Yoshimi Yashiro

<p>In Japan, the problem of research inaccuracies, especially in the life science field, has received wide attention. As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology improved guidelines for guideline of the research justice defined in 2006, producing new guidelines in 2014. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also produced new guidelines. However, I consider skeptically whether we can solve a research inaccuracy problem by mandating ethics education, or tightening rules. I argue that a fundamental issue for the methodology of life science research and for the kind of social changes life science research will bring, is research injustice. In this paper, I outline from my own experience the actual conditions governing research within the life sciences - focussing particularly on regenerative medicine - and bring out the wider implications.</p>

&lt;p&gt;In Japan, the problem of research inaccuracies, especially in the life science field, has received wide attention. As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology improved guidelines for guideline of the research justice defined in 2006, producing new guidelines in 2014. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also produced new guidelines. However, I consider skeptically whether we can solve a research inaccuracy problem by mandating ethics education, or tightening rules. I argue that a fundamental issue for the methodology of life science research and for the kind of social changes life science research will bring, is research injustice. In this paper, I outline from my own experience the actual conditions governing research within the life sciences - focussing particularly on regenerative medicine - and bring out the wider implications.&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The correction is only for Japanese text.</p>

<p>Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) on Artificial Intelligence (AI) requires various stakeholders to discuss Human-Machine relations in the near future. Therefore, we conducted questionnaire surveys twice in December 2015 and February 2016. The first survey was for researchers on AI, social sciences and humanities (SSH) researchers, policy makers, SF (science fiction) writers and the public. The second survey was for AI researchers working at private industries, media, and other specialties such as law and religion. The results indicate that respondents were positive about introducing AI that requires social consensus such as driving, disaster prevention and military activities scenarios compared to others. On the other hand, scenarios that requires personal decision making such as life events tended to answer that humans take the initiatives and use AI as a tool. Being aware of the differences will enhance the implementation of AI in a variety of scenarios.</p>

一般講演要旨