22

JAPAN
Western science and
Japanese culture

Masataka Watanabe and Mitsuru Kudo

1. Introduction
Western science and technology (S&T) were brought to Japan from the 16th
century via Portugal and the Netherlands. Through the mid-19th century,
Japan was a closed country, permitting commerce only with the Dutch. This
precedent was broken by the American naval expedition that came to Japan
in 1853 from the east and, in one stroke, the country reluctantly opened
its doors to Western countries. The Tokugawa shogunate was overturned
by the Meiji Restoration in 1868, and that marked the beginning of
Japan’s modernisation.

It was only after the Meiji Restoration that education in modern Western
S&T could formally be offered, though Japan had its own tradition of S&T
before then (Nagahama, 1994). As a consequence, the Japanese people
have interacted with modern science for only about 150 years. After taking
political steps to introduce Western S&T, Japan as a nation hastened along
in the spirit of trying to catch up and then surpass it. During that time,
most Japanese people believed that S&T would gradually advance if left in
the hands of specialists, and Japan would go on to win fame as an advanced
country. This chapter presents a short history of science communication in
Japan in this context (see also Watanabe, 2017).

521
 Communicating Science

2. Promoting public understanding of science

and technology (PUST)
As part of its efforts to recast itself as a country of peace following World
War II, Japan sought economic recovery centring on emerging S&T. In
1958, the Science and Technology Agency (founded in 1956 and integrated
with Ministry of Education in 2000 to become the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) published its first White Paper on
Science and Technology.1 In Chapter 3 of that White Paper, one can find the
following pronouncement:
In recent times, Japanese people have had many opportunities to
build familiarity with S&T. The more scientific and technological
issues and successes are reported, the more people of all ages will place
their dreams on S&T. If we are able to offer educational opportunities
to encourage the sound growth of dreams and aspirations relating to
S&T, then various self-motivated activities that make use of S&T will
effectively develop in the near future.2

The Japanese government followed this policy during the latter half
of the century.
The Council for Science and Technology was established in 1959 to advise the
prime minister on S&T-related policies. In its first policy proposal in 1960,
the council opined that while it was vital for Japan to develop a talented
workforce to drive its long-term pursuit of the sciences and technologies
needed to grow the economy and improve lives, the Japanese people lacked
basic knowledge of and education on these subjects. Moreover, there just
wasn’t the required political will and public sentiment to provide support
for such activities. Therefore, the council said, the government must start by
raising awareness of S&T among the populace. It can be said that this policy
marked the dawn of public administration aimed at boosting the public
understanding of science and technology (PUST).

That same year, National Science and Technology Week was established.
It is the week around 18 April each year, the day itself having been known as
Invention Day since 1954. It might be one of the earliest attempts of its kind
in the world, with even countries like the UK not starting a national science
week until 1994 (Briggs, 2001). That same year the Japanese government and
industry together established the Japan Science Foundation to contribute to

1 This is an authoritative annual report on the Japanese goverment’s science and technology
policies. It features special themes as the main topics every year.
2 All citation from Japanese documents are translated by authors.

522
 22. Japan

the improvement of S&T by effectively conducting activities to deepen the

general public’s understanding of, and interest in, fundamental scientific
knowledge and industrial technology. The foundation would later open
a science museum in Tokyo and launch a local TV company in 1964. Known
as Tokyo Channel 12 ‘Science TV’, the channel was given its broadcast licence
on the condition that 60 per cent of its air-time would be dedicated to S&T
educational programming. Initially, it met this requirement only in a technical
sense: the ‘programs’ were simply broadcasts of distance-learning classes offered
by Kagaku Gijutsu Gakuen High School, a S&T high school also established
by the Japan Science Foundation. Only three years after its launch did Tokyo
Channel 12 finally begin to air regular programs such as news and dramas.

The 1960 policy proposal by the Council for Science and Technology
mentioned above also set long-range targets in various S&T fields. These
focused on achieving, within 10 years, a general advance in living standards
and proposed the necessary strategies for fostering capable human resources.
These were presented as being necessary for economic development. It also
highlighted the need to promote PUST on the grounds that ‘Public knowledge
and literacy regarding S&T are very poor and the political and public bases
for the support of S&T are very weak’ (from the council’s recommendation
(Council for Science and Technology, 1960)). Such a top-down policy was
sustained during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Japanese government continued to tout ‘the dream of S&T’ until the
1970s. In Japan, a national opinion survey of public attitudes toward S&T—
its main question being whether or not people have an interest in science
news—has been conducted almost every five years since 1976. Although
the significance of such a survey has been controversial (Durant, Evans and
Thomas, 1989), we can recognise an interesting trend by analysing differences
among generations. From the results of the survey, it was shown that people
in their 20s and 30s reported the highest levels of interest in S&T in 1976,
and this generation would maintain its interest in S&T throughout the
survey period (Watanabe and Imai, 2003). This may be attributable to the
PUST Policy implemented by the government during the 1960s and 1970s.

