JTEC/WTEC ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM SUMMARY 1993/94 Geoffrey M. Holdridge, Editor March 1994 This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States Government, under NSF Grants ECS-8902528, ECS-8922947, ENG-9111333, and Cooperative Agreement ENG-9217849, awarded to the International Technology Research Institute at Loyola College in Maryland. The Government has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government, the authors' parent institutions, or Loyola College. JTEC/WTEC Michael J. DeHaemer, Principal Investigator, Director Geoffrey M. Holdridge, Staff Director and JTEC/WTEC Series Editor Bobby A. Williams, Assistant Director Catrina M. Foley, Secretary Aminah Batta, Editorial Assistant Cecil Uyehara, Senior Consultant for Japan Operations Advance Work in Japan also performed by: Alan Engel, ISTA, Inc. M. Gene Lim, SEAM International Advance Work in Europe performed by American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Advance Work in Russia and Ukraine performed by American Trade Initiatives, Inc. in cooperation with: Oleg Lozinsky of the International Integration Association, Oleg Shevjakov of InterHealth, Inc., the USSR Nuclear Society, and Vladimir Andreev of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences George Gamota Mitre Institute, the Mitre Corporation Senior Technical Advisor to JTEC/WTEC International Technology Research Institute at Loyola College R. D. Shelton, Director Special thanks are due to Arnett J. Holloway, Patricia N. Rogers, and Robert Hatcher, who edited previous editions of the Program Summary. Copyright 1994 by Loyola College in Maryland. The U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to exercise all exclusive rights provided by copyright. The ISBN number for this report is 1-883712-31-9. It is distributed by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce as NTIS Report # PB94-155702. Information on JTEC/WTEC reports and on ordering them from NTIS is on the inside back cover. Note: This document contains JTEC and WTEC report summaries that have been edited by the JTEC/WTEC and NSF staffs based on the original reports prepared by the JTEC and WTEC panels. CONTENTS Director's Letter i Foreword iii A. ANNUAL REPORT 1993/94 1 I. JTEC/WTEC Program at Loyola College 3 Loyola College 3 President's Remarks 3 The International Technology Research Institute 3 Mission 4 Methodology 4 II. Review of JTEC/WTEC Activities for 1993 and Early 1994 6 Trips 6 Dissemination Highlights 8 Workshops 8 Other Presentations by Panelists 10 Reports 11 Press Coverage 15 III. Plans for the Coming Year 18 Studies Underway 18 Prospective Future Studies 19 How to Initiate a JTEC/WTEC Study 19 B. SUMMARIES OF COMPLETED PROJECTS* 21 Introduction: Historical Overview and Comparisons (George Gamota) 23 Key 44 I. Information and Communication Technology 45 Satellite Communications Systems and Technology in Europe, Russia, and Japan (1993) 45 Knowledge-Based Systems in Japan (1993) 54 Display Technologies in Japan (1992) 61 Database Use and Technology in Japan (1992) 66 Machine Translation in Japan (1992) 71 X-ray Lithography in Japan (1991) 76 High Definition Systems in Japan (1991) 79 Advanced Computing in Japan (1990) 84 * Boldface indicates new summaries from 1993/94 reports. II. Materials 91 Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Polymer Composite Structures in Japan (1994)þ 91 Advanced Composites in Japan (1991) 99 High-Temperature Superconductivity in Japan (1989) 102 III. Manufacturing and Construction 105 Separation Technology in Japan (1993) 105 Material Handling Technologies in Japan (1992) 113 Construction Technologies in Japan (1991) 118 IV. Aeronautics, Space and Ocean Technology 123 Research Submersibles and Undersea Technologies in Russia, Ukraine, and Western Europe (1994)þ 123 Space Robotics in Japan (1991) 133 Space and Transatmospheric Propulsion Technology (1990) 138 V. Energy 143 Comparative Assessments of Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls in the United States, Canada, Japan, Western Europe and the Former Soviet Union (1994)þ 143 Instrumentation, Control and Safety Systems of Canadian Nuclear Facilities (1993) 154 European Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls (1991) 159 Nuclear Power in Japan (1990) 163 VI. Biotechnology 169 Bioprocess Engineering (1992) 169 APPENDICES A. Professional Background Information 175 JTEC/WTEC Staff Biographies 175 Other Contributors/Contractors 177 List of Sponsors 178 Other Participants 179 List of JTEC/WTEC Panelists, 1992-94 180 B. Bibliography 184 * Boldface indicates new summaries from 1993/94 reports. þ Published in final form for the first time in this volume DIRECTOR'S LETTER Loyola College in Maryland March 1, 1994 It is a distinct pleasure to deliver to our readers this summary of studies and a report of recent activities at the Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC) and the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC). Briefly stated, the mission for JTEC/WTEC has been to inform R&D policymakers in government, industry and academe concerning the current status and trends in high technology abroad. To that end we are happy to report the completion of five studies in 1993 and progress on five more, which will be published soon. By all measures, the JTEC/WTEC program has achieved significant improvement in dissemination in the past year, generating more public interest in the results of its studies. The increasing attention being paid to JTEC and WTEC studies in the industrial research and manufacturing communities is evidenced by their growing representation among our workshop attendees (now about fifty percent) and by their requests for copies of the reports. Over a thousand persons attended JTEC/WTEC workshops in the time period covered by this summary, and over a thousand more have heard secondary presentations of study results in other forums. In addition, 5,000 full reports and 4,000 executive summary reports have been distributed. In calendar year 1993, 33 expert panelists visited eleven different nations to research the state of the world's high technologies. It was exciting in three of these studies to observe the excellence of science and engineering in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine and to have active participation in our workshops by 11 outstanding scientific representatives of those countries. Many opportunities for international cooperation were brought to light in these and other studies. The JTEC/WTEC program owes appreciation to numerous people for their support of the past year's activities -- Paul Herer and many others at the National Science Foundation, sponsors from numerous agencies, superb panelists who contributed the quality information, and an excellent staff, led by Geoff Holdridge, that published and distributed about 1.5 million pages. Special thanks are due to Duane Shelton, currently director of the International Technology Research Institute, who brought the JTEC/WTEC organization up to operational speed and passed it over to me in early 1993. I hope that you will find value in this information and will offer us your suggestions for the future course of JTEC and WTEC. Michael J. DeHaemer Director, Principal Investigator FOREWORD The National Science Foundation has been involved in funding technology assessments comparing the United States and foreign countries since 1983. A sizable proportion of this activity has been in the Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC) and World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) programs. We have supported more than 30 JTEC and WTEC studies over a wide range of technical topics. As U.S. technological leadership is challenged in areas of previous dominance, such as aeronautics, space, and nuclear power, many governmental and private organizations seek to set policies that will help maintain U.S. strengths. To do this effectively requires an understanding of the relative position of the United States and its competitors. The purpose of the JTEC/WTEC program is to assess research and development efforts ongoing in other countries in specific areas of technology, to compare these efforts and their results to U.S. research in the same areas, and to identify opportunities for international collaboration in pre-competitive research. Many U.S. organizations support substantial data gathering and analysis efforts directed at nations such as Japan. But often the results of these studies are not widely available. At the same time, government and privately sponsored studies that are in the public domain tend to be "input" studies. That is, they provide enumeration of inputs to the research and development process, such as monetary expenditures, personnel data, and facilities, but do not provide an assessment of the quality or quantity of the outputs obtained. Studies of the outputs of the research and development process are more difficult to perform because they require a subjective analysis performed by individuals who are experts in the relevant technical fields. The National Science Foundation staff includes professionals with expertise in a wide range of disciplines. These individuals provide the technical expertise needed to assemble panels of experts that can perform competent, unbiased, technical reviews of research and development activities. Specific technologies, such as telecommunications, biotechnology, and nuclear power, are selected for study by government agencies that have an interest in obtaining the results of an assessment and are able to contribute to its funding. A typical assessment is sponsored by two to four agencies. In the first few years of the program, most of the studies focused on Japan, reflecting concern over Japan's growing economic prowess. Studies were largely defined by a few federal mission agencies that contributed most of the funding, such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The early JTEC methodology involved assembling a team of U.S. experts (usually six people, from universities, industry, and government), reviewing the extant literature, and writing a final report. Within a few years, the program began to evolve. First, we added site visits. Panels traveled to Japan for a week visiting 20-30 industrial and research sites. Then, as interest in Japan increased, a larger number of agencies became involved as co-sponsors of studies. Over the 10 year history of the program, 15 separate branches in six agencies of the Federal Government (including NSF) have supported JTEC and WTEC studies. Beginning in 1990, we began to broaden the geographic focus of the studies. As interest in the European Community (now the European Union) grew, we added Europe as an area of study. With the breakup of the former Soviet Union, we began organizing visits to previously restricted research sites opening up there. These most recent WTEC studies have focussed on identifying opportunities for cooperation with researchers and institutes in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, rather than on assessing them from a competitive viewpoint. In the past four years, we have also begun to considerably expand dissemination efforts. Attendance at JTEC/WTEC workshops (in which panels present preliminary findings) increased, especially industry participation. Representatives of U.S. industry now routinely number 50% or more of total attendance, with a broad cross section of government and academic representatives making up the remainder. JTEC and WTEC studies have also started to generate increased interest beyond the science and technology community, with more workshop participation by policymakers