課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発 ...crds-fy2012-sp-09...

CRDS-FY2012-SP-09

戦略プロポーザル


課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発ファンディング・システム�

平成25年３月　　ＪＳＴ／ＣＲＤＳ

～研究開発のネットワーク化・組織化～

課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発ファンディング・システム

STRATEGIC PROPOSAL

R&D Funding System for Issue-Oriented Innovation

- Networking and Organizing R&D Capabilities -

2011 8 4

PD/PO

エグゼクティブサマリー

CRDS-FY2012-SP-09 独立行政法人科学技術振興機構　研究開発戦略センター

戦略プロポーザル課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発ファンディング・システム　～研究開発のネットワーク化・組織化～

Japan's public R&D funding system as well as those of other nations has undergone great changes recently. A common theme for all nations amid the huge societal changes being caused by globalization is to redesign their R&D funding systems from the viewpoints of both international competition and international collaboration. At the same time, each nation has been introducing reforms to focus on innovation and strengthen accountability. In Japan, stagnant total public R&D investment, decreasing regular funding, increasing competitive funding, etc. are influencing the management and research activities at universities and public research institutes in various ways. Public R&D funding is now drawing much attention and, particularly since the last year, important policy documents and proposals on this theme have been drafted by various stakeholders. Meanwhile, there is now strong expectation in Japan that science and technology should contribute to the solution of many societal problems which the nation faces, including prolonged economic stagnation, declining international competitiveness, aging population, environmental and energy concerns, and recovery from the catastrophic disaster in March 2011. The 4th Science and Technology Basic Plan, established in August 2011, made clear that the solution of societal problems was one of the basic directions of Japan's science, technology, and innovation policy. This strategic proposal presents concrete measures necessary for reform effort to construct R&D funding system that corresponds to the new goal of accelerating issue-oriented innovations. The fundamental concept here is to shift the basic direction of R&D funding from the formation of competitive environment to the networking and optimum organizing of research and innovation capabilities, thereby tapping the nation-wide potential and ensuring that researchers and specialists in a broad range of fields can exercise their capabilities to the full extent. The proposal consists of the following items. (1) Designing efficient R&D funding based on nation-wide perspectives (1)-1 Roles and responsibilities of funding agencies (1)-2 Roles and responsibilities of PD/PO (1)-3 Effective use of equipment (2) Drastic strengthening of R&D organization (2)-1 Social responsibility of researchers (2)-2 Stabilizing the R&D organization (2)-3 Ensuring human resources (3) Establishing the R&D evaluation system to promote issue-oriented innovations (3)-1 Introducing the scheme of step-by-step review (3)-2 Improving the effectiveness and reliability of R&D evaluation The role that R&D funding plays in the implementation of national science, technology, and innovation policy is extremely important. Funding agencies, which are the main implementing bodies of the proposed items shown above, should reinforce mutual collaboration, ensure close cooperation with the government and the scientific community, win the involvement of the private sector and other stakeholders, and vigorously push forward their efforts to realize the reform.

Executive Summary



............................................................................... 1....................................................................................................... 2

.......................................................... 2.................................................................................................. 3

...................................................................... 4........................................................................................................... 5

................................................................................... 5...................................................................................................... 5

................................................................... 9................................................... 9

................................................................. 10

.......................................................11............................................. 12

..................................................................... 13................................................................................... 15

............................................................................... 17................................................................... 18

.................................................... 19........................................................................ 20

.......................................................................................... 22................................................................. 23

................................................................................ 24........................................................................ 25

............................................................. 27...................................................... 27

.......................... 28............................................................................... 28

............................................................................................. 28

........................................................................................................... 29

.................................................................................. 31

......................................................... 31

......................................................... 33



....................................................................................... 36

............................................................................................ 44

............................................................................ 44.............................. 45

.......................................... 46..................... 47

............................................. 48.................................... 53

.................................................... 55................................................................. 57

................................ 58

.................................................... 59

.................................................................................... 62

