[Feature: Science, Technology, and Social Issues] Roundtable Discussion: How to Face Future Challenges Beyond the Humanities and Sciences

Today, I would like to discuss "Science, Technology, and Social Issues."

There is no doubt that science and technology have enriched human life and greatly benefited civilization as a whole. However, in recent years, technological progress has accelerated to the point where new technologies appear one after another before society can even attempt to accept them, and institutional responses are failing to keep pace.

In this context, an approach known as ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues), which analyzes and regulates science and technology primarily from the perspective of humanities and social sciences, has become widespread.

Recently, for example, the frenzy surrounding the metaverse and the signs of fundamental changes in human intellectual activity due to the emergence of generative AI are becoming a reality. Furthermore, not only artificial intelligence but also artificial bodies and artificial life are becoming a reality, with genome editing, regenerative medicine, reproductive technology, and brain-tech opening up unknown fields one after another.

In addition, the presence of science and technology is growing rapidly in the field of social services, such as fintech and legal-tech.

On the other hand, there is the reality that we cannot overcome the threats of nature. Nuclear technology created by science has backfired on us in the form of nuclear power plant accidents caused by tsunamis and earthquakes, and even six months after the Noto Peninsula earthquake, there is still no prospect of recovery. Furthermore, political leaders have emerged who use drones for military attacks or openly speak of the possibility of nuclear strikes.

The question of where to invest our intellectual resources has become a major issue. Amidst the glamorous progress of technology, there are concerns that it could be misused or abused, leading to actions equivalent to human suicide.

Against this background, I would like you to talk about the current situation and your outlook for the future. To begin with, could you please introduce yourself and talk about the relationship between your specialty, your position, and social issues?

My specialty is neuroscience, and I conduct basic research on the brain. The function and structure of the brain change through various experiences, and I have been conducting research and development to effectively draw out this property called "plasticity."

Specifically, I use wearable electroencephalographs (EEG) to read the brain activity of patients whose brains have been damaged by strokes or other conditions as brain waves. The brain waves are processed by AI, and at the timing when it is estimated that the remaining nerves in the brain are active appropriately, a robot attached to the paralyzed hand is driven to support hand movement. In this way, I am conducting AI research as a functional recovery and treatment technology that allows the hand to be used again in its natural state.

When I was a student over 20 years ago, I went to the School of Medicine saying I wanted to do that, and clinical staff told me, "That sounds difficult." However, I have experienced several moments when the attitudes of those around me changed suddenly when they realized that what they thought was impossible was actually possible.

Common sense in science and the world is uncertain and not a given for the future; I have felt hope that science and technology can create a new standard. On the other hand, I sometimes feel that the world's perception of science and technology is surprisingly fickle and opportunistic. I have hope for the way science and technology interact with society, but there are also things that make me wonder if we'll be okay.

As "brain-tech (neurotechnology)" continues to become a reality, I hear that movements have started at UNESCO and elsewhere to determine how to make rules for it and address ethical issues.

I started my research as a student and became a professor, and I feel that I must finally become a core part of the responsible science and technology providers at the front end.

Now, Mr. Yashiro, please go ahead.

My original discipline is biology, specifically stem cell research. Stem cells are the foundation of so-called regenerative medicine, and when I entered undergraduate school, it was just after human ES cells had been established. These are pluripotent stem cells created by destroying human embryos, and while they were attracting attention, they were also facing social criticism from the perspective of bioethical issues because they used embryos.

Therefore, in graduate school, I wanted to create such cells without destroying embryos, and while I was conducting research using hematopoietic stem cells as a subject, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka's iPS cells appeared. iPS cells were seen as cells that dispelled bioethical concerns, and regenerative medicine began to attract enormous attention.

While expectations from the general public were high, there was also a significant sense of unease and anxiety, which was not necessarily based on knowledge linked to science. Therefore, I felt that there was a need for human resources who could bridge both social values and the values of the life science field. Taking the opportunity of becoming a postdoc under Dr. Hideyuki Okano (now Professor Emeritus) in Physiology at Keio, I also began research in the field known as Science and Technology Studies (STS).