and better exposure in the general press (e.g., Wall Street Journal, New York Times). Publications by JTEC and WTEC panel members based on our studies have increased, as has the number of presentations by panelists at professional society meetings. The JTEC/WTEC program will continue to evolve in response to changing conditions in the years to come. We are now considering new initiatives aimed at the following objectives: o Expanded opportunities for the larger science and technology community to help define and organize studies. This may be accomplished through a proposal competition in which NSF would invite universities and industry (preferably working together) to submit proposals for JTEC and WTEC studies. These would then be peer reviewed much as NSF reviews research proposals. o Increased industry sponsorship of JTEC and WTEC studies. For example, NSF recently funded a team organized by the Polymer Science & Engineering Department at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) to visit Japan for two weeks studying biodegradable plastics and polymers R&D there. Twelve industrial firms put up over half of the funds. o Including a broader policy and economic context to our studies. This is directed at the need to answer the question, "So what?" that is often raised in connection with the purely technical conclusions of many JTEC and WTEC panels. What are the implications of the technical results for U.S. industry and the economy in general? We will be adding an economist to an upcoming JTEC study on optoelectronics in Japan as a new effort to address these broader questions. In the end, all government funded programs must answer the following question: How has the program benefitted the nation? I would like to point out a few of the benefits of the JTEC/WTEC program: o JTEC studies have contributed significantly to U.S. benchmarking of the growing prowess of Japan's technological enterprise. Some have estimated that JTEC has been responsible for over half of the major Japanese technology benchmarking studies conducted in the United States in the past decade. Our reports have also been widely cited in various competitiveness studies. o These studies have provided important input to policymakers in federal mission agencies. JTEC and WTEC panel chairs have given special briefings to senior officials of the Department of Energy, the NASA Administrator, and even the President's Science Advisor. o JTEC/WTEC studies have been of keen interest to U.S. industry, providing managers with a sense of the competitive environment internationally. Members of the recently completed study on satellite communications have been involved in preliminary discussions concerning the establishment of two separate industry/university consortia aimed at correcting the technological imbalances identified by the panel in its report. o JTEC and WTEC studies also have been valuable sources of information for both U.S. and foreign researchers, suggesting potential new research topics and approaches, as well as opportunities for international cooperation. One JTEC panelist was recently told by his Japanese hosts that, as a result of his observations and suggestions, they have made significant new advances in their research. o Not the least important is the educational benefit of the studies. Since 1983 over 170 scientists and engineers from all walks of life have participated as panelists in the studies. As result of their experiences, many have changed their viewpoints on the significance and originality of foreign research. Some have also developed lasting relationships and ongoing exchanges of information with their foreign hosts as a result of their participation in these studies. As we seek to refine the JTEC/WTEC program in the coming years, improving the methodology and enhancing the impact, we will still be operating from the same basic premise that has been behind the program from its inception: the United States can benefit from a better understanding of cutting-edge research that is being conducted outside its borders. Improved awareness of international developments can significantly enhance the scope and effectiveness of international collaboration and thus benefit all of our international partners in collaborative research and development efforts. Paul J. Herer National Science Foundation Arlington, VA A. ANNUAL REPORT 1993/94 I. JTEC/WTEC Program at Loyola College LOYOLA COLLEGE Loyola College in Maryland, founded in 1852, is part of the proud 450-year old tradition of Jesuit education worldwide. Among the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States, Loyola was the first to bear the name of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus. Originally founded to provide a liberal education to Baltimore's Catholic community, Loyola was always open to students of other religious persuasions. Modern-day Loyola continues in this tradition of serving the community by providing a broad liberal education to students from a wide variety of backgrounds. While maintaining an emphasis on undergraduate education, Loyola also offers a wide variety of graduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences as well as in the Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J. School of Business and Management. Among these graduate programs are courses in computer science, electrical engineering and engineering science, in keeping with the Jesuit tradition of excellence in science and mathematics. Also in keeping with Jesuit tradition, Loyola College values the benefits of cultural diversity and a global perspective on business. The college maintains international study programs in Belgium and Thailand, actively recruits foreign students for the Baltimore campus, and includes international studies as part of its graduate programs in international business and executive management. INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Loyola's International Technology Research Institute (ITRI) combines the college's strengths in science and technology with its international interests. ITRI is currently housed in the Donnelly Science Building with Loyola's Electrical Engineering and Engineering Science Department. ITRI's co-founders, Drs. Shelton and DeHaemer, also teach and serve as department heads of Loyola's Engineering and Information Systems and Decision Sciences departments, respectively. ITRI's staff boasts professional background in history, science policy, economics, information technology, and political science -- attesting to the interdisciplinary nature of ITRI's endeavors. ITRI is a synergistic umbrella organization that houses three centers for assessment of foreign technology. The Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC) has the mission of assessing foreign technology in vehicles, transportation, and construction methodology and highway systems. It is supported by the Federal Highway Administration, and is directed by Prof. Shelton. The Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC) and the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) are directed by Prof. DeHaemer, and are supported by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement. MISSION The JTEC program was initiated in 1983 by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the purpose of informing policy makers, strategic planners and managers from government and private industry about the status of selected high technologies in Japan in comparison to that in the United States. Subsequently, the WTEC program was established to provide similar studies of countries other than Japan. NSF assumed leadership of the program in 1984. Consistent with NSF's commitment to open international exchange of scientific and technical information, the JTEC program was one of the first foreign technology monitoring efforts funded by the U.S. Government to operate totally in the public domain. JTEC/WTEC thereby contributes to NSF's goal of promoting international collaboration in science and technology by identifying other countries' strengths in specific research and development areas; these are the areas that can provide opportunities for fruitful international collaboration. The JTEC/WTEC program has the twin missions of helping the United States better understand the international competition it faces in science and technology as well as helping to identify opportunities for international collaboration in pre-competitive research. It does this by establishing a world-class benchmark for each technology studied and comparing the different approaches being taken in research programs around the world. This international perspective can offer new insights on the direction of U.S. research programs. METHODOLOGY The objective of an ITRI study is to produce an up-to-date report on the outcomes of current R&D efforts in a specific field for a specific geographic area. The report is a rendering of the judgements of the leading U.S. experts as to the value -- scientific, technical, and industrial -- of the technologies they have observed abroad. A study answers the following questions: What is the worldclass benchmark? What is the competitive environment? What are the opportunities for cooperative ventures? Are there different approaches being taken abroad? Is our research emphasis correct? A panel for a study nominally has six members, but often seven or more, who travel to a host country for site visits and discussions with researchers to reach conclusions about the state of the observed technology. Panelists are chosen for their own special expertise in and knowledge of the technology under study, both domestically and abroad. Thus they are able to compare this R&D to that in the United States. Much of the strength of the JTEC/WTEC effort comes from the quality of its panelists. They have included the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology; a former Associate Administrator of NASA; vice presidents or provosts of UC Berkeley, RPI, and Rice University; and many distinguished engineers and scientists from the academic, government, and industrial communities of the United States. The results are initially presented in workshops attended by representatives from the public and private sectors who critique the preliminary findings. The panels' written reports are distributed by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), where they have become best-sellers with leading U.S. and Japanese firms, universities, and the science counselors of the embassies in Washington. Thousands have received gratis copies because of workshop attendance, hosting of panels, etc. The results are also presented in books and articles by the panelists. Studies are usually the subject of national press accounts; a sample of these publications is listed in the Bibliography (Appendix II). Although ITRI is planning to try out a number of revisions to this methodology in the coming year, this approach has yielded successful results in over thirty studies conducted to-date involving a dozen countries and over 200 panelists and other participants. II. Review of JTEC/WTEC Activities for 1993 and Early 1994 In calendar year 1993, JTEC/WTEC sent five delegations (totalling 33 panelists and 11 observers) on tours of overseas laboratories, completed five final reports, issued five full draft reports, conducted five workshops and seven smaller meetings, and initiated four new studies. JTEC/WTEC also prepared three summaries of the state- of-the-art of U.S. technology in the course of its ongoing studies, three books of draft site reports distributed for review to hosts and panelists, and three stand-alone executive summaries based on JTEC/WTEC final