Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga refused to appoint six new member candidates of the Science Council of Japan, and 6 domestic societies such as the Japan Geoscience Union and the Historical Society of Japan were not appointed without being appointed by the government. Issued an urgent statement that he was concerned about.
According to the Japan Geoscience Union, the statement was attended by major science and engineering societies such as the Mathematical Society of Japan, the Physical Society of Japan, and the Japan Geoscience Union.He is concerned about the current situation in which the appointment has been refused, and is calling for an early resolution through dialogue between the government and the Science Council of Japan.
Prime Minister Suga said that the reason for the refusal to appoint was "to proceed with activities from a comprehensive and bird's-eye view from a broad perspective," and has avoided clear explanations.However, on the 9th, he explained that he had "not seen" the recommendation list of 105 people.
Some have pointed out that the background of the refusal to appoint is dissatisfaction with the Science Council of Japan, which refuses military research. Insisted that there was a need for.
On the other hand, there are a series of voices from domestic academic societies and universities, saying that they impair academic freedom.Former Chairman Takashi Onishi of the Science Council of Japan revealed in a joint hearing with opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party that he was reluctant to deal with personnel matters from the Prime Minister's Office even during the Abe administration.
Regarding the appointment of new members of the Science Council of Japan, in 1983, then Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone replied in the Diet that "the government only makes formal appointments."The Cabinet Office has released an internal document stating that the Prime Minister is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the Science Council of Japan, and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has stated that it is not a change in legal interpretation.