................................................................................... 62

................................................. 65

.................................. 67

.................... 70

...................... 71

............................................................. 73

...................................................... 74

............................. 77



1

2004

4-1 4-2Global Research Council

GDP

１．提案の内容

１．提案の内容～激変する内外の状況



��

2

----

--

-

----

--

-



��

3

4

1930 1950

1937NIH NCI

1945

1950 NSF1950 NSF NIH

1957 1ARPA DARPA

NASANSF NIH

1960 NASA 1970DOE NIH

4-3

NIH DARPA NASA DOEUSDA

NSF 1970DARPA DOE

4-6 4-7

1965

1980 NEDO1981 ERATO

1995CREST ERATO CREST

2002 JST




��

4

JST CRDS5

4

NSFNRC 2012 10

4-4



��

5

1996

30




��

6

PD/PO

PD/POPD/PO

PD/PO



��

7

URA

45 ELSI




��

8



��

9

1995 1996 712 2001 3

2003 4PD/PO

3 2006 3

20076

2010 1

4 2011 8

6-1

2012 126-6

RU11 2012 5

２．提案を実施する意義

２．提案を実施する意義～高まる改革への意識



��

10

6-26

7

6-4 20136-8

2012 12

6-7

4

2012 12



�0�0

11

PD/PO

6-7

３．具体的な提言項目

３．具体的な提言項目～制度改革に向けた具体的方策



��

12

20124,255

FIRSTNEXT NEDO

2004 1 2416 20121 1423 8 8

2013 2012 6



��

13

4

PDCA

2012 12 66-6

PDCA

2012 12 6




��

14

JSPS JST NEDO



��

15

2003 4 21PD

POPD/PO PD/PO

JSPS POJST

PO

PD/POPD/PO

PD/PO PD/PO

PD/PO

2012 12 6

PD/PO PDPO

PD

PD/PO

15 4 21




��

16

PD/PO

PDCA

PD/PO

PD/PO

PD/PO

PD/PO

PD/PO

PD/POPD/PO

PD4

PD/PO

PD/POPD/PO

PD/PO

PD/PO



��

17

200928

JST 200940 1000

2012 86-3

2008

JST 2011




��

18

URA

2012 iPS

105 2012 11 22012 10 18



��

19

2011 3

2012 3 CRDS

e-Rad




��

20

2010 3

2011URA

10 URAURA

URA

302010 COE

30

ELSI



�0�0

21




��

22

ELSI STS

2005 2009

2011 URA

NPO



��

23

4 3

2012 124

2 6-6

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Action




��

24

JST NEDO



��

25

1997

2012 10 6-5




��

26

JSPS

PO



��

27

PD/PO

NPO

(

NPO

(

４．推進方法

４．推進方法～研究開発のネットワーク化・組織化



��

28

NPO

URA

20 30 2013



��

29

付録１．検討の経緯

付録１．検討の経緯



��

30

2012 11 21 12 3 2,338 3

1 2013 1 21 JST 22-1

2 2013 3 7 JST 22-2



�0�0

31

付録２．ワークショップ開催結

果の概要

付録２．ワークショップ開催結果の概要



��

32



��

33


果の概要



��

y11satoスタンプ

34

- JSPS JSTB C JST PO

-

-

PD/PO- PD/PO

PD/PO- iPS

-- PD/PO

- PD/PO

--

-

-

-



��

35

-

- 10 812

-

- WPICOI

--

-

-

--

-

-

-

--

-

----


果の概要



��

36

4

2012 11 21 12 3 6,7682,338 34.5

20133 CRDS-FY2012-RR-02

付録３．アンケート実施結果の概要



��

37

Q

Yes 32 No 55

No Yes 40 No 51

Yes 55 No 40

Q

Yes 32 No 55

No Yes 40 No 51

Yes 55 No 40

Q

Yes 59 No 30

Q

Yes 59 No 30

Q

Yes 72 No 17

Q

Yes 72 No 17

Q

Yes 66 No 25

Q

Yes 66 No 25

Q

Yes 13 No 79

Q

Yes 13 No 79

Q

Yes 44 No 53

Q

Yes 44 No 53

Q

Yes 5 No 92

5

Q

Yes 5 No 92

5

Q

Yes 92 No 6

Q

Yes 92 No 6

Q

Yes 32 No 65

2010 1 Yes 24 No 74

Q

Yes 32 No 65

2010 1 Yes 24 No 74

付録３．アンケート実施結果の

概要



��

38

Q

Yes 47 No 48

Q

Yes 47 No 48

Q

Yes 53 No 34

Q

Yes 53 No 34

Q

Yes 35 No 49

Yes 39 No 45

Q

Yes 35 No 49

Yes 39 No 45

Q

Yes 52 No 31

Q

Yes 52 No 31

Q

Yes 51 No 31

Q

Yes 51 No 31

Q

Yes 56 No 34

Q

Yes 56 No 34

Q

Yes 67 No 25

Yes 57 No 35

Q

Yes 67 No 25

Yes 57 No 35

Q

Yes 57 No 35

Yes 31 No 61Yes 67 No 27

Q

Yes 57 No 35


Q

Yes 76 No 21

Q

Yes 76 No 21

Q

Yes 85 No 12

Q

Yes 85 No 12



��

39

Q

Yes 52 No 34

Q

Yes 52 No 34

Q

Yes 77 No 13

Q

Yes 77 No 13

Q

Yes 53 No 39

Yes 47 No 44

Q

Yes 53 No 39

Yes 47 No 44

Q

Yes 80 No 13

Q

Yes 80 No 13

Q

Yes 68 No 24

Q

Yes 68 No 24

Q

Yes 70 No 21

Q

Yes 70 No 21

Q

Yes 43 No 25

Yes 39 No 29

Q

Yes 43 No 25

Yes 39 No 29

Q

Yes 42 No 23

Yes 37 No 28

Q

Yes 42 No 23

Yes 37 No 28

Q

Yes 44 No 30


Q

Yes 44 No 30


Q

Yes 44 No 26


Q

Yes 44 No 26



概要



��

40

Q

Yes 62 No 33

Q

Yes 62 No 33

Q

Yes 54 No 34

Q

Yes 54 No 34

Q

Yes 26 No 67

Q

Yes 26 No 67

Q

Yes 34 No 59

Q

Yes 34 No 59

Q

Yes 80 No 14

Yes 84 No 10

Q

Yes 80 No 14

Yes 84 No 10

Q

Yes 78 No 14

Q

Yes 78 No 14

Q

Yes 53 No 37

Q

Yes 53 No 37

Q

Yes 53 No 39

Yes 62 No 31

Q

Yes 53 No 39

Yes 62 No 31

30

2013 3 66



�0�0

41

15

10

1/6

15

10

1/6

1 150 200

e-Rad

2/6

1 150 200

e-Rad