reports. Including draft reports, workshop viewgraph books, etc., the JTEC/WTEC staff prepared over 4,500 pages of manuscript in 1993 and the first six weeks of 1994, 1,100 of which were in final reports. The staff mailed out or otherwise disseminated a total of over 1.5 million pages in copies of these draft and final reports. In addition, the JTEC/WTEC program has put renewed emphasis on widening the dissemination of study results, employing large commercial mailing lists, regular press releases, and paid advertising for the first time. JTEC/WTEC mailed over 28,000 workshop invitations in 1993. Participation by U.S. manufacturing companies in JTEC and WTEC workshops in 1993 reached an all time high. JTEC/WTEC enjoyed greater coverage in the technical and general press in 1993 than in the previous nine years combined. All of these developments are discussed in further detail below. TRIPS JTEC/WTEC sent two delegations to Japan in 1993 plus three to Europe and the former Soviet Union. The WTEC Panel on Research Submersibles and Undersea Technologies visited Finland, France, Russia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom in May of 1993, stopping to see 39 facilities in those countries. This panel was sponsored by NSF and ARPA, with additional participation from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The panel saw many research submersibles that were previously unknown in the West. In Ukraine, the panel saw Mach 1 ocean speed research underway at the Kiev Institute for Hydrodynamics. The Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) organized a Task Force on Constructed Civil Infrastructure Systems R&D in early 1993. WTEC commissioned a panel of U.S. civil engineering technology experts to join CERF's Task Force during its June 1993 trip in order to assess the status of European constructed civil infrastructure technologies. Among the Task Force's more interesting observations was a new form of concrete under development in France that can grow its own fiber reinforcement as a result of a delayed chemical reaction. In September of 1993, JTEC's Panel on Micro-electro-mechanical Systems (MEMS) visited Japan to look at progress there in the development of millimeter- to micron- scale, batch-fabricated electro-mechanical devices and their applications. This study is sponsored by NSF, ARPA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Department of Commerce. The MEMS panel found that the highly publicized MITI national research program in micromachines is focussed primarily on non- lithographic approaches to micro-machine fabrication. However, the MITI program is dwarfed by other Japanese MEMS research, primarily in industry, that closely parallels U.S. efforts in lithography-based approaches. The U.S. probably retains a lead in lithographic approaches, but the panel saw a number of innovative Japanese programs in the non-lithographic area. The MEMS panel was followed closely by the JTEC Panel on Electronic Packaging, sponsored by NSF, ARPA, NASA, and the Dept. of Commerce, which visited 12 major Japanese electronics manufacturers in early October in a search for improved understanding of Japan's overwhelming success in the global marketplace for ultra- compact and low-cost consumer electronics. That panel found that, though the U.S. is close to or equal to Japan in packaging technology, Japan is far ahead in manufacturing process development and refinement, and in market-pull product and manufacturing technology innovation. Finally, the WTEC Panel on Advanced Display Technologies visited Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine in late October to assess opportunities for collaboration between the United States and the countries of the former Soviet Union in advanced display technologies. This effort was sponsored by NSF and ARPA. The panel found many intriguing display technologies under development in these three countries, among which is an electron beam pumped laser projection display (the "quantoscope") that is claimed to have over 3,000 lumen white light brightness at resolutions that easily exceed 2500 lines. Table 1 shows the JTEC/WTEC foreign trips for 1993. Altogether, 43 JTEC/WTEC panelists and observers visited 188 sites in 11 countries. TABLE 1 JTEC/WTEC Foreign Trips in 1993 STUDY DATES OF TRIP COUNTRIES VISITED # SITES VISITED Research Submersibles May 16 - 30, 1993 Finland, France, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom 39 CERF Task Force June 5 - 14, 1993 France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom 78 MEMS Sept 25 - Oct. 2, 1993 Japan 22 Electronic Packaging Oct. 2 - 9, 1993 Japan 12 Advanced Display Technologies Oct. 23 - 30, 1993 Belarus, Russia, Ukraine 37 DISSEMINATION HIGHLIGHTS Workshops 1993 was a banner year for JTEC/WTEC with respect to workshop attendance. Our first workshop of the year, the NASA/NSF Conference on Satellite Communications in Europe, Russia, and Japan, set a JTEC/WTEC record for attendance (over 200). This was due in part to advertisements placed by JTEC/WTEC in five relevant technical journals. Perhaps more significantly, this was also the first major effort by JTEC/WTEC to use large commercially available mailing lists for workshop invitations. Table 2 shows the number of invitations mailed and attendance at each of the JTEC/WTEC workshops held in 1993 and early 1994. Thus, JTEC/WTEC has mailed 2,500 or more invitations for each of its workshops since the Satellite Communications Conference, held in February 1993. This adds up to over 28,000 invitations mailed for all workshops in this period, not including invitations distributed via electronic mail and fax. This is in contrast to earlier years, when invitation lists for workshops typically ran in the hundreds. Attendance at JTEC/WTEC workshops in 1993 averaged just over 140, and consistently exceeded 100, compared to an average of 50 to 75 in earlier years. TABLE 2 Invitations and Attendance at JTEC/WTEC Workshops in 1993/94 WORKSHOP DATE INVITED ATTENDED Satellite Communications Feb. 5, '93 2500 240 Polymer Composites Feb. 18, '93 4500 160 Research Submersibles July 29, '93 3500 200 CERF Sept. 1, '93 2500 120 MEMS Nov. 17, '93 6500 100 Electronic Packaging Jan. 12, '94 4500 140 Advanced Displays/FSU Feb. 3, '94 3800 120 Press coverage also increased significantly for the 1993 JTEC/WTEC workshops compared to previous years. Every 1993 workshop received mention in the general or technical press. Participation in our workshops by representatives of U.S. industry was consistently high in 1993, averaging over 50% of total attendance in the most recent two workshops. In two comparable 1991 JTEC workshops, an average of only about 20% of participants hailed from U.S. manufacturing companies. We have also made efforts to improve workshop presentations and to make the workshop itself more pleasant for the audience. Beginning with the CERF workshop in September of 1993, all JTEC/WTEC workshops have included color presentation graphics. JTEC/WTEC workshops have also had several changes of venue in the past year, as we tried several different facilities in Washington, DC, then moved our workshops to the vicinity of NSF's new offices in Arlington, VA. Two of the 1993 workshops covered technologies in the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU) -- concentrating mostly on the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Belarus. These took a different approach from previous JTEC and WTEC workshops. Rather than comparing the quality of FSU R&D with that in the West, both the research submersibles and the advanced display technology workshops instead focussed on identifying interesting new technologies and centers of excellence in the FSU. To regular JTEC/WTEC workshop attendees, the most noticeable difference was probably the absence of the traditional "rating chart" summation of the panel's findings. The other notable difference was the active participation of a total of 11 eminent scientists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus at these workshops (see Table 3). Especially in the case of the advance displays study, the workshop took on a new dimension as a way of fostering cooperation between U.S. companies and researchers and those of the former Soviet Union -- our guests from the FSU participated in more than 40 meetings with representatives of U.S. companies and universities during their week in the U.S. TABLE 3 FSU Guests Participating in 1993 WTEC Workshops NAME AFFILIATION COUNTRY WTEC STUDY Nikolae Dubrovsky Andreev Institute Russia Research Subs. Vladimir Gevorkian Ukraine Academy of Sciences Ukraine Research Subs. Victor Grinchenko Institute of Hydromechanics Ukraine Research Subs. Anatoly Kuteinikov Malachite Russia Research Subs. Mark Slavinsky Russian Academy of Sciences Russia Research Subs. V.G. Chigrinov NIOPIK Russia Advanced Displays Boris Gorfinkel VOLGA Russia Advanced Displays Andrej Kosarev IOFFE Russia Advanced Displays Alexander Smirnov RadioEngineering Institute Belarus Advanced Displays V.M. Sorokin Institute of Semiconductors Ukraine Advanced Displays Vladimir Ulasjuk PLATAN Russia Advanced Displays Other Presentations by Panelists JTEC/WTEC also encourages panelists to make presentations at professional society meetings as a way of further disseminating study results to the research community. An average of two to three such presentations result from each JTEC or WTEC study. Additionally, panelists are often asked to make presentations about their JTEC/WTEC activities inside their own organizations. The JTEC/WTEC staff is aware of a total of 15 presentations made by panel members in calendar year 1993. In just the first two months of 1994, JTEC and WTEC panelists made a total of 15 individual oral presentations at two major professional society conferences: the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Fifteenth International Communications Satellite Systems Conference sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The AIAA conference's plenary session was based on the findings of our Panel on Satellite Communications Systems and Technologies, and included presentations by three panelists and two of the panel's principal Japanese and European hosts. An additional session at the same conference, chaired by the panel's NASA sponsor, Ramon DePaula, included detailed reviews of Japanese, European, and Russian satellite communications technologies presented by eight other panelists. The AAAS meeting's session on international technology benchmarking included presentations by George Gamota (Mitre Corporation and Senior Advisor to JTEC/WTEC) and by Mary Good, former member of the National Science Board and now Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology. JTEC/WTEC also encourages panelists to publish articles in professional journals drawing on study results. The knowledge-based systems study completed by JTEC in 1993 was the subject of an article authored by that panel in the January 1994 issue of Communications of the ACM. A more in-depth treatment of the same report has been accepted for publication in the spring 1994 issue of AI Magazine. Prof. Karbhari, a member of the JTEC Panel on Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Polymer Composite Structures in Japan, authored an article based on that study for the August 1993 issue of Advanced Materials and Processes. Similarly, the co-chairs of the NASA/NSF Panel on Satellite Communications Systems and Technology, Burton Edelson and Joseph Pelton, published a two-article series in the March and April 1993 issues of Satellite Communications based on their experiences as JTEC/WTEC panelists. Several members of the JTEC Panel on Bioprocess