Toward Institutionalizing Participatory Technology Assessment in Japan 4 Feb. 2004

1. Toward Institutionalizing Participatory Technology Assessment in Japan4 Feb. 2004 • Yukio Wakamatsu • College of Science & Engineering • Tokyo Denki University • Hatoyama, Saitama 350-0394 Japan • e-mail:wakamats@i.dendai.ac.jp

2. Content • My standpoint, and some reflections on pTA • Pre-history of pTA in Japan • Japanese experiences of participatory TA methods • 3 consensus conferences (1998, 99, 2000) • 1 Scenario Workshop (2003) • “Game-ness” of the consensus conference method as a background for its “robustness” • Issues of designing pTA methods • A Perspective of pTA in Japan

3. My Standpoint, and a reflection on pTA • As a practitioner & an advocate of pTA as well as a researcher • TA/pTA should be institutionalized • As a necessary complement of indirect or representative democracy

4. Pre-history of pTA in Japan • Failure to introduce TA • A New National Goal - Recognition of the Need for “Participation” • Trends toward public participation

5. Failure to introduce TA • 1969: Introduction of TA concept into Japan • 1971:TA concept introduced in a policy paper – Science & Technology Council, Report No.5 • Fall 1973: Oil Crisis • In the late 1970’s, enthusiasm faded away • Environmental Assessment • From municipalities’ effort(1980’s) to the national law(1997)

6. A New National Goal - Recognition of the Need for Participation” • In the early 1990’s: A search for a national goal = Nation building throughthe promotion of science and technology • In 1995: theScience and Technology Basic Law; followed by Basic Plans (1996-2000, 2001-2005)

7. Trends toward public participation • “Public comment” system in 1999 • “Public involvement” procedure (road construction & river management) • Public participation widely observed in local & regional scenes • Research programs such as “social technology” program • Academic society: JASTS estab. in 2001

8. Japanese Experiences of participatory TA methods(1) • 3 consensus conferences • 1st trial: Gene therapy; 1998; Toyota Foundation & Nissan Science Foundation • 2nd trial: High information society, esp. the internet; 1998; Nissan Science Foundation & Tokyo Denki University • Genetically modified crops; 2000; STAFF (Min. of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries)

9. Japanese Experiences of participatory TA methods(2) • A trial Scenario Workshop (May, 2003) • Theme: The future of the Sanbanze shallow sea area and surrounding cities • Organizer: a research project (sponsored by RISTEX, Japan Science and Technology Agency) • Supported by Chiba Prefecture and the Round Table Committee

10. “Game-ness” of the consensus conference as a background for its “robustness” • firmly constructed to be applied in wider contexts = robustness • supported and/or explained by its “game-ness” (game-like quality) • Applied in a particular culture, using available resources • The scenario workshop method?

11. Issues of designing pTA methods • How far we could/should intervene the workshop process? • The use of “script” in Danish & the US Lowell SW • Any pTA method has a limitation; time, resources etc.( facilitators’ skill) • Participants shouldn’t be assumed as experienced in a workshop-type activity

12. A Perspective of pTA in Japan • Over-expectations on pTA methods • Importance of distinguishing between the pTA methods and the pTA forum • A rough image of the pTA forum (or institutionalization) in Japan • Outside the government • Relevant actors • Impact on policy-making = a matter of political discussions