Reasons for not appointing 6 members of the Science Council of Japan What is "comprehensive" at 21:06 on October 8th?

The phrase "comprehensive, fuzzy perspective" is used repeatedly when explaining why the government did not appoint six candidates for the Science Council of Japan.

During the closing review of the House of Councilors Cabinet Committee on the 8th, the government explained that it was based on the contents of the report compiled by the Council for Science and Technology Policy 17 years ago.

How to select members Detailed background

In 1984, due to the revision of the Science Council of Japan Law, the members of the Science Council changed from the previous election system to a system that recommends candidates for each academic society in the research field.



However, it was pointed out that the recommendation system by the academic society has problems such as the succession of members among friends and the interests of the academic society.



At the Administrative Reform Council, which discussed the reorganization of ministries and agencies in 1997, some abolition theories were raised, and from 2001, the Science Council of Japan examined the ideal state of the academic conference.



The report compiled by the Science Council of Japan in February 2003 stated, "The Science Council of Japan flexibly responds to new academic research trends and aims to solve today's social issues from a scientific point of view. In order to respond to the expectations of making proposals and conducting communication activities with society, it is necessary to work from a "comprehensive and futuristic perspective."



The report then states, "The academic conference must represent the entire scientific community and be an organization of scientists independent of the interests of individual academic societies. Outstanding researchers are elected as members based on their scientific achievements. It is important to do this. "



Based on the contents of these reports, the method of selecting members was changed in 2005, and 210 active members and about 2000 collaborative members, instead of academic societies, have "excellent research or achievements" in scientists. It has been changed to the current system of recommendation.