When I was a graduate student, regenerative medicine was called "the medicine of the future," but the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine was enacted in 2014. Now, 20 products have received pharmaceutical approval and are covered by public insurance, and nearly 6,000 cases are being conducted as what is called "private practice" (uninsured treatment). It is no longer the medicine of the future.

However, things based on scientific evidence and those that are not have emerged, and a structure of exploitation that takes advantage of expectations is becoming a reality.

Furthermore, as seen in the so-called "drug lag and drug loss," 60% of new drugs applied for globally are not applied for in Japan. In this context, I have come to wonder if it is okay for regenerative medicine, which the Japanese people and society have expected so much from, to remain in its current state.

Since it is problematic to proceed with research in a way that is convenient only for the inside of life sciences to promote the practical application of regenerative medicine, I am currently involved in building a platform to accelerate the social implementation of regenerative medicine by building social consensus in parallel with establishing a base for regenerative medicine with scientific evidence.

Next, Mr. Kokubo, please.

I studied constitutional law and neuroscience, and after obtaining master's degrees in both law and science, I entered the Doctoral Programs at the Graduate School of Law. Since this April, I have been an assistant professor at the Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies at the University of Tokyo.

My specialty is neurolaw, which is an interdisciplinary field merging law and neuroscience.

When people hear "law," they often think of it as a discussion of regulations—about what one must not do—but that is not necessarily the case. I aim to update legal theories and concepts to be more modern by using insights into how neuroscience and cognitive science are elucidating humans themselves, consciousness, will, emotions, and learning.

In a sense, it can be said to be research that directly connects the interface between natural science/technology and society. Within that, I sometimes consider whether the concerns and expectations expressed by the general public are justified. Are we viewing new technologies as dangerous without reason, or praising them unfairly? I am also thinking about the nature of such social acceptance within ELSI and RRI (Responsible Research & Innovation) teams, utilizing knowledge from both the humanities and sciences.

Now, Mr. Yotsumoto, please.

As a lawyer, I focus mainly on corporate legal affairs and M&A, but a somewhat unusual characteristic of my work is that I have a significant amount of work related to science and technology.

In my previous career, I was a national public servant working in science and technology. I was involved in the formulation of science and technology policy, space development, and nuclear non-proliferation and security in the nuclear field. I participated in the formulation of the 1st Science and Technology Basic Plan in 1996 as a very junior member.

After that, I turned to law, but since I like science and technology very much, I have been fortunate to have many opportunities to deal with science and technology as a lawyer.

As a lawyer, my basic work is to respond to consultations from clients. When I think about the relationship with social issues, for example, I receive consultations regarding the handling of personal information in research using AI, or I think about mechanisms to give companies incentives to develop vaccines over the long term in preparation for the next pandemic after COVID-19. Also, as the security environment has become stricter recently, I quite often face issues regarding research and development and international relations.

Furthermore, moving slightly away from daily legal work, I have been involved to a small extent in energy issues triggered by the Fukushima accident following the Great East Japan Earthquake. Amidst the current liberalization of electricity, the global trend toward decarbonization, and the Ukraine issue, there is the question of what the optimal solution for Japan's energy use is, including the handling of nuclear power. However, there are so many and such heavy social issues that I feel even an omniscient and omnipotent god might not be able to find the answer.

Next, could you please mention what kind of technology you think will bring about what kind of social problems in the future, focusing on what concerns you most, whether it is within your specialty or not?

One is about brain-tech, neurotechnology, and Brain-Machine Interface (BMI), which have emerged from the combination of neuroscience—the core of my research—and AI. I believe that knowing the state of the brain has been one of the fundamental interests of humans since ancient times. Since the era of ancient Greece, questions like "What is the mind?" and "What are emotions?" have been discussed from a philosophical perspective.

Therefore, while there are expectations for new medical treatments where diseases that could not be cured might be cured or mental troubles might be solved by technology through the fusion of the brain, machines, and AI, pursuing this also leads us to think about what our minds are, what our emotions are, and what the manifestation of will is. In other words, I think it leads to thinking about to what extent a person is doing things autonomously. The more science and technology progress, the more I feel a great dynamism that returns to such archaic and fundamental interests.

Currently, AI calculations have become dramatically faster, the speed of technological innovation has increased, and startups for social implementation are operating with a sense of speed aimed at exiting in five years. In this way, the field of science and technology has aspects that are constantly urged to speed up.