As the 1980s began, while people’s lives had become richer to some degree, the
negative aspects of cutting-edge S&T had also become apparent, and society
on the whole had grown increasingly indifferent to science. The White Paper
on Science and Technology: Trajectory and Prospects on the Development
of Science and Technology published in 1980, the year following the Three
Mile Island accident in the US, contained a section titled ‘Requirements for
Promoting Science and Technology’. It claimed that ‘Public understanding
and cooperation are necessary for promoting S&T’. We should note that this

523
 Communicating Science

usage of ‘understanding’ references a viewpoint from the government that

expects the public to agree with and accept its policies. The White Paper on
Science and Technology in 1982 continued the same tone that was ruled by
archetypal phrases about the importance of science education. In a section
titled ‘Promotional Action Plan to Gain Public Acknowledgement and Support
for Science and Technology’ [emphasis added], it claimed:
We should carry out the proper evaluation at each step of research
and development and increase public awareness so as to advance S&T
effectively and to raise creativity in S&T. In particular, it is much
more important to gain public acknowledgement and support by means
of enlightenment to foster a scientific mindset and awareness among
the younger generation’ [emphasis added].

Thus, the government policy emphasised ‘enlightenment of the public’ and

promoted the construction of science museums and science centres across
the nation. At the national level, Japan convened the International Science
and Technology Exposition in 1985 at the new science city Tsukuba. Since
1992, Youngsters’ Science Festival events have been supported. These festivals
collectively offer science shows, booth displays and workshops under one roof.
Drawing the engagement of many science volunteers, this series of events was at
first held in only three cities. Local governments and various industries offered
their support, and the festivals have spread to more than 100 cities around the
country with some 420,000 people taking part. However, these actions had
only a limited effect. It is a part of the reason why the White Paper on Science
and Technology: Young People and Science and Technology published in 1993
has a different tone. In Part 1 of the White Paper, ‘Young People’s Indifference
to Science and Technology’, it discussed this apathy and espoused ‘fostering an
atmosphere for making science issues relevant to young people’.

However, even these kinds of events that convey the pleasures of science
to the youth would appear to be insufficient for instilling a recognition of
the importance of knowing how to make the most out of science in daily
life. Evidence of this comes from the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) survey of 15-year-olds in 2006. It showed that only 8 per
cent of Japanese students expected to have a science-related occupation at
the age of 30, the lowest proportion in the world (OECD, 2007). Although
Japan’s children may get good grades in these subjects, it appears that they do
not wish to work in S&T-related jobs.

At the same time, it seems important that people appreciate S&T not just
as mere tools but also as a great cultural heritage or property that has been
built by humankind. The days when it was thought best to leave matters in
the hands of specialists tied to narrow specialised fields are gone. The time
524
 22. Japan

has come for each and every citizen to think about the ways in which they
interact with science. Achieving this calls for a new goal. This was the situation
in Japan at the end of the 20th century when the new concept of science
communication was born. But despite the new ways of thinking about science
communication in international discussions, the Japanese government still
focused on education, understanding and interest with regard to science. The
government enacted the Science and Technology Basic Law in 1995 with the
aim of raising the standards of S&T in Japan and set out the First Science
and Technology Basic Plan, a five-year government plan that included the
promotion of PUST (Science and Technology Agency, 1996).

In the UK, the Select Committee on Science & Technology of the House of
Lords published its Third Report: Science and Society (House of Lords, 2000)
and the report Science and the Public (Office of Science and Technology
and Wellcome Trust, 2000) was also published in the wake of the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak. This marked a shift in the S&T
policy of the UK government toward promoting public engagement with
science and technology (PEST).
In response to such world trends, the Japanese Society for Science and
Technology Studies was founded in 2001. Japanese researchers in the field of
S&T studies have sparked a new wave of PEST in Japan, holding events such
as consensus conferences on the topic of gene therapy. Preceding this, two
reports championing science communication were published in Japan, one
proposing the establishment of ‘science communication plazas’ (Nakamura,
1991) and the other proposing the founding of ‘S&T communication
centres’ (Nagahama, Kuwahara and Nishimoto, 1991). The former proposal
was realised in 1993 in Osaka, Japan, with the JT Biohistory Research Hall,
a unique research centre with exhibitions open to the public. The latter
proposal was for facilities such as S&T study (STS) centres. These have yet to
be realised despite being the focus of a report published by a government think
tank, the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP). An
informal meeting held by the Minister of Science and Technology ventured
that ‘Interpreters who can explain cutting-edge science topics to the layperson
are essential’ (the detail of the informal meeting is discussed in Watanabe
and Imai, 2003).3 Consequently, the early inroads made by the science
communication movement in Japan were driven by government promotion