Engineering in Japan were co-authors of a National Academy of Sciences report issued in 1993 citing the 1992 JTEC study for its conclusions regarding Japan, and calling for a JTEC-style study of bioprocess engineering R&D in Europe. Similar publications arise out of virtually every JTEC and WTEC panel. Reports Written final reports are a primary medium for disseminating the results of JTEC and WTEC studies. Table 4 shows final reports published in 1993. Thus, the JTEC/WTEC program generated over 1,100 pages of final report manuscript in 1993, distributing a total of 5,000 copies of these reports (or a total of almost 1.1 million pages distributed of all reports combined). The comparable figures for 1992 were 745 total pages of final report manuscript and 2,800 total copies TABLE 4 JTEC/WTEC Final Reports Published in 1993 TITLE DATE PAGES/COPY COPIES PRINTED* TOTAL PAGES* Material Handling in Japan Feb. '93 248 800 198,400 Separation Technology in Japan Mar. '93 143 800 114,400 Knowledge-Based Systems in Japan May '93 200 1,000 200,000 Canadian Nuclear Instrumentation & Controls July '93 35 400 1,400 Satellite Communications, Vol. I July '93 322 1,500 483,000 Satellite Communications, Vol. II July '93 186 500 93,000 TOTAL þ 1,134 5,000 1,090,200 * With the exception of one or two of the most recent reports, the number disseminated by JTEC/WTEC very nearly equals the number printed (current stocks are negligible). The dissemination figures shown here do not include additional copies that are produced and sold as xerox or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). þ Numbers in this row are the sum of the columns above. Thus, "total pages" in this row is the sum of all "total pages" rows above it, whereas in all other rows, total pages is pages/copy multiplied by copies printed. distributed (or 530,000 total pages). Even more importantly, the JTEC/WTEC program has shown steady progress since 1990 in increasing the number of final reports and executive summaries disseminated to the public (Figure 1). In addition to reports disseminated directly by JTEC/WTEC, tallied in Figure 1, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) distributes several hundred more per year. The increased level of activity at JTEC/WTEC in 1993 is also evident with respect to draft reports, workshop viewgraphs, and other JTEC/WTEC publications not included in the final report category (see Table 5). These draft reports and other interim products play an important role in the program: sponsors get timely access to preliminary findings; hosts are offered the opportunity to correct any errors or misunderstandings before they are published; panelists and staff have a chance to improve the quality and accuracy of the final reports; and the program in general benefits from increased dissemination of study results. The stand-alone executive summaries listed in Table 5 represent an important thrust in our efforts to widen the awareness of JTEC and WTEC studies in both the R&D and lay communities. JTEC/WTEC printed large numbers of stand-alone executive summaries for three of its 1993 final reports, mailing most of these to professional society mailing lists as a way of promoting interest in and sales of the full reports. Total manuscript pages in these categories rose from 2,309 in 1992 to 3,480 in 1993 and the first two months of 1994. Total copies distributed of these non-final report manuscripts rose from just over 5,000 copies in 1992 to an estimated 6,855 copies in 1993. Some of these reports have limited distribution (e.g., draft site report books, which are distributed to members of the travelling party and staff while the site reports are under review by hosts). Preparing and distributing these specialized and draft reports accounts for a significant proportion of the total level of effort in the program. In 1993, over three pages of draft manuscripts were generated for each page of final report copy. Targeted mailing lists have proven to be valuable for workshop invitation and executive summary mailings. Other avenues for expanding dissemination of JTEC and WTEC final reports are also under active consideration. These include commercial publication of final reports and electronic dissemination. For example, in February 1994, JTEC/WTEC signed a Letter of Agreement with MCC providing for all recent JTEC and WTEC reports to be made available to MCC members electronically. As of March 1994, information on the JTEC/WTEC program will be available to all users of Internet's World Wide Web system from a server at Stanford University. Other avenues for electronic distribution of JTEC/WTEC reports through the Internet are also under investigation. TABLE 5 -- Other JTEC/WTEC Publications in 1993/94 TITLE DATE PGS./COPY COPIES TOTAL PAGES Material Handling - Stand-Alone Executive Summary Jan. '93 7 2,000 14,000 Satellite Communications - Preliminary Draft Report Jan. '93 468 ~30 14,040 Satellite Communications - Workshop Viewgraphs Feb. '93 240 350 84,000 Polymer Composites - Workshop Viewgraphs Feb. '93 251 250 62,750 Satellite Communications - Review Draft Report Mar. '93 545 120 65,400 Knowledge-Based Systems - Stand-Alone Executive Summary May '93 10 500 5,000 Submersibles - Summary of U.S. Activities May '93 30 ~85 2,550 Submersibles - Workshop Viewgraphs Jul. '93 208 250 52,000 Satellite Communications - Stand- Alone Executive Summary Jul. '93 10 2,000 20,000 CERF - Workshop Viewgraphs Sept. '93 132 200 26,400 Polymer Composites - Preliminary Draft Report Sept. '93 246 20 4,920 MEMS - Summary of U.S. Activities Sept. '93 40 ~100 4,000 FSU Display Technologies - Summary of U.S. Activities Oct. '93 36 ~80 2,880 MEMS - Draft Site Report Book Nov. '93 127 60 7,620 MEMS - Workshop Viewgraphs Nov. '93 229 200 45,800 Polymer Composites - Review Draft Report Nov. '93 274 80 21,920 FSU Display Technologies - Draft Site Report Book Dec. '93 148 70 10,360 Electronic Packaging - Draft Site Report Book Jan. '94 88 60 5,280 Electronic Packaging - Workshop Viewgraphs Jan. '94 235 200 47,000 FSU Display Technologies - Workshop Viewgraphs Feb. '94 156 200 31,200 TOTALS (sum of columns only) 3,480 6,855 527,120Press Coverage Table 6 lists reports and articles published in 1993 that cite JTEC and WTEC studies. Thanks in part to the timeliness of the satellite communications study, as well as the reputations of the panelists, in 1993 the JTEC/WTEC program enjoyed more press coverage (27 articles) than in the previous nine years combined. This is depicted graphically in Figure 2. Figure 2. JTEC/WTEC Coverage in the General and Technical Press (excluding articles from Dept. of Commerce and Japan Information Access Project publications) Of the 27 articles or reports published in 1993 citing JTEC and WTEC studies, 17 were about the satellite communications study. Though this study was of natural interest to the press, we made an effort to attract the press, holding press conferences for several workshops in which there was interest. In 1993, Rosalia Scalia of Loyola's Public Relations Department issued press releases promoting JTEC/WTEC conferences and reports. JTEC/WTEC events have also been listed by the National Science Foundation's Office of Legislative and Public Affairs in its regular press briefings. The 27 articles listed in Table 6 do not include 18 other references to JTEC and WTEC studies published in special reports (e.g., GAO and OSTP reports) and in the specialized U.S.-Japan technology press (e.g., Japan Access Alert Bulletin, Japanese Technical Literature Bulletin, Japan Technical Affairs, etc.) during 1993. In fact, Japan Technical Affairs has published an edited rendition of every JTEC executive summary completed since 1992, and has thus become a highly valued archival publisher of all recent JTEC findings. The Department of Commerce's Japanese Technical Literature Bulletin has also faithfully covered JTEC workshops and reports, as has the newsletter of the Japan Information Access Project, Japan Access Alert. A full listing of all these citations is included in the Bibliography. Therefore the total number of citations in 1993, including all of the above, was 45. TABLE 6 1993 JTEC/WTEC Coverage in General and Technical Press DATE PUBLICATION NAME ARTICLE TITLE RELEVANT STUDY 2/8/93 New Technology Week "Satellites: Another U.S. Industry Faces Decline" Satellite Communications 2/11/93 Washington Technology "Foreign Sats Lead U.S." Satellite Communications 2/15/93 Satellite News "Competitors Seek to Narrow U.S. Lead in Mobile Satellites" Satellite Communications 2/22/93 New Technology Week "Japan Reaches Parity in the Manufacture of Advanced Polymers" Polymer Composites 3/93 Satellite Communications "The Race Is On" Satellite Communications 3/93 Modern Materials Handling "Let's Get Going" (Editorial) Material Handling 3/10/93 San Francisco Chronicle "Elvis: Sun Micro Expected to Team with Russian Firm" Satellite Communications 4/25/93 Space News "Study: Japan May Catch U.S. Satellite Firms" Satellite Communications 4/93 Satellite Communications "Japan: Rising Sun or Shooting Star?" Satellite Communications 5/10/93 New Technology Week "Japan Drawing Bead on U.S. in Membranes?" Separation Technology Win/Sp '93 NASA Alumni League News "Satellite Scorecard Mixed as $30 Billion Prize Goes Begging" Satellite Communications 6/93 Via Satellite "Editor's Note" Satellite Communications 6/28/93 Barron's "Dangerous Display Flat-Panel Floundering Holds Risks for U.S. Industry" Display Technology in Japan 7/23/93 Warfield's "Tracking Japan's Growing Strength in Development of High Technology" JTEC studies in general 7/28/93 New York Times "U.S. is Said to Lag in Space Research" Satellite Communications 7/29/93 Space Fax Daily "American Sat Makers May Begin Hearing Footsteps of Foreign Rivals" Satellite Communications 8/93 Advanced Materials and Processes "Polymer Composites Technology in Japan" Polymer Composites 8/2/93 New Technology Week "Submersibles in Ex-USSR Eye Openers for Westerners" Research Submersibles 8/5/93 Nature "Satellite Research 'Needs More Money'" Satellite Communications 8/16/93 Electronic Engineering Times "U.S. Slipping in Satellites" Satellite Communications 8/27/93 The Daily Record "U.S. Lags in Construction R&D" CERF 10/93 Via Satellite "Editor's Note" Satellite Communications 11/93 Air Force Magazine "The Chart Page -- The Global Race in Satellite Technology" Satellite Communications 11/93 IEEE Spectrum "The Flat Panel's Future" Display Technology in Japan 11/24/93 Space Fax Daily "U.S. May Lag in Mobile Satellite Market, Study Warns" Satellite Communications 11/29/93 Electronic Engineering Times "U.S., Japan Gear Up for Micromachines" MEMS 12/93 Signal "U.S. Risks Forfeiting Satellite Communications Science" Satellite Communications III.Plans for the Coming Year STUDIES UNDERWAY As of February 1994, there are two WTEC and three JTEC studies in progress. In addition, the CERF study referred to above, in which JTEC/WTEC has collaborated, is nearing publication of its final report. o The JTEC Panel on Advanced Manufacturing for Polymer Composite Structures in Japan released its full draft report in November 1993. This has now completed review by the panel's Japanese hosts and the JTEC/WTEC editor. Hosts' comments and editor's changes and markup are now under final consideration by the panel members. The JTEC/WTEC staff will be working with the panel in March and April 1994 to prepare the final report. We have completed review of the panel's executive summary, which therefore is included in this volume. It is interesting to note that this panel's conclusions regarding Japanese manufacturing in polymer composite materials closely parallel those of the electronic packaging