On the other hand, however, I feel that humanity has been thinking about the classic problem of "What is a human?" for a long time, using different methods and approaches. I feel a sense of wonder that something moving at a tremendous speed and something that seems not to move at all coexist.

Another interest lies in AI itself, which plays a core role in my research. AI is explosively fast in calculation, active in manufacturing, and crosses all sorts of chasms, such as language barriers for people communicating across borders.

However, behind such convenience, it uses a massive amount of energy for calculations and places a significant burden on the environment, including CO₂ emissions. The current situation is that the problem of what to do about this is largely being ignored. The issues of nuclear power and decarbonization mentioned by Mr. Yotsumoto and the story of AI are very much related, yet they are rarely discussed together.

How should we bring these issues to the table and create the "comprehensive knowledge" (Sogo-chi) to reach solutions or mitigation? Unless we engage in dialogue and build methods for consensus-building, the content is too complex and multifaceted (chimeric) to keep up with the speed of technological development at all. I think how we handle this is an extremely important phase.

What I thought was important in what you just said are the two layers: the "flux part" and the "root part." When examining the social issues we face, it seems important how we position these two layers.

In any case, we must keep up with the flux. Society and the government try to respond from realistic perspectives such as ensuring security and developing markets. On the other hand, classical philosophical and ideological questions from ancient Greece, as you pointed out—the fundamental questions—are being asked again. Society's intellectual resources are concentrated on keeping up with the flux, and fundamental questions are often only acknowledged because they are complicated.

In other words, where are we now in the circular dynamics of fluid issues and fundamental questions? How to connect flux and roots might become a common challenge that transcends the humanities and sciences as a form of academic knowledge.

Speaking of social issues in my area of expertise, first, there is the problem of expensive medical care. When people think of regenerative medicine, they probably have a strong image of organ reconstruction, but within the scope of the law, it includes medicine using cells. Recently, there is a therapy called "CAR-T" that uses cells to attack and treat blood-based cancers. That costs about 33 million yen. Also, the gene therapy drug "Zolgensma" exceeds 100 million yen.

However, by administering Zolgensma once, patients who would have lost motor functions in infancy can now function properly even as they grow up. Thinking that way, it leads to the argument that the balance of payments might work out.

However, even if the outcome matches the cost of 30-some million yen for CAR-T, there is the question of to what extent public insurance should continue to bear the cost of such new and expensive medical treatments. This also connects to the classical question mentioned by Mr. Ushiba about whether this leads to the selection of lives.

In addition to the problems that arise even when doing things properly, treatments without scientific evidence are rampant in private practice, and responding to this is quite difficult.

There are people who receive it knowing it is expensive, intending to cling to a straw as a last resort, and recently, many celebrities are advertising it on blogs while receiving money. Then, people who are influenced by that also come forward.

Furthermore, speaking broadly, looking at the recent internet and SNS, people who are not qualitatively guaranteed in any way are disseminating medical knowledge on YouTube and other platforms. Even if it looks like a kind of democratization of knowledge in that form, there is the problem that medical quality is not guaranteed.

When everyone can disseminate information, in situations like a pandemic or after a nuclear accident, extremely chaotic situations occur. Situations involving political matters that cannot be decided by science alone—what Weinberg calls "trans-science"—are emerging more and more. Within trans-science, many people are talking about things like "how to handle the boundary between those with expertise (experts) and those without (non-experts), and how to think about the legitimacy of decisions."

However, having scientific knowledge does not mean everyone becomes able to talk; the STS scholar Collins preaches that harmonious discussion of respective positions and experiences is necessary. Yet, we fall into an infinite cycle of blaming others, saying "those without scientific knowledge are no good" or "it's oppression by knowledge," and it's difficult to find a breakthrough. Personally, I have felt this as a sense of stagnation through the nuclear accident and then the pandemic.

I would like to speak about something outside my specialty.

I believe the challenge of how to face information technology remains unresolved. In other words, even if it seems to have permeated society widely and is being used well, hasn't it actually left various problems behind?

We respond to the ills brought by information technology, such as disinformation, misinformation, and online firestorms, with symptomatic treatments like deleting posts, and we repeat the cycle of forgetting once the situation calms down. As a result, I feel we have reached the present day without being able to properly approach the essential questions of what the fundamental challenges information technology brings to society are and why they are caused.