3 National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, Miraikan, was founded in 2001.
The concept of Miraikan might be based on this declaration. Miraikan introduced an on-the-job
training system for science communication professionals. Science Interpreters—this name was changed
to Science Communicators a few years later—are appointed on a fixed-term basis for a maximum of five
years. About 40 Science Communicators engage in science communication activities during their terms.

525
 Communicating Science

based on the ‘deficit model’ or people in the academic field of STS within
their community. This was one reason why science educators and science
centre personnel who had been supporting PUST since the 1960s were
unfamiliar with the new concept and practice of science communication.

3. Introduction of the term ‘science

communication’ into the government’s S&T
policy statement
The situation changed dramatically from 2003 onward. The new concepts
of ‘science communication’ and ‘interactive two-way communication about
science’ spread amongst science communication practitioners. Several things
coincided in 2003. First of all, two publications appeared. One was a Japanese
edition of Science Communication in Theory and Practice (Stocklmayer, Gore
and Bryant, 2001). The other—which has been most influential—was a
report titled Research on the Promotion of Public Understanding of Science
& Technology and Science Communication (Watanabe and Imai, 2003)
published by NISTEP. It served to change government policy and triggered
a cascade effect. In 2004, a new term in the Japanese language, namely
‘science communication’, first appeared in the White Paper on Science and
Technology (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
2004). Furthermore, the Third Science and Technology Basic Plan from 2005
announced the promotion of science communication (Government of Japan,
2006; see also Watanabe and Imai, 2005). Since then, Japanese government
policy for promoting PUST has shifted to PEST to some extent.
In 2005, formal training programs in science communication for postgraduate
students supported by five-year-limited government subsidies (each worth
about US$1 million per institution per year) began at three universities:
University of Tokyo, Hokkaido University and Waseda University. The
Science Interpreter Training Program was launched at the University of
Tokyo with a goal to
nurture scientists and engineers who are equipped with social and
political literacy and treasure the presence of multiple perspectives,
as well as scholars in humanities and social sciences who can identify
common grounds between their disciplinary standpoint and visions
and values in science and technology (University of Tokyo Science
Interpreter Training Program, n.d.).

Hokkaido University launched the Communication in Science & Technology

Education & Research Program (known as CoSTEP) to produce ‘science
and technology communicators, who can enhance two-way information
526
 22. Japan

transfer between experts and the public in societal issues related to the two
subjects’ (Hokkaido University CoSTEP, n.d.). These two programs were
offered as certificate programs rather than as full degree programs, so that
students specialising in any disciplinary subjects for their degree could
participate. In contrast, the Master of Arts Program for Journalist Education
in Science and Technology (MAJESTy) at Waseda University was set up as
a postgraduate degree program in order to ‘train students as journalists who
can make a balanced assessment of issues surrounding science and technology
both today and in the future’ (Waseda University, n.d.). These programs were
partly modelled on overseas examples.
Another certificate training program in science communication for
postgraduate students was started at the National Museum of Nature and
Science in 2006 (Ogawa, Kamei and Shimizu, 2006). The program is run in
collaboration with universities.
In 2006, Science Agora was started in Tokyo with the support of the Japan
Science and Technology Agency. It is an annual forum that aims to be
a pivot for a network linking all kinds of science communication activities
together. The event is essentially a miniature version of the AAAS Annual
Meeting and similar to Europe’s EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF), except
that Science Agora features free admission and anyone can attend any
session. Science Agora is said to be ‘like a big salad bowl’ (Umehara and
Watanabe, 2012): a wide variety of people including families, students,
teachers, researchers, administrators, politicians and science communication
practitioners are gathered in one place and mixed together. Science Agora
2016 hosted 213 programs, with roughly 6,000 visitors over the course of
four days. Science Agora has fostered network-building among key sectors
of science communication. In 2009, a new type of science festival based on
the modern concept of science communication was launched in two cities:
Hakodate in Hokkaido and Mitaka in Tokyo (these two cities have no science
centres). This was an additional side effect of Science Agora. These festivals
have built up positive reputations and a number of other cities have launched
their own new-type science festivals.