panel with respect to electronics manufacturing. Both panels concluded that there is usually no "silver bullet" of superior technology that is the secret to Japan's manufacturing successes. Instead, these panels attribute this success to consistent, patient, even painstaking work to make evolutionary refinements in process technology and quality control, sensitivity to customer requirements, and the ability and willingness to make large, long- term, and often risky capital investments to develop and maintain high technology manufacturing infrastructure. o The WTEC Panel on Research Submersibles and Undersea Technologies released its full draft report in October 1993. Because communications with the panel's hosts in Russia and Ukraine are slow, the hosts' review comments were still arriving at the JTEC/WTEC office as of this writing. The JTEC/WTEC staff and editor will be working with the panel to finalize its report in the spring of 1994. Review of the executive summary from that report has also been completed, and is included in this volume. o The JTEC Panel on Micro-electro-mechanical Systems (MEMS) in Japan travelled to Japan in late September 1993, and held its workshop in Arlington, VA on November 17, 1993. The panel's draft site reports were reviewed by the Japanese hosts in December of 1993. The full draft report will be available in early April of 1994. o The JTEC Panel on Electronic Packaging in Japan visited 12 major Japanese electronics manufacturers in October 1993. This panel held its workshop in Arlington, VA on January 12, 1994. The panel's draft site reports were reviewed by the Japanese hosts in January of 1994, and a full draft report is expected by April. o The WTEC Panel on Advanced Display Technologies in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus visited 38 sites in those countries in late October 1993. Draft site reports are now out for review by the hosts. A workshop was held on February 3, 1994 in Arlington, VA. As mentioned above, one of the notable contributions of this workshop was the contacts that it fostered between U.S. companies and researchers and representatives from the former Soviet Union. o A new JTEC panel on optoelectronics is currently being organized. In addition to visiting Japanese organizations, plans are also being made to visit a number of U.S. companies -- including suppliers, technology companies, and system integrators. This extra effort will provide a better benchmark of U.S. activities against which to compare those in Japan. Plans are also being made to include an economist on this panel. This study has support from NSF, ARPA, Air Force, the Office of Naval Research, and the Departments of Commerce, State, and Energy. PROSPECTIVE FUTURE STUDIES As of this writing, probable future JTEC and WTEC studies are, in order of likelihood, software practices in Japan, man-machine interface (including virtual reality and speech recognition) in Japan, environmentally responsible manufacturing (Japan), metal casting technology (Europe and Japan), research submersibles technologies in Japan and Eastern Russia, avionics (Japan), and medical instrumentation. The studies on software practices, man-machine interface, environmentally responsible manufacturing, and metal casting technology are probable, but scope and funding details have yet to be finalized. The other topics listed above are somewhat preliminary, since funding is still being organized. HOW TO INITIATE A JTEC OR WTEC STUDY Up to now, funding for JTEC and WTEC studies has been drawn exclusively from agencies of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Most recent studies have involved funding from three or more agencies working in collaboration with NSF, the lead agency. NSF works with the interested agencies to find common ground for a detailed statement of the study's scope. This work statement becomes the basis for inter-agency agreements, in which contributing agencies transfer funds to NSF in return for NSF undertaking responsibility for the performance of the study. NSF in turn puts these funds into its Cooperative Agreement with Loyola College, under which Loyola carries out the study. Because of the diversity of interests among contributing agencies (see list of sponsors in Appendix I), a certain amount of negotiation is usually required at the outset of a study in order to arrive at a study scope that satisfies the requirements of all contributors. This is usually accomplished through one or more planning meetings at NSF, in which potential sponsors present their requirements and develop a consensus scope, identify a suitable chair for the panel, and discuss other potential candidates for panelists. The contact person at NSF for JTEC and WTEC studies is: Paul Herer Senior Advisor for Planning & Technology Evaluation Engineering Directorate National Science Foundation Room 505.13, Stafford Place 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 306-1303 (W) (703) 306-0289 (FAX) electronic mail: pherer@nsf.gov B. PROGRAM SUMMARY The following is the complete collection of executive summaries from the JTEC and WTEC reports completed to-date under the management of the program by Loyola College. They are preceded by an introduction by George Gamota, originator of the JTEC program concept and the only person who has worked with this program consistently from its inception to the present day. Dr. Gamota, Director of the Mitre Institute, the Mitre Corporation, currently serves as Senior Advisor to JTEC/WTEC. His introduction offers many useful insights into the historical background and rationale for the JTEC/WTEC program, its relevance to the current U.S. science and technology policy context, and the broader lessons that can be drawn from the results of its completed studies. Others may view these results differently from the way Dr. Gamota does. However, his analysis demonstrates that the findings of the JTEC and WTEC technology assessments, with the unique perspectives they offer on the R&D efforts of our friends and allies abroad, can be extremely relevant to the ongoing debate over science and technology policy, and indeed industrial policy, in the United States today. INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND COMPARISONS by George Gamota HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE JTEC/WTEC PROGRAM In 1994, the JTEC program is celebrating its tenth year of operation and the completion of its thirtieth study. In addition, the companion World Technology Evaluation Center program has completed three studies, including a landmark global assessment of satellite communications technology, and will be nearing completion of its fourth and fifth by the end of the year. This tenth anniversary affords us an opportunity to take a look back over the history of the program with a view towards gleaning some overall lessons from the program and towards understanding and refining its mission. Inception of the JTEC Program Just a decade ago, we had difficulty in even admitting that there was R&D of interest being done outside the United States, in spite of many major surprises coming from abroad. As each new foreign discovery was made public, we went into a series of denials and chest poundings, but very little changed. Basically, we were more interested in our own work than somebody else's. And we always went for the big payoff -- the homerun, the Nobel prize, the revolutionary breakthrough -- and discounted incremental improvements, ideas developed in other countries, and generally efforts requiring teamwork or long-term investments, be they in science, technology, or business. When the Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC) program was initiated in 1983, the U.S. high technology trade balance coincidentally was about even (see Figure 3). But, as indicated in the figure, the equality lasted for only a short time. Our trade imbalances grew, and we moved from our status as the biggest creditor nation to being the largest debtor nation. During the Cold War era, much attention was paid to the smallest bit of information coming from the Soviet Union -- some real threats, some imaginary (e.g., the Alpha class submarines and poly-water, respectively). The Soviets were first in space, and then potentially threatened the West with massive technological prowess to which we had little access. It was easy to convince Washington to fund Soviet technology studies, but there was little interest in learning about other foreign technologies. Meanwhile, the trade imbalances with our allies (particularly Japan) began to grow, even in high technology areas the United States had traditionally dominated. Figure 3. High Technology Trade Balances, 1981-92 (U.S. Government 1993) The reason for this blind-sided view of other countries was that the United States was the leader in many if not most technologies during the early post-World War II era. Therefore we became complacent about our leadership position. We took it for granted that everything important would be developed here. It was in this environment that the JTEC program started back in 1983. Even with the growing U.S. trade deficit with Japan in high technology manufactured products, the JTEC idea proved to be very difficult to sell, until some very senior U.S. government officials finally not only blessed it, but more importantly, marshalled the resources to fund the studies. JTEC's stated goal was to systematically look at various technologies of strategic value to the U.S. government and industry. Technologies were chosen for study largely by decision-makers in Federal R&D agencies who were willing to supply dollars and were eager for the information. Initially, JTEC was coordinated by the Department of Commerce (DOC), with the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) as funding partners. However, due to personnel changes at DOC, in 1984 leadership of the program shifted to the NSF, where it currently resides. Nevertheless, partnerships with key technology agencies have remained a hallmark of the program. Today the JTEC/WTEC program is one of few real cooperative government programs that have survived so many years. Appreciation is due to NSF for its consistent and far-sighted management of the program over the years (see acknowledgments at the end of this introduction). According to one report (Uyehara 1991), the JTEC program has produced over half of all in-depth studies on Japanese technology that are publicly available in the United States. When JTEC was started, one of the fears was that it would be extremely difficult to get useful information from the Japanese, because they were perceived to be secretive, and the language barrier would give them an easy way not to tell U.S. visitors about the important things that were going on. JTEC panels found the opposite to be true. Like most researchers, the Japanese are eager to share their work. In most cases, they have provided far more information than we would have expected to glean from comparable visits to U.S. companies. To be sure, good advance work has been necessary to ensure that we visited the right places and asked the right questions; but very seldom has a JTEC team been denied access even to assembly plants that it asked to visit. The hardest visits to arrange were those to U.S. subsidiaries in Japan, which operated more like U.S. companies. But in general we have been welcomed, even when, in the case of the 1992 display technology study, we arrived in Japan in the middle of a heated trade dispute. Although language has not really presented a problem, whenever a JTEC team included at least one Japanese-speaking member, more information was exchanged. The Japanese view JTEC very