Also, it is said recently that human attention spans have become shorter. It used to be said that people could only last 10 minutes on YouTube, but now it's 10 seconds on TikTok. Society progresses with the penetration of technology led by IT companies as a given; aren't we adapting uncritically before we even question its nature?

It seems to me that society is just idly accepting technologies that are created one after another without looking back at what purpose that technology is being implemented in society for.

What can information technology change about humans and society, and what should not be changed and should be protected? I believe this is one of the challenges that should be tackled across the humanities and sciences.

Another point, which is a bit of a general discussion: looking at various life science technologies, I have the impression that the interest in technology has shifted from measurement to manipulation. Typically, the human genome sequence was completely decoded in 2000. From there, it has become possible to edit genes using CRISPR-Cas9 (a genome editing tool). In other words, even regarding humans, the need to seriously ask "is it okay to change?" beyond "is it okay to know?" has emerged, and I think the problems surrounding technology have deepened a level.

Finally, the third point. I feel that interest has shifted from "curing" humans to "enhancing" them. It's not just about recovering from injury or illness; stories about how far we can push the limits of human performance are appearing one after another. Within that, I believe we must also look at the social issue of whether only those with economic power will enhance themselves, leading to the reproduction of economic disparities as disparities in ability and academic achievement.

How about you, Mr. Yotsumoto?

Since I am not conducting research myself, I don't have a specific field, but since I started my first step as a working adult at the bottom of the civil service, I tend to look at things from the perspective of whether the country's response to social issues is okay.

As an example, regarding the energy issue I mentioned earlier, decarbonization is a challenge that should be considered globally as humanity, but the stable supply of energy is also an issue directly linked to the lives of the people and related to national security. It is extremely difficult to make appropriate policy judgments while looking at world affairs, social conditions, and political situations while keeping an eye on social issues that are sometimes difficult to reconcile, and I am troubled by this as if it were my own problem.

As another example, recently, when fostering startups becomes important, everyone rushes toward startup support measures; when GX (Green Transformation) becomes important, huge budgets are attached under the keyword GX. The important thing is the content, and the budget should exist for the content, but lately, I sometimes think that policy formation is somewhat reckless.

Regarding social issues, we must grasp the issues firmly and respond carefully with our feet on the ground; otherwise, current policies will create Japan 10, 20, or even more years into the future, and we might make a mistake regarding Japan's future. I think a sense of responsibility—that we today bear responsibility for the future—is also important.

Listening to everyone's stories, I feel that rather than science and technology bringing crises to society and humans, it is society itself that is ailing, and the progress of science and technology is exposing that.

There was talk of the "democratization of knowledge," but democracy is ultimately rule by the masses, and the idea that rule by the masses is mobocracy is a self-evident truth since the days of Athens (laughs). As Mr. Kokubo also raised as an issue, the fact that information technology is being used in a distorted way has an aspect of exposing something like the original sin of the humans who use it. If that's the case, I think it's even fated to converge on the philosophical question of "what kind of existence is a human, and for what purpose do they exist?"

On the other hand, regarding the issues of systems and administration raised by Mr. Yotsumoto, I think the general problem of Japanese bureaucratic administration—where they are so busy thinking about how to keep up with the flux that they don't even follow up on effects or consequences—is also appearing in the area of technology policy.

I'll change the perspective slightly here, but as I mentioned at the beginning, ELSI activities have recently become popular not only in Japan but worldwide. It is the idea of placing science and technology under a certain kind of social control.

Recently, there is also RRI (Responsible Research & Innovation). As such attempts progress, both Mr. Kokubo and I have received grants from JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency) and are conducting ELSI activities for brain science technology. Mr. Yotsumoto, what do you think is the background behind why ELSI has been emphasized recently?

It is generally said that ELSI began in the United States during the Human Genome Project in 1990. As for Japan, the Science and Technology Basic Plan, which is issued every five years, has now reached its 6th term. Looking back, the 1st Science and Technology Basic Plan in 1996 was very simple and compact, but even then, glimpses of the ELSI concept could be seen, and from the 2nd term, that idea has definitely been positioned within the plan.

