Biophysics

The topics for Dialogue Five are these questions:
How and where did life emerge?
What did the first life look like?
Is it possible to have other form of life?

dialogue 1

dialogue 1

How and where
did life emerge?
What did the first life
look like?
Is it possible
to have otherform of life?

Summary

part ii dialogues

part ii dialogues

Dialogue 

We know only one kind of life, which is life on the Earth. We have large variety oforganisms on the Earth, but they are all based on RNA/DNA. They all need organic
compounds. I am not an expert on the origin of life, but am very interested in this
topic. I would like to take this opportunity to have interdisciplinary discussion on thepossibility of other form of life, such as non-carbon based one, on the requirement for
the emergence of life, on the formation and delivery of building blocks of life and its
environment, on the origin of life on the Earth, and so on. I believe this kind of discussion is useful for searching for extraterrestrial life and/or studying the environment thatis suitable for life.
Dr. FUJII Yuri

27

How and where did life emerge?
What did the first life look like?
Is it possible to have other form of life?

part iii commentarypart ii dialogues

SlidePART III̶COMMENTARY

Yuri I. Fujii (Kyoto University)

November 23, 2021
commentary 1

dialogue 1

What are suitableenvironments for life?

dialogue 3

commentary 2

dialogue 2
ats.co.jp

dialogue 4commentary 3

NOAA

Mars

Water?
Moon

dialogue 5

Water?

What are essential materials?

©NASA

28

29

Most of the time,breakthroughs in issues
that cannot be resolved
individually are createdby third parties
asking questions
that seem ridiculous.

First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to all the participants. I actually visited all
five rooms, of course briefly, and found that in each room, you were having very active
discussions. It seems that you all enjoyed it very much. It’s very difficult to comment on
all five topics because they are diverse, and each team had a different discussion style. I,
myself, have some experience in interdisciplinary research. I’m working for the Centerof Southeast Asian Studies. My background is agriculture, but my topics are sometimes
about society, economics, or culture. Based on such experiences, allow me to offer somecomments.
I would like to discuss three points. First, what shall we pursue through interdisciplinary research? Usually, we first agree on a goal. Say that we decide to develop an artificial satellite. Then, scientists in mechanical engineering, astronomy, energy, and healthmight join. You work together to develop the satellite. In interdisciplinary research,such goal-sharing is a common style. However, recently, there has been another type ofinterdisciplinary research in which questions instead of goals are shared.

One more point I want to raise is not really for the participants but mainly the organizers. Interdisciplinary discussion is quite difficult, but today, all the dialogue groups
had to summarize their discussions. They were provided with questions, such as, “Whatare the specific issues that need to be approached?”, but this kind of question is quitedifficult to answer. Organizers should also be patient when fostering interdisciplinary
dialogues. Thank you very much.
Prof. Dr. KONO Yasuyuki
̶Kyoto University
Center for Southeast Asian Studies

I liked this event very much also because I was not so much involved in the discussions
themselves. This gave me a view from the outside, and it came to my mind that we havesome scientific questions to solve in both Japan and Germany, but sitting between thesequestions and us are colored spectacles. These spectacles are our historical and cultural
backgrounds. Discussions like those today also help us go beyond these spectacles. It
was quite clear that finding and identifying the most energetic particles is physics. Thisis something we can agree on very easily. It’s much more difficult to agree on how toconserve biodiversity and what we should investigate in the field of biodiversity.
What is important here? Not the tools of physics. Here, we suddenly have to agree,
and also our subjective, individual thoughts and feelings come into the game. This issomething which we really can learn here and work on. This brings to mind an old guy
from Russia named Vladimir Vernadsky.
He is the one who introduced the word biosphere, for example, and I think ineverything we have discussed today, the biosphere and ultimately the xenosphereof Vernadsky is quite important. When we are coming here together, doing these
discussions, it’s much more than just presenting what we create. We start to reign over,interfere with, and govern the earth and all flows with our thoughts and brain.

commentary 3

commentary 3

The third point is as follows. What kind of interdisciplinary dialogues has power tocreate breakthrough regarding issues in research? In most cases, questions that appear
ridiculous create such breakthroughs. We shouldn’t hesitate to raise any questions ininterdisciplinary dialogues. Such questions might appear quite strange from otherdisciplines’ perspectives, but we should dare to raise them to others.

I think one comment was quite important. It was in Dialogue Three about informatics.
We have models, but we are missing data. We have the nicest models we can imagine,
but what do we need models for if you do not have the data? This is also something weperhaps need to communicate to funding organizations. In other words, that we should
not just focus on sitting in our offices to create and program models, but we also needmuch more to go out into the field to sample, analyze, and collect information.

commentary 2commentary 2

The second point is, what should we communicate in interdisciplinary dialogues? Weshould, of course, communicate what we found and our research progress. But aftersome time, it is important to communicate what is unknown in each of our research
fields. This is not written anywhere and therefore is quite difficult to know from otherdisciplines. By sharing this kind of information, we can raise new questions. That is thesecond point.

The awarenessof differencesin the historical andcultural backgroundsof researchers
can serve asa driving force
when resolving
scientific questions.