A further example of the rise of science engagement opportunities is the

emergence of science cafés, with more than 1,000 being held around the
country every year since 2009. They were originally convened in response to
an appeal from the Science Council of Japan during the 2005 Science and
Technology Week, when such café events were held in more than 20 places
across the country. Although they may have begun as a somewhat top-down
contrivance, they have subsequently put down firm roots throughout Japan.

527
 Communicating Science

It is amazing that science cafés have become so popular in Japan because

the country does not have the same level of pre-existing ‘café culture’ that
is found in European countries. Science was thought of as a high-threshold
topic before science cafés, but these events are now perceived as being open
to all-comers thanks to the relaxed, informal environment where people
enjoy talking about science over coffee. It can be compared to the idobata
kaigi—the ‘well-side chat’, or, in other words, the neighbourhood gossip
session. If these science cafés—which are held in all manner of locations and
venues—can be linked up as a network, they will eventually fall into sync
and turn into a substantial movement. The critical factor explaining why
the new concept of science communication has become popular so quickly
in Japan can be attributed to the new key phrase and concept of ‘science
communication’ having been introduced first. There is some truth to the
old dictum, ‘new wine must be put into new wineskins’ about this Japanese
context (Watanabe, 2010). The situation resembles that which followed the
introduction of Western science about 150 years ago.
National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, Miraikan, has
played a leading role as one of the flagship science museums based on the
science communication concept. There are some exhibits that demonstrate
cutting-edge science such as androids (human-like robots). Visitors can meet
the most advanced androids and reflect on human existence. Miraikan also
holds various kinds of two-way communication events.

4. Critical reflection on the early development

of science communication in Japan
While the official introduction of the term ‘science communication’ led to
the establishment of related activities including science cafés and training
programs, this official launch of Japanese science communication attracted
criticism from Japanese researchers in science communication and STS.
While admitting that the 2004 White Paper on Science and Technology
and the Third Science and Technology Basic Plan (Government of Japan,
2006) had taken into account theoretical and conceptual frameworks of
Western science communication after the ‘PUS movement’, critical voices
pointed out that the official promotion of science communication in Japan
had failed to shift its emphasis from its older, conventional understanding-
centric approach, to a more engagement-oriented approach. In other words,
the overall framework of Japanese science communication still focused on
promoting public enlightenment and increasing public interest in S&T
(Hirakawa, 2010). This tended to accentuate only the positive aspects of

528
 22. Japan

doing and learning science, which would distract public attention away
from uncertainty in science and thus possibly lead to uncritical trust in
science (Kobayashi, 2007). Those critical views on the early development of
official science communication in Japan pointed to the imbalance between
understanding-oriented programs and engagement-oriented programs, and
they called for more systematic attention to be paid to developing other
models for the democratic governance of S&T.

Training programs for practitioners of science communication (see Section 3 for

details) were also questioned. For example, their inclination towards promotion
of public understanding, built on the view that science communication was
for the purpose of either dealing with the decreasing popularity of science
among youngsters or gaining more social support for basic scientific research,
was criticised for paying little attention to nurturing science communication
practitioners who would be capable of building bi-directional channels to
address issues between science and society (Yagi, 2007).

Criticisms of Japanese science communication were also raised with regard

to the lack of attention to previous failures and shortcomings in dealing with
science-related social issues. The national institutionalisation of the public
communication of science and technology under the name of ‘science (and
technology) communication’ had not taken much account of the previous
failures in establishing appropriate science–society relations. For example,
lessons learnt from industrial pollution and consequent endemic diseases
and issues around nuclear power plant construction in the 1970s did not
inform policymaking about contemporary science communication (Fujigaki
and Hirono, 2008). More recent prominent science-related social issues,
including the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Hyogo prefecture and the
nuclear power plant accident (a sodium leak and a consequent major fire) at
Monju in Fukui prefecture, both of which took place in 1995, had a minimum
impact on pushing the early development of a national framework of science
communication towards democratic engagement (Hirakawa, 2010). In this
sense, Japanese official science communication was perceived as disconnected
from previous communication disputes at the science–society nexus, and
thus was criticised for lacking the ‘pain’: the pain that science communication
in Europe had gone through during its development when controversies
and debates about nuclear power, BSE and genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) had taken place among interest groups and stakeholders including
the public, established scientists and the government (Fujigaki, 2008, 2009).

It should be noted that these critical views of Japanese official science

communication, particularly on its orientation towards promotion of PUST
and on its tacit adoption of the deficit model, did not necessarily ignore values

529
 Communicating Science

for the public to acquire scientific information through understanding-oriented

science communication. The STS critics of Japanese science communication
cited above were aware of the diversity of science communication essential to
achieve truly democratic governance of S&T. Therefore, it was with respect
to the balance rather than the choice between understanding-oriented and
engagement-oriented models of science communication that the critics called
for more reflective discussion and more resources to spend.