positively. They believe in the importance of gathering information, and they are very good at it. Their balance of trade with the U.S. in information gathering is roughly 3:1. That is, Japan buys three times more information from the U.S. than the U.S. buys from Japan. In terms of people exchanged, the numbers are even more skewed. For every ten Japanese scientists or engineers who visit the U.S. for an extended time, only one American goes to Japan. The imbalance is so great that the Japanese government even funds Americans to travel to Japan and spend time in Japanese laboratories. Some technologies -- for example, those in the area of computer science -- have been the subject of several JTEC studies over the history of the program because of the great interest in the subject and rapid changes in the technology. This continuity, combined with the institutional memory of several people who have been involved with the JTEC program since its inception, makes it possible to assemble a picture of the evolution of Japanese technology in comparison with that in the United States. Because of the time that has elapsed since the earlier reports, it is also possible to see which of the predictions came true, which did not, what was missed, and, finally, why some predicted events did not come to pass. The ICOT Fifth Generation computer project is an example. Many people consider that project a disappointment. My own opinion is that, although it did not achieve all of its goals, it taught the Japanese many things that are critical to the next phase of advanced computing. The 1987 study, Advanced Computing in Japan, dealt almost exclusively with the Fifth Generation program, and the 1990 study reflected on the degree to which that project succeeded. The 1993 JTEC report on knowledge-based systems in Japan includes a section on ICOT. One finding from that report is that ICOT has made some impressive achievements, particularly in the development of the "KL1" family of parallel symbolic programming languages. The ICOT program was actually extended for three years beyond its originally scheduled termination date. In the meantime, the Japanese government has undertaken another major project in computer science R&D, the Real World Computing (RWC) Initiative, which is sure to further promote the emergence of Japan as a major world player in the computer and information science fields. The Global Challenge In recent years there has been an increasing awareness among the sponsors of the JTEC program that the technological challenge facing the United States comes not only from Japan, but also from Europe and potentially from many other parts of the world. This inspired the formation of the World Technology Evaluation Center. WTEC completed its initial assessment, on European nuclear instrumentation and controls (I&C) technology, in late 1991. This focused on one aspect of nuclear technology that already had been the subject of one chapter of the broader 1990 JTEC study on Japanese nuclear technology. The detailed review of the world's major nuclear I&C technology suppliers was completed in 1993 with the publication of the WTEC Monograph on Instrumentation, Control, and Safety Systems of Canadian Nuclear Facilities. Based on these three reports, Jim White of Oak Ridge National Laboratory has now prepared the world-wide summary assessment of nuclear I&C technologies that is published for the first time in this volume. It will also be available separately. Dr. White's assessment, that the United States trails every country but Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in nuclear I&C technology and applications, should be of concern even to those who question the wisdom of further investments in nuclear power; instrumentation and controls technology is critical to the safety of our existing plants. WTEC's second international assessment, completed in 1993, examined satellite telecommunications technology in Europe, Japan, and Russia. This study also resulted in some sobering conclusions: Japan, and to a lesser extent Europe, stand a good chance of wresting a substantial proportion of the satellite communications business away from the United States early in the next century. This is the result of a long period of slackened satellite communications R&D funding at NASA, during which time strong European and Japanese research and applications programs have proven new technologies and given their companies valuable experience and know-how. With the breakup of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, the Departments of Energy and Defense requested that I assess the technological potential of Ukraine, the second largest of the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union (FSU). A five volume report entitled Science, Technology and Conversion in Ukraine was published in 1993, and is the most comprehensive look at that country's R&D potential. It reviews the major R&D institutions and activities there, listing key individuals, their addresses, telephone numbers, and, whenever available, their electronic mail addresses. As of this writing, WTEC is planning to perform its next global assessment in the area of research submersibles and related undersea technologies. A WTEC panel is now completing its report on submersible technologies in Russia, Ukraine, Finland, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Within the next few months, we hope to send the same panel to Japan, following which they will visit some sites in eastern Russia (Vladivostok area) that they were not able to visit in their May 1993 trip to European Russia and Ukraine. WTEC is now filling in another piece of the global picture in advanced display technologies with a panel that visited Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in October of 1993. As described above in the Annual Report section, WTEC is also collaborating with the Civil Engineering Research Foundation in an assessment of civil engineering technologies in Western Europe. This complements the earlier JTEC study of construction technology in Japan, affording a broader global perspective on the status of the U.S. with respect to another important application of advanced technology. Topics under consideration for future WTEC studies include environmentally benign manufacturing technologies and metals casting technology. Our experience with Europe and the former Soviet Union is not as long as it is in Japan. Unlike JTEC, which is well recognized in Japan, the WTEC mission is not yet fully understood. This has required more work, particularly in planning and preparation for the site visits. Furthermore, Japan is a single country, with many R&D activities centrally located in Tokyo. Conversely, Europe is a continent with many countries; just the transportation aspect alone makes it harder to coordinate a set of visits in a short time. And most visits have to be completed in a short time; industrial panelists find it particularly difficult to get away from their jobs for more than about a week -- two weeks at the most. By including Russia, Ukraine and possibly other new countries in Eastern Europe, the WTEC trips have stretched these limits. In spite of these problems, we have been delighted to find out that the JTEC process works well in Europe (East and West). Now after nearly completing four studies in Europe, we find that it is easier to obtain access. Logistics problems have been solved by breaking the team into subgroups and utilizing travel time for other activities -- such as sleeping, eating or site report preparation. A noteworthy addition to our process, when we have visited FSU countries, has been to invite selected hosts from our site visits to our workshop in Washington. This provides them with an opportunity to meet interested U.S. parties and initiate joint ventures or cooperative research. Many of these organizations have been previously closed to the West, and are eager to become known and engage in discussions for cooperation. This is particularly true for Russian organizations situated outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and most organizations in Ukraine, Belarus and the other new countries in Eastern Europe. APPLICABILITY OF JTEC/WTEC TO THE BROADER U.S. TECHNOLOGY POLICY DEBATE Each JTEC or WTEC study provides a current view of the status of research, development and/or applications of a particular technology in one or more foreign countries. It also provides a snapshot of a particular technology and its relationship to a possible range of products. Finally, most JTEC and WTEC studies include a review of mechanisms for R&D support in the subject country(ies). As such, the large body of JTEC and WTEC studies completed to-date provides a useful benchmark for the ongoing debate in Washington as to the direction that U.S. technology policy should take in the latter part of the 1990s. First, a number of ideas that are being proposed in Washington today to stimulate the development of civilian and dual-use technologies have been tried in Japan and Europe already, to varying degrees of success. JTEC/WTEC studies can provide valuable information on why these ideas have succeeded or failed abroad, and how they may or may not work in the United States. Second, foreign governments have identified certain technologies and/or applications as critical to their future, therefore deserving of direct or indirect government support. The debate in the United States over industrial policy must therefore be influenced greatly by the extent to which other governments around the world have already distorted the "free market" forces that would otherwise shape the development and deployment of new technologies and products. The illusion of a free market is further undermined by the behavior of large oligopolistic or monopolistic private corporations and/or consortia overseas. For example, there is no doubt that, due to differing cultural and institution frameworks, Japanese corporations behave very differently from U.S. corporations, especially with respect to long-term investments in R&D. In other words, if governments and large corporations and consortia overseas are practicing technological mercantilism by subsidizing or otherwise fostering the development of civilian high technology industry, the U.S. Government cannot possibly gain from conducting a laissez faire free trade policy in isolation. JTEC and WTEC studies can provide key information concerning the mechanisms for corporate and government R&D support abroad to facilitate informed debate on this issue in the United States. Finally, to the extent that free trade in high technology products and information does prevail in this world, U.S. government and industry must have access to reliable information concerning where the best research and technology can be found around the world. The JTEC/WTEC program can contribute in this respect as well. In order to facilitate such contributions to the broader U.S. technology policy arena, the National Science Foundation has asked us to combine the executive summaries of all the recent JTEC/WTEC reports in a single document and to identify some issues that cut across several of the studies. This program summary presents twenty-two executive summaries from reports completed since the fall of 1989. Summaries of the first ten studies, those completed between 1984 and early 1989, are not included here. Readers are directed to Gaining Ground -- Japan's Strides in Science and Technology (Gamota and Frieman 1988), the JTEC Program Summary (JTEC 1991) and the JTEC/WTEC Program Summary (JTEC/WTEC 1992) for more information on those early studies. The reports have been arranged according to application