Japanese : https://i-rich.org/?p=2303
Tsukasa Shirakawa
Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories (iRICH)
On December 20, 2024, the “Expert Panel on the Future of the Science Council of Japan,” established under the Minister of State for Special Missions, submitted its final report. In response, the government plans to approve a cabinet decision in early March to submit a bill to the Diet that would transform the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) into a special corporation.
So far, the proposed changes include increasing the number of members from the current 210 to 250, setting a six-year term for members with the possibility of a single reappointment, and making the selection process for members more transparent. Additionally, the SCJ’s current authority to issue recommendations to the government will be retained even after its incorporation.
■ Background ■
The issue of the Science Council of Japan came to public attention following the 2020 dispute when then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga refused to appoint six nominees for membership. Until then, the council's problems had been a concern for only a limited audience. The controversy highlighted that, although the SCJ operates under the Cabinet Office, it has maintained a strong anti-government (specifically, anti-Liberal Democratic Party) stance, frequently opposing national policies.
This antagonistic stance is believed to stem from the council’s origins under the General Headquarters (GHQ) before Japan’s rearmament. The SCJ was initially established by the GHQ as a mechanism to prevent Japan’s remilitarization. This period coincided with the “Purge from Public Office,” which excluded conservative intellectuals from public positions, allowing the SCJ to come under the strong influence of the Japanese Communist Party. As a result, the SCJ became a center of influence of “pacifism”, promoting postwar peace ideologies.
Even as the security environment evolved drastically, the SCJ continued to adhere to postwar pacifism, opposing government policies under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party. Meanwhile, the council failed to provide meaningful recommendations during major crises, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCJ became preoccupied with political activities, neglecting its primary function of offering policy advice to the government.
The controversy over the appointment refusals exposed these problems to the public. Although the prime minister has the legal authority to decide on appointments and merely exercised that authority by rejecting several candidates, the refusal sparked fierce backlash from opposition parties, such as the Japanese Communist Party and the Constitutional Democratic Party, along with major media outlets like Asahi Shimbun. This backlash itself revealed that the SCJ, despite being a national institution, functioned as a hub for an anti-government, or anti-LDP network.
Additionally, despite being a national academic body, the SCJ exhibited a personnel imbalance, with an overrepresentation of humanities scholars, such as legal experts, and a marked absence of security experts.
Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida initiated reforms to restructure the SCJ. The key issues in the reform debate are whether to separate the SCJ from the government and whether the council can transform into a balanced national academy that provides unbiased, politically neutral advice. Another critical challenge is addressing the opacity in the member selection process, which became widely known due to the appointment refusal incident.
Public backlash, especially from conservative circles, has also been fueled by the fact that the SCJ, despite remaining under the influence of the Japanese Communist Party, continues to receive approximately one billion yen in annual public funding.
■ Summary and Evaluation of the Final Report ■
The following are key points from the final report by the expert panel:
- Ensuring Independence and Transparency: The panel concluded that incorporation as an independent administrative corporation is the optimal solution.
- Need for a National Academy: The report advocated for transitioning to an independent organization that provides scientific advice and engages in dialogue with society.
- Necessity of Incorporation: The proposal emphasizes maintaining public financial support while strengthening governance and ensuring transparency in member selection.
- Mission and Purpose: The SCJ should pursue scientific advancement and social contributions, providing medium- to long-term policy recommendations.
- Transparency in Member Selection: External advisory bodies should be utilized to ensure diversity and accountability.
- Strengthening Financial and Administrative Bases: The SCJ should maintain public funding while diversifying financial sources and improving organizational capabilities through digitalization and stronger administrative functions.
The report raises expectations that reforms will address the SCJ’s long-standing issues. The conclusion that the SCJ should become an independent corporation, separate from the government, is a notable and positive outcome.
However, a December 24, 2024, editorial in the Sankei Shimbun criticized the final report on three points:
1. Loss of Government Oversight: The transfer of appointment authority from the prime minister to the SCJ itself would mean the government has no say in member selection.
2. Weak Accountability Measures: Relying solely on an evaluation committee or audits to address inappropriate activities or lack of achievements is insufficient.
3. Continued Public Funding: Despite being separated from the government, the SCJ would continue to receive public funds.
Specifically, these criticisms stem from the inherent conflict between two reform goals: ensuring the SCJ’s independence from the government and maintaining its political neutrality. Independence requires the SCJ to manage its own operations without interference, but if it becomes a fully independent corporation, it will be harder for the government to intervene in its governance.
As a result, the reform proposes a halfway measure: a quasi-independent structure where the SCJ receives public funding but remains under external oversight. This solution reflects the difficulty of achieving full independence without sacrificing accountability.
■ The SCJ’s Reaction ■
In a February 11, 2025, interview with the Asahi Shimbun, former SCJ President Takaaki Kajita expressed strong opposition to the final report.
Kajita argued that the SCJ’s autonomy and independence are paramount. He criticized the proposed appointment system, which allows the government to assign auditors and members of the evaluation committee, calling the incorporation proposal a “reform without vision.” Kajita repeatedly emphasized that the SCJ’s value lies in offering recommendations that may challenge government policies.
While some aspects of Kajita’s argument are understandable, it is evident that his position reflects the postwar pacifist ideology that the Japanese Communist Party has sought to preserve within the SCJ.
Public resentment towards the SCJ primarily stems from i their commitment to postwar pacifism, which is increasingly out of step with the current security environment. The SCJ’s reluctance to adapt its stance highlights the core problem: its refusal to face reality.
During the interview, when asked, “As a Nobel laureate in physics, do you feel unfairly disregarded?” Kajita replied, “Well, I wouldn’t say there’s none of that feeling. But, if others choose to disregard me, there’s nothing I can do about it.”
In my book, *A Study of the Science Council of Japan*, I argue that the fundamental problem with the SCJ is the attitude of its members—particularly those with strong leftist tendencies—who hold a sense of a perceived disconnect from the practical realities of policymaking. SCJ scholars often regard political activities by elected officials as less intellectually rigorous and continue to criticize them from an ideological pedestal.
However, when unelected scholars show disdain for decisions made by the Diet, which represents the electorate’s will, they effectively show contempt for the public. Rather than scorn the government, they should reflect on their inability to address practical realities.
I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reform the SCJ is to reduce the number of members who remain ideologically bound to postwar pacifism.