2/6


概要



��

42

3/63/6

PD/PO

PD/PO

4/6

PD/PO1

PD/PO

PD/PO

PD/PO

4/6

PD/PO1

PD/PO



��

43

5/6

PI

5/6

PI

6/66/6


概要



��

44

AS THE U.S. BUDGET ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) THREATENS TO GET WORSE, it is essential for the scientific community to go beyond just advocating for special consideration. There is a strong case for maintaining investments in S&T as a foundation for long-term economic growth and social well-being. But when resources are constrained, it is essential that they be used effectively and efficiently to avoid losing scientific momentum and to ensure that society will benefit maximally from S&T's potential. The scientific community cannot afford to simply adapt passively to reduced budgets. The impact of impending cuts can be at least partially mitigated by some fundamental rethinking of the ways in which S&T are both funded and conducted. Although the United States is used as the example here, the same issues will apply in many other parts of the world. Some relatively inexpensive process and policy changes could make a big difference. For example, the Federal Demonstration Partnership has reported that 42% of an American scientist’s research time is spent on administrative tasks. Much of that burden comes from redundant reporting and assurance requirements that vary across granting agencies and universities. The National Science and Technology Council, which represents all of the U.S. research funding agencies, should intensify its efforts to harmonize funding and reporting policies across granting agencies to reduce wasted effort. As another example, in the face of potentially lower success rates that could end up generating even more proposals to review, new forms of shorter grant proposals or the use of preliminary proposals might help greatly in reducing the burden on funding agency program officers, on already overworked peer reviewers, and on project investigators. New models of streamlined or batch-processed peer review might also substantially improve efficiencies. Another long-discussed issue that should be addressed at this time concerns funding grants based on detailed project descriptions versus grants based primarily on the accomplishments of the investigator. In a time of very constrained funding, it is not the best use of an established investigator’s time to require yet another detailed project description when a simpler approach might suffice for renewed funding decisions. The National Science Foundation’s Accomplishment-Based Renewal is one such example, where the decision on whether to renew a grant is based on recent success, rather than on projects yet to come. In considering this kind of approach, it would be important to include mechanisms that avoid skewing review decisions so heavily in the direction of established investigators that young investigators see little opportunity in the system for them. In that context, another approach that should be considered involves putting limits on the number of grants and/or the amount of funding awarded to any single investigator. This would make more funds available for young investigators or those new to the field. The time is right for a fundamental re-envisioning of the system. Crisis can breed opportunity as well as hardship. Some in-depth analyses of the U.S. S&T enterprise are already under way and can provide excellent starting points for continued discussion. For example, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is currently studying the U.S. S&T enterprise and writing a report. The National Research Council is nearing completion of a study on the future of research universities. The difficult decisions will, of course, ultimately be made by policy-makers, but these decisions must be informed by a broadly inclusive conversation among all the stakeholders—government agencies and other policy-makers, industry, academia, patient groups, and researchers. The National Institutes of Health has recently sought broad input on its efforts to manage in fiscally challenged times (http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/rock-talk/), and the S&T community should respond. Although consensus on the specifics may not be possible, the participants in the S&T system must all be willing to entertain truly bold and innovative ideas for moving forward in the new budget climate.