5. The Fukushima disaster and resetting

science communication policy
A large-scale earthquake hit Japan on 11 March 2011 and caused a sequence
of explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. It showed
that the government had not considered how it should respond to such an
unprecedented, large-scale nuclear accident and what information the public
would want and need. The government and scientific community experienced
a great loss of public trust as a result of this disaster. The government was found
to have concealed information about radiation data because they wished to
avoid a resultant panic. Failure to release radiation data during the early stages
of the crisis is said to have delayed evacuations of communities located near
the plant. At first the government was unable to recognise the meaning of the
data, and later pursued an official campaign to play down the scope of the
accident and the potential health risks in order to prevent panic as mentioned
previously. This policy went counter to the science communication policy of
openness and transparency. It revealed a fundamental misunderstanding by
the government regarding the idea and concept of science communication
despite its previous declarations promoting science communication in the
Third Science and Technology Basic Plan (Government of Japan, 2006).
The Japanese scientific community did not help: most of them kept silent
although they knew the implications of the nuclear power plant accident.

The government intended to publish the Fourth Science and Technology

Basic Plan and 2011 White Paper on Science and Technology at the end
of March 2011. Ironically, the basic plan would declare that science and
technology policy should be created together with society, i.e. through
democratic participation in science and technology policymaking. The
public announcement of the basic plan was delayed by four months. Another
irony was that one of the main topics planned for the White Paper was
science communication. The result was that the publication was delayed
and the content revised. A trustworthy relationship is the most important
consideration for establishing science communication.

530
 22. Japan

The Japanese public learned a great deal after the March 11 earthquake and
the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Since then people have set
up their own local networks to exchange information about radiation risks.
For example, many regional communities have procured their own Geiger
counters and begun monitoring radiation levels in their local areas with
experts’ advice for peace of mind. Over 30 science cafés about radiation effects
or the earthquake were held all over Japan during the two and a half months
immediately following March 11. This unfortunate incident has taught us
a major lesson and encouraged people to adopt a bottom-up approach.
Toward the end of 2011, the Japanese Association for Science Communication
(JASC) was established. The mission of JASC is to construct a network of
science communication practitioners and to propagate and share the concept
and methods of science communication across all communities nationwide.
The association started out with about 200 members and has since increased
to roughly 400. It operates self‑sufficiently using just membership fees.

6. Beyond the PUST–PEST dichotomy and

towards a complementary relationship
While the policy frameworks of science communication in Japan have been
making a gradual shift from understanding-orientation to engagement-
orientation, we should be aware that a number of empirical studies in Europe
have suggested that the actual practice of science communication would
often incline towards PUST. The image of knowledge-deficient publics is still
commonly found, and a linear causation between the increase of PUST and
public support for science would often be assumed. Difficulties in putting
thoughts and theories of dialogical, engaging science communication into
practice are also much discussed (e.g. Chilvers and Kearnes, 2015). Japan is no
exception, and it is faced with numerous difficulties in putting the blueprint
of science communication ideals into actual practice (e.g. Ishihara-Shineha,
2017; Nakamura, 2011; Shineha, 2016). At the same time, we should also
note that the understanding-oriented and engagement-oriented models of
science communication, which tend to be seen as at the opposing sides on the
spectrum of science communication, should be seen more as complementary
rather than contradictory, both together aiming at democratising science–
society relations (e.g. Tanaka, 2013).
The strong orientation of Japanese science communication towards the
promotion of PUST should not be flatly dismissed by employing conventional
criticisms of the ‘PUS movement’ or the ‘deficit model’. Simple, clear-cut
categorisation of science communication practice can be misleading, and it

531
 Communicating Science

would potentially turn our attention away from visions, thoughts and broader
contexts that are behind such seemingly understanding-oriented approaches
to science communication. It would also possibly prevent us from exploring
what the practice of science communication—hether it be oriented towards
understanding or engagement—actually means to science–society relations.
What we need in future science communication research, therefore, should be
to map out a wide variety of forms of science communication in our society—
some are initiated by the government and/or scientific research institutions
and others are more or less bottom-up—and to empirically investigate their
meanings from the perspectives of people involved in them on the ground. In
such empirical, exploratory and interpretive research practice, we need to go
beyond the understanding–engagement dichotomy.

Figure 22.1: A short history of science communication in Japan.