areas, so readers can make correlations between similar areas and compare changes reported by similar studies conducted at different times. Whereas in the 1980s it became customary in the Federal Government to organize technology policy discussions along lines of disciplines or categories of "critical" technologies, the current administration appears to be inclined instead to look at the end-result, or applications, of these technologies. This is almost the opposite of the current trend in Japan, where government agencies for the past few years have been putting greater emphasis on improving Japan's basic research capability. However, these recent policy shifts in Japan and the U.S. both represent positive responses to an imbalance that was evident in the 1980s, i.e., that the Japanese did better applied research and product development, while the U.S. excelled at basic research and, at least in the government sector, paid little attention to collaborating with industry in applied R&D and manufacturing technology. Governments in both countries are moving to redress this imbalance: Japan by putting new emphasis on basic research, and the United States by pursuing new initiatives in government-supported applied R&D projects in close cooperation with industry. Unfortunately, a troubling trend appears to be developing in the United States. To redress the lack of support of applied research and development for commercial applications, basic research funding is now being threatened. There is a need to fill the "gap" in applied R&D funding, in order to ensure that we are prepared to capitalize on basic research discoveries. But this should not be in lieu of support for that basic research. Basic research has proven to be our insurance for the future. If we wish to remain competitive, we need to do so across the full spectrum from basic research to applied R&D. Table 7 compares the JTEC and WTEC studies with a variety of application areas. The "critical technology" approach is still with us, however. In the U.S., there remain statutory requirements for the maintenance of several lists of critical or sensitive technologies at both the Defense and Commerce departments (U.S. Govt. 1990, 1991a, 1991b). There are several analogous Japanese lists, most notably a 1988 Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) document that ranks the United States and Japan in a wide range of industrial technologies (Govt. of Japan 1988). Similar strategic thinking is evident in the 1990 list of research projects supported by the Commission of the European Communities (EC 1990). These lists have many common themes and, not too surprisingly, include most of the topics that have been studied by the JTEC teams. TABLE 7 JTEC/WTEC Studies by Application Area APPLICATIONS RELEVANT JTEC/WTEC STUDIES (since 1989) Manufacturing Electronic Packaging* (JTEC) Polymer Composites* (JTEC) Displays (JTEC and WTEC) Construction (JTEC) CERF Task Force* (WTEC) MEMS* (JTEC) Communications & Information Computer Science (JTEC - '84 '87 '90) Satellite Communications (worldwide) Knowledge-Based Systems (JTEC) Electronic Packaging* (JTEC) MEMS* (JTEC) Optoelectronics** (JTEC) Natural Resources & Environment Polymer Composites* (JTEC) Separation (JTEC) Education & Training All Studies Listed Above Under Communications & Information Technologies Transportation Polymer Composites* (JTEC) Advanced Composites (JTEC) Space Propulsion (JTEC) National Security All of the Above Energy Supply & Demand Nuclear I&C (2 WTEC Studies + Global Summary) Polymer Composites* (JTEC) Nuclear Power (JTEC) Food & Fiber Bioprocess Engineering (JTEC) Separation (JTEC) Health Bioprocess Engineering (JTEC) Separation (JTEC) Note: * in progress; ** planned. As a glance at the titles of all the JTEC studies makes clear, JTEC's sponsoring agencies have emphasized information technologies, although much work has also been done in the areas of materials, manufacturing, and space technology. No studies have directly addressed pharmaceutical, medical, and environmental technologies, though the bioprocess engineering study (completed in 1992) and the separation technologies study (completed in 1993) do cover some relevant material. LESSONS LEARNED Perspective is one of several benefits that accrue from compiling the JTEC/WTEC studies. The studies suggest that if current trends continue, Japan and other advanced industrialized countries will present an increasing challenge to the United States in high-technology markets. This is not to say that they will dominate all high technology. But if there is a large market, many if not all of these countries will be participating in it, and will be trying to perform state-of-the-art R&D work to ensure that their products will be competitive. The emerging Eastern European economies also have the potential to present major competitive challenges, as well as cooperative opportunities, for U.S. high-technology industry. The U.S. can react to these challenges, and in fact has turned a corner in at least one area that was given up by many as a lost cause -- semiconductor manufacturing. Recent advances by U.S. industry giants such as Intel and SEMATECH (a cooperative industry research institute) have made the U.S. competitive again. The Clinton Administration is proposing similar and/or complementary initiatives in automotive technology, information infrastructure, advanced manufacturing technologies, and dual-use technologies in general (Clinton & Gore 1993). The new administration is also advocating a permanent extension of the research and experimentation tax credit as a way of stimulating private R&D investments across the board. However, one of the most fundamental lessons that we have learned in the JTEC/WTEC program is that one should be very careful in interpreting successes and failures abroad, and trying to compare them to our own experience here in the United States. Too often successes are copied by starting similar efforts only to find out that it takes more than just proclamations and/or money. Unique local conditions (culture, education, etc.) must be taken into account before a successful effort in Japan or Europe can be carried out in the United States. Certainly we can and should learn from the efforts of others, but we must understand them in their full context. Two such cases in point are Japanese consortia and the role of, or apparent lack of, basic (undirected) research in Japan. In the mid- to late-1980s, it became fashionable in the United States to create industrial consortia. A few succeeded and are still around today, but many did not live up to their expectations. There are many reasons, but one key factor is that the close government-industry relationships typical of Japanese consortia would be viewed as legally or ethically questionable in the United States. The two best known U.S. consortia -- MCC and SEMATECH -- are currently doing well, but they have abandoned many of their original goals, and have succeeded mainly by understanding how Japanese consortia really work, modifying that model to fit the U.S. situation. Gerald Hane in a recent article in Issues in Science and Technology (Hane 1993) has analyzed the workings of Japanese consortia. In simplistic terms, he states that the key to their success is coordination of research, not forced marriages between competitors. Many U.S. consortia tried to force cooperation between natural competitors, and it just did not work. Coordination of research, on the other hand, means that participants can keep their secrets, but know the general direction of their competitors. Taichi Sakaiya, formerly with MITI, expresses this more strikingly. Rather than viewing Japan as a monolithic "Japan, Inc.," a nation with a single purpose precisely executing a complex and cooperative effort, he argues that Japan is more like "a land of a thousand clocks" (Sakaiya 1993). The government makes sure everyone keeps the same time, but there is much less sharing than many in the West believe. He states that in Japan "everyone is first and foremost loyal to his organization." This has been evident in some of the JTEC studies, when we encountered openness to our visiting team, but concern about sharing findings with our hosts' Japanese competitors. Another key ingredient in Japanese consortia is the role played by the national laboratories. This is a role that U.S. national laboratories -- mostly Department of Energy laboratories -- are now aspiring to play. Unfortunately, the U.S. laboratories have evolved mostly from weapons work or basic research, and do not have any significant experience or background in understanding the commercial world. Thus they are having difficulty in acting as honest brokers between companies, a role Japanese laboratories have played well. Close relationships between government and industry can benefit R&D, but can also cause other problems. The Japanese construction industry offers a good example. JTEC sent a team to Japan in 1991 to study construction technology. The panel learned that the Japanese construction industry invests a half percent of its revenues in R&D -- nearly five times the percentage in the U.S. This investment has allowed Japan to excel in such areas as tunneling, design and construction of intelligent buildings, robotics, and other related areas. Private R&D funding has also been assisted by the Ministry of Construction, a government agency for which there is no U.S. counterpart. Recently, however, this government-industry relationship in construction has been the subject of public scrutiny, and a number of government and industrial executives have been jailed for illegal activities that stemmed from their cozy relationships. This was, in fact, one of the causes for the recent toppling of the Liberal Democratic Party after 38 years in power. Another area where Japanese industrial policy is encountering difficulties is in the development of the nuclear breeder reactor, Monju. The U.S. abandoned this technology 15 years ago because of potential economic, health, safety, and political problems. In spite of this, Japan continued to pump most of its advanced reactor R&D investments into this one area. Today, even as Monju is being prepared for startup this spring, Japan is reviewing its plans for the plutonium fuel cycle, at least in part in response to worldwide protests on Japan's plutonium fuel shipments from France, as well as the exorbitant cost of the Monju project (Washington Post 1994). The debate over industrial policy will be fueled even more by the recent controversy over the Japanese HDTV standard (MUSE). After it became known early this year that the Japanese government was considering abandoning the MUSE system in favor of the new digital standard just adopted by the United States, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications was obliged to make a public announcement pledging continued support for MUSE. This apparent turnabout in Japanese government policy was reportedly sparked by a storm of protest from major Japanese electronics companies that have collectively invested billions of their own funds in the MUSE system, and are not inclined to write that investment off as yet. But the future of the MUSE system will be pretty much determined by its lack of acceptance by the U.S. and Europe -- investment or no investment. However that question is resolved, there is no denying that the MUSE system is an excellent example of a pioneering technology that was developed by Japan completely on its own. The Japanese also have reason to feel pride in the fact that they have the world's only operational HDTV system. Japanese manufacturers are in a good position to dominate the world