I like this forum of communication very much. It’s the first time for me to participate here in a HeKKSaGOn workshop. I liked very much that not just research waspresented, but also lively discussions about scientific topics took place. These five
dialogues could each have been half-day standalone workshops because all are fundamental questions that have been quite internationally discussed between Japan andGermany. I congratulate you on this format, and I think this should be done even more
often in the future. It was quite interesting for me to accompany these different discussions. Unfortunately, because of the limited time, I could not attend all five, only four.
However, they were on quite broad subjects, from biodiversity conservation and theorigin of life to the universe’s most energetic particles. As I said, they addressed fundamental questions, as well as related methods and scientific challenges.

commentary 1

commentary 1

Of course, various people gather and discuss the questions. Each member is thinking
through the questions, but at the same time, they are thinking about their own topic,
going back and forth between the two. This kind of interdisciplinary dialogue is quite
stimulating for, and ends up being reflected in, their own research work. Members don’t
share the net outcome, but this style of interdisciplinary dialogue is also important.
This is the first point. I found today things similar to this type of interdisciplinary
dialogue (for example, Dialogue Five).

Commentary 2

part iii commentarypart iii commentary

Commentary 1

This leads me to my last question to the physicists: what kind of physics do we ultimately need? This was also a question posed by Vernadsky for describing how ourthoughts can really change the world, because normally, we think in terms of physics
and mechanistic understandings. For example, a stone falls, and here we have somegravitation and all the physical understandings. We can really change the world with
our thoughts. But what about the mass flows, and the emergence of the world? These
things are also within our thoughts. This is perhaps the ultimate question, especiallyfor Dialogue Five: how and where did life emerge? Because until now we only haveexperiments saying life comes from life.
I liked this very much, and I think it is a very good platform to discuss fundamental
questions we are all interested in. Perhaps they can help us also to govern the earth in
the future in a better way.
Prof. Dr. Stefan Norra̶

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Institute of Applied Geosciences

30

31

part iii commentary

Commentary 3

Makingour questions
shareable and relevantto the target
is important.

It was first of all a great pleasure to join this event. I enjoyed listening to the talks
and discussions a lot. I’m one of the oldest members of the HeKKSaGOn Alliance,
not in terms of age, but I have been serving as one of the discussion leaders since thefirst meeting held in Heidelberg in 2010. It was a great pleasure to see in this audience
Professor Junichi Mori, who was a big helper and supporter at the beginning of thisHeKKSaGOn Network.
Also, I was very much honored to be mentioned by Professor Yokoyama and Professor
Tokitoh at the beginning as one contributor to this network. I must say thattoday’s meeting was for me the easiest meeting we’ve held within the framework of
HeKKSaGOn because I didn’t do anything. I just had to enjoy the talks and listen to
the discussions. It was a nice job. I was sticking to Dialogue One because of my preference. I was also delighted to see more than 30 people participating in this session,
including Japanese scientists who studied in Heidelberg, and Karlsruhe and Heidelberg
students and alumni who studied in Kyoto.

commentary 1

It was a really nice, organized meeting for me to just say hello to these people. Dr.
Ziebert and Dr. Yamamoto gave great presentations. Also, I was happy to see thatmany of the Ph.D. students and junior researchers were actively asking questions andraising some provocative statements. This was really nice. I think the length of time
was, as we all know, too short to discuss many questions in depth, but I had the feelingthat this kind of event is an ideal platform for generating questions and sharing questions like Professor Kono mentioned in the beginning.

commentary 2

However, I have to say to the participants and the junior researchers that making ourquestions shareable and relevant to the target is important. We often pose questions
that are maybe interesting from a physics viewpoint. But when, for instance, dealing
with diseases or medical problems, if the questions we generated are not relevant, it’spointless.

commentary 3

With that said, I think for this kind of event, we should not overly generalize our
discussions or attempt to make them understandable to anyone and everyone but
instead think about making our approaches really fun. I think this will be strengthened when we in the future hold this kind of event in person̶having poster sessions
with students, having beer or wine together̶and exchange thoughts in a more relaxedway. But anyway, I think it was a great event and success, and I thank all the organizers
and the administrative staff for everything. Thank you very much.
Prof. Dr. TANAKA Motomu
̶Heidelberg University
Institute for Physical Chemistry

Organizers

Heidelberg University
̶Joachim Gerke
Nicoline Dorn

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
̶Oliver Schmidt
Michael Hübscher

Heidelberg University Office, Kyoto
̶

Sabine Schenk

Kyoto University European Center̶

YOKOYAMA Mika
KANNO Chiyoko
Bernd Kirchner
Kyoto University

̶

YOSHIKAWA Minako Jen
NAKANO Asa

Kyoto University
Program for the Developmentof Next-generation Leading Scientists
with Global Insight (L-INSIGHT)
̶

Research Administration Building 1F
Yoshida-Hommachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi,
Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan+81-75-753-5916
Kyoto University European Center̶Augustinergasse 2,
69117 Heidelberg+49 6221.54.30034
Heidelberg University Office,Kyoto (HUOK)̶Kyoto University
Yoshida International House
64 Yoshida Nihonmatsu-cho, Sakyo-ku,
Kyoto 606-8501+81 75 753-5413
Heidelberg University
International Relations Division̶

Seminarstrasse 269117 Heidelberg+49 6221 54-12738
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)International Affairs̶32Campus South, Building 50.20,
Adenauerring 2
76131 Karlsruhe, Germany+49-7216-08-41977

Closing