Science communication education, including the training of science

communicators, is today offered in various forms. Although there are no full-
degree coursework programs in science communication at either undergraduate
or postgraduate level in Japan, there are a number of ways to study and learn
skills in science communication. Many programs are primarily for students
and researchers in the natural sciences (e.g. Mizumachi et al., 2011; Yokoyama,
2009), but there are also courses designed for students studying and researching
in the humanities, social sciences and public policy (e.g. Ema, 2015; Yoshisawa
and Taniguchi, 2016). It should be mentioned here that these educational
activities are not conducted with a specific focus on science communication
per se, but they aim to develop learners’ skills to work with people from
different disciplinary and/or institutional backgrounds to tackle issues about

532
 22. Japan

science–society relations that are increasingly trans-disciplinary. Training

scientists in such skills—some would refer to as ‘transferable skills’—is now
becoming an important focus of higher education policy in Japan (Yamanouchi
and Nakagawa, 2012) in response to the growing complexity of science–society
relations, and education and/or training in science communication is expanding
its scope accordingly (e.g. Kamisato and Hosono, 2014; Kudo, Mizumachi and
Yagi, 2018; Shineha et al., 2014).

7. Conclusion
Figure 22.1 above represents the development of science communication
policy in Japan. Japan’s policy of PUST has shifted to PEST since 2003. That
year there were a number of simultaneous developments with regard to science
communication. The key report that advocated for the promotion of science
communication and a textbook on science communication were published.
The most important consequence was that the report triggered a change in
government policy. Although the shift may have begun as a somewhat top-
down contrivance and still PUST-minded, it has gradually put down firm
roots across Japan.

Things changed dramatically in the wake of the large-scale earthquake and the
Fukushima nuclear power plant accident on 11 March 2011. The Japanese
government had to change its science and technology policy, and the public
gained the realisation that the government is not necessarily trustworthy and
people have to look out for themselves. This would appear to be counter to
the principles of science communication. Nevertheless, at a local community
level people have shown mutual compassion and established solid links
amongst themselves, so a ray of hope can be found there. An updated version
of science communication, i.e. ‘Science Communication 2.0’, must be
launched. For this we must look to grassroots science communication.

References
Briggs, P. (2001). New Visions for Associations for the Advancement of Science:
A Case Study. In S. M. Stocklmayer, M. M. Gore and C. Bryant (eds), Science
Communication in Theory and Practice (pp. 191–201). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0620-0_13.
Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (eds) (2015). Remaking Participation: Science, Environment
and Emergent Publics. London and New York: Routledge.

533
 Communicating Science

Council for Science and Technology. (1960). The First Policy Proposal: ‘A Comprehensive
Basic Policy for the Promotion of Science and Technology for the Next Ten Years’.
Science and Technology Agency, Prime Minister’s Office.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A. and Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding
of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14. doi.org/10.1038/340011a0.
Ema, A. (2015). ‘Science, Technology and Society’ class program at a university:
a report of teaching technology assessment and research ethics. Japanese Journal
of Science Communication, 18, 3–16.
Fujigaki, Y. (2008). Citizen participation and science communication. In Y. Fujigaki
and Y. Hirono (eds), Theoretical Perspective for Science Communication. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
Fujigaki, Y. (2009). STS in Japan and East Asia: Governance of Science and
Technology and Public Engagement. East Asian Science, Technology and Society:
an International Journal, 3(4), 511–18. doi.org/10.1215/s12280-009-9110-9.
Fujigaki, Y. and Hirono, Y. (eds) (2008). Theoretical Perspective for Science
Communication. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Government of Japan. (2006). The Third Science and Technology Basic Plan. Tokyo.
Hirakawa, H. (2010). Who Owns Science? Tokyo: NHK Publishing.
Hokkaido University CoSTEP. (n.d.). The role of CoSTEP – three fields of activity.
Retrieved from costep.open-ed.hokudai.ac.jp/costep/good_design/en/edu_
program01.html.
House of Lords. (2000). Third Report: Science and Society. London: The Stationery
Office.
Ishihara-Shineha, S. (2017). Persistence of the deficit model in Japan’s science
communication: Analysis of White Papers on Science and Technology. East Asian
Science, Technology and Society, 11(3), 305–29. doi.org/10.1215/​18752160-
3819961.
Kamisato, T. and Hosono, M. (2014). Creating a hub for ELSI/TA education,
research and implementation in Japan. In T. Michalek, L. Hebáková, L. Hennen,
C. Scherz, L. Nierling and J. Hahn (eds), Technology Assessment and Policy Areas
of Great Transitions: Proceedings from the PACITA 2013 Conference in Prague (pp.
117–22). Prague: Technology Centre ASCR.
Kobayashi, T. (2007). The Age of Trans-science. Tokyo: NTT Publishing.
Kudo, M., Mizumachi, E. and Yagi, E. (2018). Towards an integration of practical
application, research and education of public engagement with emerging
technologies: a case on ethical, legal and social issues of ‘Society 5.0’, Co* Design,
3, 35–53.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (1982). White
Paper on Science and Technology: The Relationship between Young People and Science
and Technology. Prime Minister’s Office. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/en/
publication/whitepaper/title01/detail01/1372762.htm.
534
 22. Japan