付録４．海外の動向・背景資料



��

45

Scientists must find ways to make more efficient use of funds — or politicians may do it for them.

Scientists in the United States can find plenty of good news as they page through President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal. Despite substantial cuts elsewhere — and fierce pressure from Republicans to cut more — Obama called for healthy overall increases in both fundamental research and science education (see page 283). But the good news, of course, is tempered by reality. Obama’s budget document is one long struggle to balance two contradictory goals: to stimulate the lagging US economy and to curb the annual budget deficit, which is more than US$1 trillion. Science and science education are widely viewed as helping with the first, and will doubtless continue to be seen as such no matter who wins November’s presidential election. The idea that science is a driver of prosperity is one of the few things on which the United States’ bitterly divided political parties still agree. But the science funding agencies themselves are by no means immune to the second goal. The harder the cuts bite, the more those agencies will have to streamline their operations and merge or terminate programmes. This week’s budget proposal, which contains many references to “tough choices”, shows that this process is already well under way. The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, wants to discontinue funding of several dozen projects that have not met their research milestones, or that seem otherwise unpromising. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is likewise cutting back on some $66 million in lower-priority education, outreach and research programmes. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been ordered to pursue “new grant management policies” to increase the number of new grants by 7%. And NASA is being obliged to make drastic cuts to its Mars exploration programme so as to finish building its flagship James Webb Space Telescope. Conceivably, this process could get even more drastic. Last month, Obama asked Congress to give him the authority to consolidate and streamline agencies on his own initiative — and suggested that one early application would be to transfer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior. If Congress were to give Obama that power, it is possible to imagine him — or some future Republican president — sending all of the NSF’s science-education programmes to the Department of Education, or merging the DOE’s particle and nuclear physics research into the NSF, under the guise of making management of science more efficient. White House officials insist that no one in the administration is even contemplating such a wholesale restructuring. But the arithmetic of the deficit is unavoidable. Individual researchers, scientific societies and science funding agencies can no longer afford to be purely reactive, responding to each cut as it comes along. They need to be part of the debate, thinking systematically about how programmes and even whole agencies could be restructured to make them more efficient at using the scarce funds available, and more effective at promoting the best science. To do that, and to address the increasing demands from politicians and voters for evidence that fundamental research is useful, scientists must also find better ways to measure the effectiveness of the nation’s investments in science. The usual technique is to insist that principal investigators produce more and more reports, which tends to be a waste of everyone’s time. A consortium of six universities called Star Metrics, launched in 2010 and headquartered at the NIH, has shown that it is possible to do better by using natural language processing and other tools to mine the data and reports that the agencies already collect. But even that is just a beginning. Researchers and research institutions need to help to devise still better measures — because if they don’t do it themselves, politicians and others who know much less about sciencemay very well do it for them. And who knows where that would end.