However, the words E, L, and S (Ethical, Legal, and Social) clearly appear from the 3rd Science and Technology Basic Plan (2006). I think it's about looking at the social impact of new science and technology from multiple and multifaceted perspectives, not just through the eyes of scientists, but through the humanities and social sciences symbolized by E, L, and S.

However, I am concerned that the concept seems to be expanding indiscriminately lately. In particular, the latest 6th Science, Technology, and Innovation Basic Plan (2021) includes too much, and it's hard to keep up with the understanding.

If I decipher it, science and technology must be useful for realizing a society where everyone is happy. To that end, research must properly look at the future state, and ELSI response is required from the initial stages. For that, the utilization of "comprehensive knowledge" (Sogo-chi) is necessary, and it is necessary to build a system in which such human resources participate—is that a correct understanding? Recently, the need to train ELSI personnel for that purpose is also being mentioned.

ELSI is an extremely important concept, but I feel that the word ELSI should basically be considered close to technology or research, and I feel it's a bit different for the word to take on a life of its own and become bloated.

I completely agree. Recently, they've been adding a cubed symbol to the E of ELSI (E³), right? In other words, it includes not only ethics but also economy and environment. In this way, categories are constantly increasing and expanding.

They say they will control science and technology with ELSI, but law, ethics, sociology, economics, and environmental studies each have their own disciplines. It is difficult in itself to organize the ELSI perspective that is supposed to analyze and control technology. It cannot be easily lumped together. What on earth should the humanities and social sciences do? There is a difficult problem at the initial stage. "Comprehensive knowledge" is not something that can be said easily.

That's very true.

Therefore, before having a dialogue on the fusion of humanities and sciences with the science and technology side, we must discuss the synthesis of humanities-based knowledge itself within ELSI.

So, fused human resources are absolutely necessary. Without that, if we just brandish the word ELSI, the ELSI movement might become nothing more than something that speaks for the anxieties and demands of taxpayers. Since taxpayers' precious money is being allocated to science and technology.

In other words, ELSI would exist as a channel to convey the voices of the general public, who are the source of funding, saying "such research is unacceptable" or "public understanding cannot be obtained," to the technology side. That in itself is not entirely without significance. Rather, it might be a necessary circuit to put the waves of acceleratingly fluid science and technology onto an institutional response.

I'm not saying we should stop because of that; rather, it's the opposite—we should take this as a "great challenge." For humanities and social science knowledge, I think it will be a challenge to overcome a kind of stagnation or compartmentalized deadlock.

As you say, I think there are critical aspects, but thinking as a party involved in science and technology, including self-criticism, I take it positively that there are so many points where we must consider diverse social demands, and being told, "Are you guys facing science and technology every day while thinking properly?" can serve as a useful wedge.

Science and technology, symbolized by AI, are constantly increasing in speed. The researchers creating them are also in a structure where competition to get promoted at universities or Research Centers and Institutes and get tenure is becoming more intense, and they must produce results at a tremendous speed.

For example, BMI is a field that is actually diverse and should consider balance and harmony within various types of knowledge such as biology, philosophy, AI, and robotics. However, since it's hard to state a specialty in one word, it's sometimes dismissed as "something I don't really understand." The more it becomes a speed competition, the more there are aspects where one is forced to settle things in black or white.

However, society is not a footrace but a single system. To live as a biotope and an ecosystem, it is important how to balance this mosaic state and make the system function properly. Therefore, I think it is very important that I am occasionally made to think about why I am doing this science and technology through concepts like ELSI, and that a wedge is driven in.

Won't it become increasingly difficult?

It is difficult. However, perhaps it is for the best that people are weeded out and those with the good sense to understand such things remain. If those restraints are removed, I fear there will be an increase in people who only think about short-sighted career advancement within that speed.

Indeed, professors of truly pure basic science, the kind who are in the spotlight for Nobel Prizes, say things like they absolutely want to protect the last bastion of utopian university values. In the natural sciences, there are ideas that emerge from deepening one's thoughts while completely isolated from the outside world, so there is a part of me that wants to cherish that as well.

However, I cannot say that there isn't a part of it being used as an excuse. I feel that the existence of filters, or rather checks and hurdles, like ELSI and RRI, functions to a certain extent in terms of purifying things when considering the points of contact between many researchers and society.

