著者

鳥井 弘之

出版者

研究・イノベーション学会

雑誌

研究技術計画 (ISSN:09147020)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1, no.1, pp.48-54, 1986

---

新製品開発12事例が紹介されている.採り上げられた事例は,日本経済新聞,日経産業新聞に過去1年間に掲載された新製品のうち,技術的な先進性や技術集約度の高いと思われるもの約600件の中から選ばれ,その後詳細なヒアリング調査がおこなわれた60件余りのうちの特に興味深いものである.新製品開発プロセスを総括すると,(1)開発課題の発見,(2)開発目標の設定,(3)開発作業,(4)製品の評価の4つのステップに分けることができる.日本企業の技術陣の目標接近能力は極めて高い.今後は課題発見と目標設定能力が求められている.プレークスルー・ポイントが(1)(2)である場合に,新鮮な新製品開発に結びつくケースが目立つ.

著者

嶋林 ゆう子 林崎 規託 鳥井 弘之

出版者

研究・イノベーション学会

雑誌

研究 技術 計画 (ISSN:09147020)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.23, no.2, pp.163-175, 2008-09-26 (Released:2017-10-21)

参考文献数

44

---

科学技術と社会が健全な関係を維持するためには,科学技術と社会のコミュニケーションが求められる。本論は,科学技術の専門家が負う説明責任に焦点を絞り,責任が生じる局面の抽出を通して,科学技術における説明責任の概念に迫るものである。まず,説明責任の関連用語(アカウンタビリティ,知る権利,情報公開)の語義の分析に基づき,分野を科学技術に限定せずに,日本社会における説明責任の一般的な概念を整理した。さらに,社会システムを構成する一要素としての科学技術の特殊性を抽出した。これらの結果を踏まえて,科学技術の専門家に説明責任が生じる次の4つの局面を切り出した。(1)資源が負託されたとき,(2)権限が負託されたとき,(3)人体(個人/集団)に対する影響が生じるとき,(4)社会(現在/将来)に対する影響が生じるとき。これらと現行の科学技術政策において説明責任が生じるとされている局面を比較し,その差異について指摘した。本論によって,科学技術の専門家は自分たちがいつ社会に説明すべきかが分かり,自律的に説明責任を遂行することができるようになる。また,社会の側も,いつ専門家に責任追及すべきかを判別することが可能となる。さらに,説明責任を課せられた側と課す側がその責任の概念を共有できれば,専門家と社会の双方の参加による,「社会のための科学技術」の実現の一助となる。

著者

鳥井 弘之 鹿野 憲子

出版者

研究・イノベーション学会

雑誌

研究 技術 計画 (ISSN:09147020)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.30, no.2, pp.110-116, 2015

---

This article is an overview of PE license in the United States, in particular we focused on the history, examination system, status of PE in society. Also we mentioned about the differences between the PE in US and Japanese professional engineer license. PE license in US is expected to become an international standard of engineers certification. In order for Japan to export in frastructure, in order to increase the female engineers also, Japanese it is important to know well about the PE license in US.

著者

井口 雅一 鳥井 弘之 駒井 謙治郎

出版者

一般社団法人日本機械学会

雑誌

日本機械学會誌 (ISSN:00214728)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.102, no.971, pp.589-595, 1999-10-05

著者

大越 実 鳥井 弘之 藤井 靖彦

出版者

一般社団法人 日本原子力学会

雑誌

日本原子力学会和文論文誌 (ISSN:13472879)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.4, pp.421-433, 2007 (Released:2012-03-07)

参考文献数

15

被引用文献数

2 2

---

Siting of radioactive waste management facilities frequently raise arguments among stakeholders such as a municipal government and the residents. Risk communication is one of the useful methods of promoting mutual understanding on related risks among stakeholders. In Finland and Sweden, siting selection procedures of repositories for spent nuclear fuels have been carried out successfully with risk communication. The success reasons are analyzed based on the interviews with those who belong to the regulatory authorities and nuclear industries in both countries. Also, in this paper, risk communication among the Japan Radioisotope Association (JRIA), a local government and the general public, which was carried out during the establishment process of additional radioactive waste treatment facilities in Takizawa Village, Iwate Prefecture, is analyzed based on articles in newspapers and interviews with persons concerned. The analysis results showed that good risk communication was not carried out because of the lack of confidence on the JRIA, decision making rules, enough communication chances and econmic benefits. In order to make good use of these experiences for the future establishment of radioactive waste management facilities, the lessons learned from these cases are summarized and proposals for good risk communication (establishment of exploratory committee and technical support system for decision making, and measurements to increase familiarity of radioactive waste) are discussed.

著者

大越 実 鳥井 弘之 藤井 靖彦

出版者

一般社団法人 日本原子力学会

雑誌

日本原子力学会和文論文誌 (ISSN:13472879)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.4, pp.393-403, 2007 (Released:2012-03-07)

参考文献数

29

---

Clearance is one of the useful concepts to manage large amounts of slightly contaminated solid radioactive materials generated from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Cleared materials are expected to be disposed of as conventional wastes or recycled to produce consumer goods. In Japan, the legal framework for clearance was established in 2005 by amending the Law to regulate nuclear materials, reactors and so on. However, it is not so clear whether the general public understands clearance well. In this paper, major concerns about clearance from the general public are analyzed based on the public comments for reports on clearance prepared by the Nuclear Safety Commission and the Nuclear Institute Safety Agency. The major anxieties for clearance expressed by the general public are the safety of clearance, unknown factors of radiation effects, possibilities of excess radiation exposure due to inadequate measurements of radioactivities and fairness in decision making. In order to deal with those anxieties, some countermeasures including the confidence in nuclear operators and regulatory authorities and controllability of clearance by the general public are discussed to promote the social acceptance of clearance by the general public.

著者

篠田 佳彦 山野 直樹 鳥井 弘之

出版者

Atomic Energy Society of Japan

雑誌

日本原子力学会和文論文誌 = Transactions of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (ISSN:13472879)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.7, no.4, pp.350-369, 2008-12-01

被引用文献数

1

---

The social research group of the 21st century COE program "Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems for Sustainable Development of the World" has studied under the theme coevolution of nuclear technology and society. As part of this study, this group conducted a questionnaire survey of 2,500 adults (collection rate of 22.0%; 551 replies) who live in the Tokyo metropolitan area. The purpose of this survey asking opinion about the relationship between attitude toward nuclear technology utilization and social awareness is to determine their request, exception and concern about nuclear technology utilization. The survey reveals that the differences of attitudes towards nuclear technology utilization can be explained in terms of differences of general views on the society, such as the directionality of social progress. Thus, it is necessary to argue with citizens about the strategy on nuclear technology utilization from the viewpoint of the directionality of the future society. The social decision-making process on nuclear technology utilization has to be renovated through dialogue among citizens as the partner taking on the achievement and contribution toward the directionality of the future society.<br>