The report of the activities (1-2 pages, to be filled) :
Dr. Urashima and Mme Yokoo have presented the 3rd Basic Frame Work (Slide Handout) and the reports (*) of Socio-Economical Impact Benchmark Test. The person 2, Shingo Hamada, has introduced the documents (**) and proposed the discussion.
(*) NISTEP REPORT No. 99 “Comprehensive Analysis of Science and Technology Benchmarking Foresight”.
(**) European Research Advisory Board, “The Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 7th Framework Program”
Being demanded to Prof. Rieu to fulfill his summary.
According to this explanation, the person 2 is focusing the argument points below.
- The concept of “Science and Society” seen in the report (*) is completely different of those seen in the report (**), and we ask how and why this difference appears.
- The data on the report (*) are of highly precision, is this high precision necessary in what scale and in which level of activities ? (Asian region, National region, EU-Japan ? )
- The precision of European Data (i.e. the social reality) is different, but in which way ? Is this coming from the innovation to society, or from the technology itself ?
- To develop the idea of European Program implementing the SSH in RTD, in the “Knowledge Society” proposed by Prof. Rieu, a few recommendation item from EURAB (*) should be satisfied, i.e. to make some parts of SSH effective to Technology Assessment, Citizen Participation Innovation, and Research Study on Foresight. How do you (EU programme) develop this point ?
- Suggesting that the extensive study on the report (*) is so effective to bridge the proposal of collaboration to NISTEP, hence the Japanese Watcher of European Science Technology (like JETRO or JST) are effectively integrated to observe these points in European countries ? and vice-verse ?