Mr. Yashiro, what are your thoughts?

As Mr. Ushiba just mentioned, I agree with the importance of ELSI in the sense of handling the essentially unrestrained nature of research.

Earlier, Mr. Komamura and Ms. Yotsumoto expressed concerns about the diffusion of ELSI, but I believe that ELSI is fundamentally risk governance and is not something that should be applied to everything and anything.

However, I think there are more than a few instances where it has become an end in itself, with ELSI becoming an academic field where people are "just saying various things in order to write papers." Rather, in terms of today's view of science, RRI is about the idea that society as a whole should take responsibility, so we should leave it to that side.

ELSI is said to have started with the Human Genome Project, but if you trace its origins back, it goes back to the discussion of genetic modification at the Asilomar Conference (1975).

Ultimately, that emerged from concerns about what would happen if genetic modification experiments were conducted based solely on the researcher's own curiosity. I believe that researchers themselves should also possess an objective internal perspective on what might happen to society as a result of their own research.

In that sense, while ELSI researchers certainly do not need to be experts in everything, I believe they should have a certain degree of social science knowledge and an interdisciplinary sense, and I hope there will be people who can lead that.

For example, I don't think the applied ethical parts of generative AI and regenerative medicine are necessarily the same. Ethics in regenerative medicine and life sciences are largely rooted in things like basic, classical applied philosophy. However, the discussion of AI is not just about thinking about concepts, but fundamentally about how to apply and respond to them, so we should have governance discussions based on law or the philosophy of law.

Therefore, when looking at AI ethics from the perspective of regenerative medicine ethics, it sometimes looks very pragmatic, and the speed of the discussion sometimes feels very fast.

Also, regarding regenerative medicine, we have discussed it quite a bit, so I think we have come to understand each other's points, but many people still have the image that "bioethics people basically just put on the brakes."

However, if you look at this closely, even within bioethics, there were many people saying, "Doing this will be useful to society, so let's create proper rules and move forward." As we transitioned from classical German philosophy to Anglo-Saxon utilitarian philosophy, I think there was a shift, at least in Japan. I hope that the number of science researchers who can understand such backgrounds and contexts will increase a bit more.

As you say, ELSI must not become discussion for the sake of discussion. On the other hand, in my own work with ELSI, when I talk with young people in science and technology fields whose specialties are completely different, there are unexpected learnings and aspects where research progresses.

The act of having such cross-disciplinary dialogue itself is precious, and I believe there is certainly something born from the struggle to communicate while encountering the unknown.

Separately, I think a suggestive scene is the one in the movie "Oppenheimer" where he sees photos of the bombed areas. Even in the world of science, where researchers are exposed to political and social pressure and competition for funding and are required to produce research results at an accelerating pace, I think it is necessary for there to be moments to stop and think about the impact of what one creates on society as a whole.

However, is it appropriate to make scientists alone bear that burden? Shouldn't it be the academic knowledge of the humanities and social sciences that originally undertakes that? I think it is important for those involved in ELSI to keep that in mind and continue dialogue by jumping into the other person's field, albeit with restraint.

Another point is that in Japanese education, if you choose the humanities track from high school, you are taught in a way where you are told, "You don't have to do physics or chemistry." However, when you go out into the world, it's impossible for a humanities person to never touch the fields of physics or chemistry.

Even if you work in sales for a manufacturer, you might sell quantum computers in the future, or even if you become a lawyer, you might handle stories about chemical drugs. As ELSI develops, I think it is also important for humanities talent to learn how to approach and talk about science.

While studying at the Graduate School of Science and Technology, what I found very interesting was that the way words are used in law and science is completely different; it was an experience akin to studying abroad. For example, even with a single word like "intention (will)," the meaning is completely different.

When you go out into society, naturally there are both science and humanities people. In the process of trying to work together on projects, to prevent unfortunate miscommunications, I think society will move in a better direction if ELSI develops ways of dialogue and intercultural communication that transcend the humanities and sciences.

I also believe that what Mr. Yashiro said about ELSI existing as risk governance is correct. ELSI possesses a moment of control, and I think it is better to specialize in that.