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2011). White Paper
on Science and Technology: Science and Technology Created Together with Society.
Prime Minister’s Office. Retrieved from warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/
www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpaa201101/detail/1308357.htm.
Mizumachi, E., Matsuda, K., Kano, K., Kawakami, M. and Kato, K. (2011). Scientists’
attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: A study using ‘science cafes’. Journal
of Science Communication, 10(4), A02. doi.org/10.22323/​2.10040202.
Nagahama, H. (1994). Scientific Literacy in Japan: Historical and Cultural
Permeation and Current Changes. In B. Schiele (ed.), When Science becomes
Culture. Boucherville, Quebec, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Nagahama, H., Kuwahara, T. and Nishimoto, A. (1991). Science, Technology, Society
and Communication. NISTEP REPORT 017 [in Japanese with English summary].
Retrieved from hdl.handle.net/11035/535.
Nakamura, K. (1991). Establishing science as culture: proposal for science communication
plaza [in Japanese]. Nippon Institute for Research Advancement.
Nakamura, M. (2011). Policy on promoting science and technology communication.
In H. Yoshioka (ed.), A Social History of Science & Technology in Japan at the Turn
of the Century, Tokyo: Hara Shobo.
Office of Science and Technology and Wellcome Trust. (2000). Science and the Public:
A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain.
London: Department of Trade, Industry and the Trustees of the Wellcome Trust.
Ogawa, Y., Kamei, O. and Shimizu, M. (2006). A training program for science
communication in collaboration with universities and museums. In Proceedings of
PCST2006 Conference (Seoul) (pp. 1359–64). Public Communication of Science
Technology Network. Retrieved from www.pcst.co/archive/paper/1350.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007). PISA
2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. OECD Publications.
Science and Technology Agency. (1958). White Paper on Science and Technology.
From Foreign Dependence to Independent Development. Prime Minister’s Office.
Retrieved from warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/www.mext.go.jp/b_
menu/hakusho/html/hpaa195801/index.html.
Science and Technology Agency. (1980). White Paper on Science and Technology:
Trajectory and Prospects on the Development of Science and Technology. Prime
Minister’s Office. Retrieved from warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/www.
mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpaa198001/index.html.
Science and Technology Agency. (1982). White Paper on Science and Technology:
In Search of Creative Science and Technology. Prime Minister’s Office. Retrieved
from warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho​
/html/hpaa198201/index.html.

535
 Communicating Science

Science and Technology Agency. (1993). White Paper on Science and Technology: The
Relationship between Young People and Science and Technology. Prime Minister’s
Office. Retrieved from warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11293659/www.mext.go.jp/​
b_menu/hakusho/html/hpaa199301/index.html.
Science and Technology Agency. (1996). First Science and Technology Basic Plan.
Prime Minister’s Office. Retrieved from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/kagaku/
kihonkei/honbun.htm.
Science and Technology Agency. (2011). Fourth Science and Technology Basic Plan.
Prime Minister’s Office. Retrieved from www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/kihonkeikaku/​
4honbun.pdf.
Shineha, R. (2016). History and issues of science communication: a review
of discussions and perspectives in policy-making. Seijo Communication Studies,
27, 13–29. doi.org/10.13169/polipers.13.2.0029.
Shineha, R., Iida, K., Nakao, H., Kikuchi, Y. Mikami, K., Ito, K. Hirata, K. and
Hasegawa, M. (2014). ‘Science and Society’ education for PhD candidates: the
case of SOKENDAI. The Journal of Science Policy and Research Management,
29(2/3), 90–105.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Gore, M. M. and Bryant, C. (eds) (2001). Science Communication
in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-010-0620-0.
Tanaka, M. (2013). Discussion on phases of communication about science and
technology. In M. Nakamura (ed.), Science and Politics after the Disaster of March
11 in Japan. Kyoto: Nakanishiya Shuppan.
Umehara, S. and Watanabe, M. (2012). Science Agora: The Evolving Science Festival
and Its Roles in Japan’s Science Communication Policy-Making. AAAS General Poster
Session. Retrieved from aaas.confex.com/aaas/2012/webprogram/Paper​7294.html.
University of Tokyo Science Interpreter Training Program. (n.d.). Concept. Retrieved
from science-interpreter.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/.
Waseda University. (n.d.). Five requirements. Retrieved from www.waseda-j.jp/
majesty/eng/program/index.html.
Watanabe, M. (2010). New wine must be put into new wineskins: The new key word
‘Science Communication’ has changed PUST policy in Japan. In Proceedings
of PCST2010 Conference (New Delhi). Retrieved from www.pcst.co/archive/
paper/365.
Watanabe, M. (2017). From top-down to bottom-up: a short history of science
communication policy in Japan. Journal of Science Communication, 16(03), Y01.
doi.org/10.22323/2.16030401.
Watanabe, M. and Imai, K. (2003). Research on the Promotion of Public Understanding
of Science & Technology and Science Communication. NISTEP Research Material
100. Retrieved from hdl.handle.net/11035/787.