��

46



��

47

NSF NIH

NSF NIH2012 10

NRC

NRC will conduct a consensus study on the science of team science to recommend opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative research in science teams, research centers, and institutes. The science of team science is a new interdisciplinary field that empirically examines the processes by which large and small scientific teams, research centers, and institutes organize, communicate, and conduct research. It is concerned with understanding and managing circumstances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of collaborative research, including translational research. This includes understanding how teams connect and collaborate to achieve scientific breakthroughs that would not be attainable by either individual or simply additive efforts. The committee will consider factors such as team dynamics, team management, and institutional structures and policies that affect large and small science teams. Among the questions the committee will explore are:

How do individual factors (e.g., openness to divergent ideas), influence team dynamics (e.g., cohesion), and how, in turn, do both individual factors and team dynamics influence the effectiveness and productivity of science teams?

What factors at the team, center, or institute level (e.g., team size, team membership, geographic dispersion) influence the effectiveness of science teams? How do different management approaches and leadership styles influence the effectiveness of science teams? For example, different approaches to establishing work roles and routines and to the division of labor may influence team effectiveness. How do current tenure and promotion policies acknowledge and provide incentives to academic researchers who engage in team science? What factors influence the productivity and effectiveness of research organizations that conduct and support team and collaborative science, such as research centers and institutes? How do such organizational factors as human resource policies and practices and cyberinfrastructure affect team and collaborative science? What types of organizational structures, policies, practices and resources are needed to promote effective team science, in academic institutions, research centers, industry, and other settings?

The committee will issue a final report with conclusions and recommendations to advance team science practice and research. The report will inform science teams, funders and managers of team science. The report will be reviewed consistent with the National Academies procedures and released to the sponsor when the review is complete. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the project began in October, 2012. A report will be issued in late 2014.




��

48

1278 74 12

NIH NSF DOE

DARPA

NSF/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development: FY 2009–11;

ARPA-E FY2013 Budget Request CRDS



��

49

8BIS BIS 9

HEFCE

HEFCE HEFCs

37

7 3HEFCs

QR quality-relatedTSB

HEFCs 15,624

7,2282,370

1,198

R&D

103

959

189

13

10,996

3,382

1,229

279

741

82606 1,940783

642

214

1445

98

55

120

2,395

HEFCs 15,624

7,2282,370

1,198

R&D

103

959

189

13

10,996

3,382

1,229

279

741

82606 1,940783

642

214

1445

98

55

120

2,395

CRDS




��

50

BMBF) BMWiBMBF

DFG BMWiBMBF

4

BMBF

BMBFDFG

DFGEU ERC

BMBF 128

DFG23

100

(19)

BMWi61.5

55

(37)18)

(15)