It is often said that ELSI should engage in discussions that help improve the productivity of technology, or promote national strength and dreamy technologies, but rather than expanding it that far, I think it should be something where forces not on the side of the technology verify the potential risks that the technology possesses.

If that is the case, the first thing ELSI does is verification from the perspective of security and safety.

Second is the perspective of dignity. It's not a visible crisis, but it's about ensuring that human dignity is not potentially eroded.

And thirdly, the issues of division and disparity mentioned earlier. If only those with money receive the benefits of science and technology, it could distort society. Also, as certain technologies become more sophisticated, there is a fear that they might force sacrifices only on specific people in society.

As I mentioned earlier, the importance of ELSI is that it becomes an opportunity for both the humanities and social sciences, and the sciences, to reorganize the state of their own disciplines. I believe the significance of ELSI lies in two things: the "moment of control" as risk governance and the "creative moment" of reorganizing one's own academic knowledge.

For our final discussion, in aiming for a "better society," what is the role of the university and the role of humanities knowledge as a place that connects society and advanced science and technology? This could include not just universities, but also administration and the legal profession—what do you think?

Universities, especially comprehensive universities, are very precious spaces. In the case of Keio, the science and humanities campuses are separated, but if you shift your perspective to Hiyoshi, there is a space where students who have defined themselves as "humanities" or "science" cooperate toward a single goal in places other than study, such as clubs. I think this holds the potential to become a very important platform.

Even from the perspective of research, there might be a law seminar in the classroom next to where information engineering is being done. You can try having small talk or research discussions with people you would normally never have the chance to meet. In fact, I think it is the accumulation of such steady dialogue that nurtures and cultivates the concept called comprehensive knowledge. I believe the very important thing about the "place" of a comprehensive university is that it harbors these possibilities.

At Keio, there was a system called the Leading Program that specifically nurtured me. This is a project merging humanities and sciences that aims to obtain an MMD (two master's degrees and one doctoral degree).

For three years, I attended the Graduate School of Law in Mita and the Graduate School of Science and Technology in Yagami, and after writing a master's thesis in law, I finished my research in science and technology and obtained a Master of Science. In a way, I think it was a system to train "people who have mastered a certain level of academic knowledge in both humanities and sciences and can speak in the language of both fields" and certify that in the form of a master's degree.

Also, in the Leading Program, students from the humanities and sciences and their supervising professors gathered together to discuss issues such as "what to do about Japan's declining birthrate and aging population" across the boundaries of their fields. Thanks to being able to learn in such a very rare space, I think I can now confidently call myself a specialist in "neurolaw," and such research merging humanities and sciences was recognized, allowing me to receive the Ikushi Prize from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

To be sure, for ELSI, teams are formed for each project, and then they disband and disappear when the project ends.

If that happens, the reproduction of talent that has done ELSI will not occur well, and there are almost no places where experiential knowledge is accumulated. But I think a university can become that space. For example, since faculty members remain there, they can also undertake the reproduction of talent.

If the adults don't accept the challenging spirit of young students, then we won't be able to pass on the torch of human resource development.

That's right. When I talk to undergraduate students, there are actually many people who want to do a fusion of humanities and sciences, so I hope their wishes are heard.

I've been talking about serious things this time, but finally, I'd like to talk about science fiction.

If we think about contemporary topics, the discussion of same-sex marriage has been active recently, but if a same-sex couple wants to have a child, currently they have no choice but to use a surrogate mother.

In that context, there was a science fiction writer in the 1980s named James Tiptree Jr., and there is a short story they wrote called "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"

Astronauts travel through time due to an accident. The place they travel to is the Earth sphere in the fairly distant future, and when they are rescued, there are only women there. It's a world where men have lost their reproductive capacity due to an infectious disease and only women have survived.

In this day and age, for women, it's becoming possible to use cloning technology to create germ cells from iPS cells, and create separate individuals where genetic recombination occurs rather than just a simple genetic copy. If that's the case, the discussion naturally arises that "it's fine with just women," and conversely, if artificial wombs are realized, the discussion arises that "men can also have children with each other without making women suffer."

There are bioethical issues there, as well as social science issues like demography and economics, and the issue of social sustainability.

Using such stories as topics, I hope there will be a place at Keio where we can develop ELSI-like discussions while bringing wisdom from our respective specialized fields and actively discussing things like, "Couldn't we do this?" or "No, but that wouldn't be permissible."

