Circles and Squares

日韓科学技術勉強会　　２０１２年８月２７日(月)
研究開発戦略センター

科学技術振興機構

エマニュエル　パストリッチ　(慶熙大学)

１）韓国科学技術の歴史的、文化的背景

・日韓の形而上学： 演繹と帰納 の極端

・韓国現代化の結果　折衷的な形而上学

・戦前インフラ政策

・融通がきかない専門家；融通がきく組織

・半島の運命　対　島の運命

・未来に対する信頼；政府に対する信頼

・新しい政界秩序の中にある韓国

・科学と技術の差異；技術が科学を導く時代

・あたらしい科学ネットワークのあり方

２) 将来の日韓科学技術の道： ネットワーク化時代の科学

・The Open Science Imperative

公開科学研究の必要性

Michael Nielsen’s

「発見の再発明：ネットワーク化科学の新時代」

Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science (PrincetonUniversity, 2012)

気候変化、食料危機、技術に伴う数多くの挑戦に直面しているわれわれには世界のもっとも優秀な研究者を組んで一緒になって、それらの問題に答える国際共同研究開発を進めなくていけない。

特に、財政問題により政府などの研究予算が削減され、より大きな投資を必要とする気候変動などの研究を支えるためには、多くの国家による支援が必要となる。しかし、残念ながら、研究者が、知的財産問題、昇進資格に必要な研究論文の作成などに集中しており、国際共同研究には相当な限界がある。

ここで、Nielsen教授は公開科学のネットワーク化時代を到来を主張している。その必要性とその成功事例を紹介したい。

There is a pressing need for open science, to bring together the leaders in research around the world, and other thoughtful individuals who can help, to solve the problems of our age.

In an age of decreasing budgets, we are threatened by climate change, food shortages and challenges of illness and of technology that will require massive investments of funds, far more than individual governments can afford. But in spite of the need, and the potential for international collaboration, we find the concern with intellectual property, research papers for promotion and restrictions on funding the full potential for using the internet for truly open networked science is not being realized.

We must share data on line and ideas, use science wikis and user-contributed comment sites, and computer programs to assure that true international collaboration is possible.

Yet despite the obvious benefits in terms of responding to the challenges of climate change and disease, shortages of resources and growing populations, those who try to practice open science, sharing completely their research as they conduct it, run into a tremendous obstacle. Other scientists are willing to read what they offer, but they are not willing to make the contribution to help in the project. The essential problem is that a comprehensive shift must take place in how science is conducted essentially at the same time in order for open science to be successful. But it is possible for the entire culture to shift, for a new definition of success to be offered up that will make But the example of the first scientific revolution suggests that it is possible to collectively make a massive shift. In the 1665 the “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” was the first international scientific journal, establishing the publishing in public journals as the appropriate route to success in science.

We need to find a way to align the interests of individual researchers with the common interest of the international community so as to bring about a major increase in the potential of science. Two immediate approaches are:

Compelling Open Science

Funding institutions can make open science a condition for funding and thereby require the sharing of data as part of research. It is possible to set a platform for further open access and open data policies globally. This approach can only work with the consent of the scientific community.

Incentivizing Open Science

There is a move away from published journal articles to “preprints” which are open research postings. There is the possibility that we could set up a system for massive collaboration that would be win-win for all participants. We could make the building of data webs as important a part of the scientist’s job as writing papers. If we identify the building of infrastructure for research, code and processes of research, central to the evaluation and fame of scientists that can be a major incentive for cooperation.  There is much scientific information is more meaningful as code, or images, not scientific papers. We must reward scientists for building code and research tools.

Ultimately, the money for research is paid with tax dollars. The results belong to the people. So the public is critical to the process, as Nielsen states, “There is no stronger force for achieving such a change than raising public awareness, so that everyone in our society understands the tremendous value of open science.”

We’re at a unique moment in history: for the first time we have an open-ended ability to build powerful new tools for thought. We have an opportunity to change the way knowledge is constructed. But the scientific community, which ought to be in the vanguard, is instead bringing up the rear, with most scientists  clinging to their existing way of working, and failing to support those who seek a better way.”