16

Bundesbericht Forschung und Innovation 2012CRDS



�0�0

51

MIRESMIRES

8 2ANR OSÉO

ANR

OSÉO2 1

350 €165 € ANR 6 € OSÉO

Data.gouv, Exécution 2011 du budget général en CP, ANR ,CRDS




��

52

7

1/3

6 NRFNRF

KRCF

5 20132

2013 2

5 Won 4.7 Won 4 Won

1 2 WonNRF

3.2 Won

16 Won 2012

1.9 Won

KRCF1.3Won

5 Won

0.5 Won

KEITWon

2 Won

ISTK0.6Won

0.2 Won

1 Won

2 Won

2-3 Won

KIAT1.3Won

NIPA1.1Won

KETEP0.8Won

5 Won 4.7 Won 4 Won

1 2 WonNRF

3.2 Won

16 Won 2012

1.9 Won

KRCF1.3Won

5 Won

0.5 Won

KEITWon

2 Won

ISTK0.6Won

0.2 Won

1 Won

2 Won

2-3 Won

KIAT1.3Won

NIPA1.1Won

KETEP0.8Won

JST/CRDS



��

53

1958

28 25240 20 120PM




��

54



��

55

DOE 2001 10

1,600

DOE 3

ARPA-E




��

56

()

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

()

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

3 EFRC46



��

58

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

500.0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

112

115

118

121

124

127

Top10% Top10%

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

4500.0

5000.0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

112

115

118

121

124

127

43878.737362.2

3262.74682.0

Top10 __

_ Top10

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

500.0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

112

115

118

121

124

127

Top10% Top10%

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

3500.0

4000.0

4500.0

5000.0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

112

115

118

121

124

127

43878.737362.2

3262.74682.0

Top10 __

_ Top10

_ 8_ 8




��

57

NRF 1

5 33 2

NTIS

2008 3 NSTCNTIS

NRF



��

59

1994 Go-Science35

1

BMBF2000 Futur

2007 2009 Foresight 2007-2009 Futur Foresight 2007-2009

Foresight 2007-200914 7

Foresight Foresight 2007-2009

EC Forward Looking Activities

FP7SSH 8

付録５．研究開発の課題設定の方

法に係る内外の検討状況

付録５．研究開発の課題設定の方法に係る内外の検討状況



��

60

OECDOECD 1972

19791990 IFP OECD

IFPOECD

OECD 4

Popper, R. (2008) "Foresight Methodology," in Georghiou, L., Cassingena, J., Keenan, M., Miles, I. and Popper, R. (eds.), The Handbook of Technology Foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 44-88.



�0�0

61

19705 1990 NISTEP

2005

2010 RISTEX

KJ1,000

102

CRDS 2011CRDS

4

20124 5

12 5

13

CRDS 2013

CRDS "Foresight" CRDSCRDS-FY2012-OR-02 2012 8

CRDS 23 CRDSCRDS-FY2011-XR-03 2012 3

CRDS CRDS-FY2010-RR-072011 3RISTEX

2010 7

付録５．研究開発の課題設定の方

法に係る内外の検討状況



��

62

付録６．関係機関による答申・提言等



��

63

e-Rad

Plan-Do-Check-Action

付録６．関係機関による答申・

提言等



��

64

20 10 31



��

66


提言等



��

67



��

68


提言等



��

69



��

70


提言等



��

71



�0�0

72


提言等



��

73

PI)



��

74


提言等



��

75



��

76


提言等



��

77



��

78


提言等



��

CRDS-FY2012-SP-09



課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発ファンディング・システム�

平成25年３月　　ＪＳＴ／ＣＲＤＳ

～研究開発のネットワーク化・組織化～

課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発ファンディング・システム

STRATEGIC PROPOSAL

R&D Funding System for Issue-Oriented Innovation

- Networking and Organizing R&D Capabilities -

表紙本文表4

課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための 研究開発 ...crds-fy2012-sp-09...

Documents

課題達成型イノベーションを実現するための研究開発 ...crds-fy2012-sp-09...