Yukichi Fukuzawa once left us the word jitsugaku (science), and although it is a fantasy, I also want it to be a place that gives rise to phenomena that are actually used in society.

I am also involved in startups, and in terms of social implementation, when you try to circulate science and technology in an economically sustainable way, various frictions occur. Everyone is moving with different values, and many problems arise that various stakeholders must discuss and solve, such as decarbonization, energy issues, and economic security issues.

Precisely because fluidity is creating such problems, if you don't have the capacity to empathize with and understand why a person from a completely different standpoint is making a certain claim, you won't be able to design or implement systems in a fluid layer.

Therefore, I think there will be an even greater demand for the ability to understand the underlying values a person holds that are not put into words at the superficial level of implementation.

Even in universities, I think jumping into the other person's world and learning what kind of experiences their words resulted from will be required in any era, and perhaps even more so in the era to come.

Everyone has understood this until now; we've created Leading Graduate Schools, created study abroad systems, and Keio also has a system to cross over to another faculty in the second year. I think we are creating opportunities as systems to look at things from different perspectives or internalize them within ourselves. However, there is the difficulty of not being able to fully operate them, as seen by the fact that the Leading Graduate Schools have disappeared.

Universities have always been "universities," and I think the ideal of enriching people by being a mosaic or a kaleidoscope as a community still lives on today. However, if we ourselves do not incorporate values into how we design and evaluate them as systems, we will be overwhelmed by evaluations based on easy-to-understand axes.

I think those who will lead universities in the future are being questioned on how to sensibly set those axes of evaluation.

This discussion originated from ELSI, but I believe that from now on, it is most important for capable talent like Mr. Kokubo, who can cross the boundaries between humanities and sciences, to emerge and lead the future. And for that, I believe education is what's important.

The government is actively recommending the fusion of humanities and sciences and comprehensive knowledge, and I thought that in itself was a good thing to say, but the substance isn't very visible. Just putting experts from both humanities and sciences into a meeting is no different from before. If we are to achieve a true fusion of humanities and sciences, I think we have no choice but to change education, but what do you think?

As everyone has said, humanities and sciences are separated from an early stage in education, and I also think this is a problem. Looking back at myself, I'm ashamed to say that my thinking ability in science and math hasn't exceeded what it was in my third year of high school.

In legal work, for example, you encounter any number of disputes regarding technology. While lamenting my own low scientific literacy, I grit my teeth and tackle them, but the ability to understand science and technology is truly necessary in all professions.

In a highly specialized society, everyone should have a specialized field, but on the other hand, rather than stopping one's thinking in front of the wall between humanities and sciences, I hope people can have the level of understanding to lightly leap over that boundary and understand what the other person is saying.

According to Mr. Ushiba's research, the human brain has high plasticity, so I want to believe in the potential of human knowledge.

It's a waste to divide human knowledge into humanities and sciences. Anyone can pursue knowledge in both. I think a comprehensive university like Keio University is exactly the kind of place that can provide that.

Using the earlier examples of fluidity and roots, I think universities exist as a mechanism to make students think about the roots of knowledge.

Universities expose such fundamental knowledge to challenges from a fluid world and give students an opportunity to re-examine those roots. I think this kind of cycle is necessary. However, recently, it seems there is no such cycle. I feel like we are just confining students within fixed disciplines. I think we need to take students into the fluid layer a bit more, even if it's a little dangerous.

To make a rough comparison, I think people in the sciences also have various disciplines, but I feel there is a culture where, if a problem to be solved is shared, they bring their technologies together to solve it regardless of their discipline. On the other hand, in the humanities and social sciences, the very way a problem is framed is diverse depending on the field.

If such a difference exists, wouldn't there be much for both the science and humanities sides to learn? For science people, while the object of nature itself may be singular, they can understand that there are various ways to frame the problems that arise from it. And humanities people, even if their methodologies differ, must take a stance of somehow sharing the problem, setting it as a single task, and gathering and synthesizing humanities and social science knowledge to solve it.

Perhaps one opportunity that makes such intellectual adventure and the reorganization of disciplines possible is science and technology.

Thank you all for the active discussion today despite your busy schedules.