536
 22. Japan

Watanabe, M. and Imai, K. (2005). A Discussion About the Promotion Of Science

& Technology Communication. NISTEP Discussion Paper 039. Retrieved from
hdl.handle.net/11035/459.
Yagi, E. (2007). A proposal of science communication education as liberal arts
in graduate school. Communication-Design, 10, 121–43.
Yamanouchi, Y. and Nakagawa, C. (2012). Transferable skills training in the United
Kingdom: suggestions for developing human resource in science and technology.
Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 12, 92–107.
Yokoyama, H. (2009). Science communication, education for graduate students,
researchers in science. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 5, 79–85.
Yoshisawa, G. and Taniguchi, T. (2016). Teaching technology assessment. Proceedings
of the 31st Annual Conference of the Japan Society for Research Policy and Innovation
Management (pp. 74–77). Tokyo: JSRPIM.

Timeline
Event Name Date Comment
First interactive science Miraikan – The 2001
centre established. National Museum of
Emerging Science and
Innovation
First national (or large Youngsters’ Science 1992 A generic name of science
regional) science festival. Festival festivals and a network.
First held in Tokyo, Nagoya
and Osaka, and now
over 100 cities hold their
own festivals.
2006: Science Agora
is an annual science
communication event in
Japan held in Tokyo, and
the biggest in Japan
An association of science Japanese Association 1994 2011: Japanese
writers or journalists of Science and Association for Science
or communicators Technology Journalists Communication
established.
First university courses University of Tokyo 2005 Courses for postgraduate
to train science Hokkaido University students started with
communicators. Waseda University support of five-year limited
government subsidies
First master’s students in JT Biohistory Research 1995 It was not a training course
science communication Hall in affiliation with for science communicators
graduate. Graduate School but a research course of
of Science, Osaka science communication
University

537
 Communicating Science

Event Name Date Comment

First PhD students in JT Biohistory Research 1997
science communication Hall in affiliation with
graduate. Graduate School
of Science, Osaka
University
First national Seamless Culture 2005 International colloquium
conference in science through Science organised by National
communication. Communication Institute of Science and
Technology Policy (NISTEP)
2006: Science Agora
National government Loving Science and 2002 2005: Special Coordination
program to support Technology Plan. Funds for the Promotion
science communication Ministry of Education, of S&T. MEXT funded
established. Culture, Sports, a program for training
Science and postgraduate students
Technology (MEXT)
First significant initiative Research on the 2003 Watanabe and Imai (2003)
or report on science Promotion of Public wrote a report for NISTEP
communication. Understanding of
Science & Technology
and Science
Communication
National Science Week The week around 1960 Known as Invention Day
founded. 18 April each year. since 1954
A journal completely or Japanese Journal 2007 Online journal run by
substantially devoted to of Science Communicators in Science
science communication Communication and Technology (CoSTEP)
established. organised by CoSTEP Education Unit at Hokkaido
University
First awards for Public Understanding Not
scientists or journalists Promotion Category known
or others for science of the Commendation
communication. for Science and
Technology by MEXT
Date hosted a PCST Satellite Symposium of 2006 Organised by NISTEP
conference. PCST 2006 in Tokyo
Other significant events. First science café in 2004 An NPO held it in Kyoto
Japan

Contributors
Professor Masataka Watanabe is president of the Japanese Association
for Science Communication and Specially Appointed Professor at Tohoku
University, Sendai, Japan.
Dr Mitsuru Kudo is an associate professor at the Centre for the Study of
Co*Design, Osaka University, Japan.
538
This text is taken from Communicating Science: A Global Perspective,
edited by Toss Gascoigne, Bernard Schiele, Joan Leach, Michelle
Riedlinger, Bruce V. Lewenstein, Luisa Massarani and Peter Broks,
published 2020 by ANU Press, The Australian National University,
Canberra, Australia.
doi.org/10.22459/CS.2020.22