In its guidelines for the next fiscal year's budgetary requests, the government has permitted a 5 percent hike in science and technology promotion spending, making an exception in the 10-percent cut in general expenditures and public-works spending. This is a real treat amid the deflationary climate. The problem is whether the money is going to be effectively used.

The science and technology budget started increasing in the mid-1990s. A total of 17 trillion yen was injected into this field in the five years since fiscal 1996. It looks like this upward trend is going to continue. A total of 24 trillion yen is scheduled to be spent for the next five years for the same purpose, starting this fiscal year.

Science and technology is an intellectual asset of humankind that forms the basis of our society, economy, culture and so on. So the increase in investment in this area is fine in itself. But if the funds for building roads and bridges in local areas are simply cut and allocated to science and technology instead, the public will probably question the results of this spending.

In July, the government's Council for Science and Technology cited life science, information and communications, the environment, and nanotechnology and materials as high priority areas of national and social needs. It also indicated that reorganization, rationalization and cuts were necessary in other areas.

Criticism of this policy is growing among researchers, who argue that it leans toward the total mobilization of research to strengthen industrial competitiveness in the immediate future. Out of a sense of crisis, several leading figures, including the heads of the National Institute of Genetics and the National Astronomical Observatory, have submitted an extraordinary letter to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi calling for the promotion of basic research.

It is wrong to put too much hope in the promotion of science and technology as an immediate economic-stimulus measure. The value of research lies elsewhere. Research based on free ideas has led to unexpected discoveries and resulted in technological development. There is a lot of basic research that has led to industrial application several decades down the road.

As well as the top-down formula that gives priority to the four areas mentioned above, the bottom-up formula that respects the independence of researchers also has an important role to play. In addition to big projects, it is essential to be generous in the cultivation of grass-roots research.

Increasing the budget is dangerous when the setup for ensuring the fair distribution of funds is still inadequate. When information technology becomes the buzzword, everyone runs toward IT. Bureaucrats are going to stampede to get a share of the huge IT budget for their turf. Positive results are unlikely to emerge from such a fracas.

Four points should be taken into consideration concerning the allocation of the science and technology budget. First, the promotion of science and technology should be seen in units of a century. There are very few cases in which results are immediately put to industrial use, as they have been with the recent human genome decoding. For such developments as the commercialization of nuclear fusion, we must look ahead 50 years or so.

Second, it is clearly going too far to earnestly try and turn universities and other research institutes into venture businesses. There is much epoch-making research that has absolutely no relation to government projects or patents. A lot of Nobel Prize-winning work has grown out of "mini-research" conducted day and night by researchers with their own ideas and scant funding.

Third, basic spending for the operation of research facilities should also be emphasized. If the government's guidelines for budgetary requests are applied, the usual operating expenses will probably be cut by 10 percent. In such a situation, there is a danger that scientists and researchers will not be able to properly use the facilities that are available.

Fourth, this country might end up with the kind of "hollow boxes" that are characteristic of conventional public works. In last year's millennium budget, several billion yen were hastily thrown into genome-related research. Sparkling new research buildings and the latest equipment appeared. But because the soft side was overlooked, in many cases there was a striking shortage of people who could actually use the hardware.

The human factor is decisive in research. Basically, efforts must be made for an approach that discovers outstanding human resources and "gives water to land that is really parched."