market for digital HDTV equipment because they currently dominate the technology and markets for more conventional equipment. The Japanese thrust to develop HDTV, beginning in the 1970s, has also had an important side-benefit: HDTV requires advanced displays. Thus the Japanese program has included a big effort to develop wall-sized flat panel displays. Though large-scale commercial production of such displays is still in the future, it is no coincidence that Japan now dominates the technology and markets for smaller flat panel displays used in portable computers. In sum, this is not to say that industrial policy is bad or good, but only that it must be balanced against many considerations; decisions should be reviewed periodically to assure that the original underpinnings and assumptions are still valid. One could also conclude, ironically, that a successful industrial policy requires the taking of risks. Hence, in order to succeed, you must be willing to fail occasionally. If this were not the case, there would be no need for government intervention to mitigate the risks private firms must take in order to invest in new technologies. "Sure fire" new technologies will get all the private investment they need -- only risky (and/or expensive) ones require the sort of nurturing that a government industrial policy can provide. Of course, this argument, when taken to the extreme, could result in government policies that distort the market by promoting only losing technologies. Japanese Strengths and Weaknesses It is very difficult to make categorical statements about a nation's strengths and weaknesses in a technology without using many caveats. Unfortunately, too many caveats make the argument less persuasive. However, without the caveats, statements can be taken out of context and wrong perceptions created. Nevertheless, it is necessary to synthesize and present data so that policy makers and the nontechnical community can easily understand the importance and the implications of the findings. Table 8 relies on an overview of the JTEC studies to summarize the Japanese position. This table makes it obvious that the single most important Japanese strength is in product development and manufacturing, not only in the area of electronic components, but also in many other areas. Another interesting observation from the table is that in many cases Japanese R&D is competitive with that in the United States. Japanese technology is weak in many basic research areas; but by launching programs such as ERATO (described below), the Japanese show that they are trying to offset this deficiency. TABLE 8 Japanese Strengths and Weaknesses TECHNOLOGY JAPANESE POSITION Strong Competitive Weak MATERIALS carbon-fiber products & R&D - pitch R&D - pan basic research thermoplastic resin R&D processes co-curing & tooling hand layup, pultrusion & rtm thermoforming, filament winding, & tow placement carbon-carbon composites R&D, manufacturing high-strength polymers R&D, products basic research polymer composite structures civil engineering applications automotive and industrial applications electronic (si & gaas) products R&D II-VI materials biopolymers all processes (but gaining) gas separations R&D and implementation hydrometallurgical separations development & implementation research ion exchange membrane processes R&D implementation extraction solvent, ion exchange, & supercritical fluid research superconductors processing R&D theory & space applications ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES microelectronics memory chips logic chips microprocessors lithography optical & x-ray displays products machine translation products R&D European languages databases image & multimedia products memory storage optical magnetic computers laptop components supercomputers, hardware workstations, PCs software factories software engineering R&D, products expert systems consumer products, integration, support structure, & national initiatives tools & applied research basic research in industry & universities national initiatives in knowledge-based systems parallel symbolic computation, very large knowledge bases, & fuzzy logic systems quality of very large knowledge bases sensors charge-coupled devices products research satellite communications advanced batteries, solid state amplifiers, & pointing and positioning systems electric propulsion & intersatellite links high data rate comm., small satellites, & on- board processing telecommunications component & fiber optics mobile networks ENERGY AND PROPULSION nuclear power instrumentation & controls construction R&D computer code nuclear control room design basic research advanced design & product implementation instrumentation & control for nuclear power reactors architecture R&D support systems standards & tools, architecture product implementation rocket propulsion liquid rockets scramjet technology, turbopumps MANUFACTURING flexible manufacturing systems products software human-machine interface (but gaining) manipulators products R&D precision engineering products R&D robotics products systems computer-integrated manufacturing R&D, products computer-assisted design applications new concepts & tools Japan has had a definite lead in manufacturing for some time. Some interesting findings have been reported by our current JTEC panel on electronic packaging, chaired by Professor Michael Kelly from Georgia Tech. Although the report is not yet available, the panel released some preliminary findings at a workshop held on January 12th of this year. Gene Meieran of Intel, one of the JTEC panelists, lists U.S. strengths as university research, information technology research, generic company research, and entrepreneurial activity and risk taking. According to Dr. Meieran, the Japanese are best at active involvement in research, manufacturing research, and coherent company and government policies. Information research is an area in which the U.S. seems to continue to lead. Japan is behind in networks, database systems, electronic mail, and system integration. The U.S. also maintains its lead in software engineering, even though this has been targeted by the Japanese for a number of years. Their effort to "leapfrog" the United States by creating software factories has just not worked. The biggest threat to U.S. software engineers and programmers is an increasing volume of software now being written in India -- often by Ph.D.-educated scientists who cannot find work in their field. They can produce software for a fraction of what it costs in the United States. Similar growth in the software business has been reported in Russia, although the language barrier could prove to be a hurdle there in the immediate future. The United States still leads in basic (or "undirected") research. This lead is often quite wide, particularly in areas that are not clearly identified as relevant to key industries. This is in part because much "basic" research in Japan is focused, ultimately tied to possible applications. One example of this is superconductivity, a basic research topic the Japanese have singled out for emphasis, and in which they have been competing successfully worldwide. Their focus is on high-temperature superconducting materials, an area with obvious applications. The Japanese government has started a number of programs to enhance basic research. One of its successes in this respect has been the ERATO program, initiated in 1981 under the sponsorship of the Science & Technology Agency (STA) through its Japan Research and Development Corporation (JRDC). ERATO is unique in its operation. All ERATO projects have a senior director (recruited from industry, national laboratories or universities) and a handful of younger researchers who work together on some specific long-range problem for five years. Considerable freedom is allowed in how funding is allocated within the individual projects. Most projects fall into two major categories -- physics/engineering and biotechnology. The nature of the work has been in almost all cases basic research not explicitly tied to any specific application. The results, however, often are applied to specific problems, instruments, and products that the ERATO office publicizes in its reports. ERATO was designed to bring industry and university scientists together. These factors have helped ERATO attract increasing funding contributions from industry. Funding is modest at about two to three million dollars per year per project. The total ERATO budget is currently about $85 million per year, allocated to 37 projects. In a departure from previous practices, ERATO recently announced a new project that will be based outside Japan. It will be headed by Yoshihisa Yamamoto from Stanford University. He will receive $17 million over five years. A spin-off ERATO program has also been announced that will fund a large scale cooperative program between researchers at Tokyo University and the University of California at Santa Barbara. JTEC studied ERATO in 1988, and a follow-up study has been proposed for this year. The focus of such a study would be not only to examine the quality of ERATO research, but also to look at its impact on career paths followed by young people engaged in the various projects. As a part of the Japanese move to improve basic research, they have also strengthened their university research and made efforts to more closely couple that research with industry. University research has traditionally played a secondary role in Japan's research enterprise. Early JTEC teams were so disappointed with what they observed that for a long while few teams even wanted to visit universities except to pay social calls. Today that is changing. Recent JTEC teams have noted that university research is improving steadily. Even more significantly, Japanese industry is starting to pay more attention to what is going on at universities. There is a significant new initiative within the Japanese government aimed at improving university infrastructure, including a 29% increase in fiscal year 1993 (ending 4/94) funding for the Ministry of Education. Much of this additional funding is reportedly targetted at buildings and equipment. Nevertheless, U.S. university research remains unquestionably superior. Despite Japan's efforts to improve university-industry coupling, it is difficult to point to any one area today where Japanese university research plays a significant role in providing results of interest to industry. There is probably more coupling between Japanese industry and American university research than there is with their own universities. Part of the problem lies in lack of real incentives for Japanese academic researchers to collaborate with industry. In some critical areas -- for example, artificial intelligence and software -- the Japanese have decided to fund basic research in the United States. Some of the work is being done at prestigious U.S. universities, and some at Japanese-owned R&D centers at U.S. locations such as Princeton, Palo Alto, and Michigan. The work there is first class, and most of the results are published in U.S. journals. To be sure, the Japanese scrutinize the results for possible applications to their product lines. With this new emphasis on basic research, particularly in the Japanese government, Japan now faces somewhat of a dilemma. It was much easier in the past for the Japanese to import and absorb foreign technology than it is now for them to forge ahead in areas in which they lead. The reasons may include the following: First, lack of a critical mass of basic researchers makes it difficult to identify new directions. One contributing factor to this is that Japan has had less success than the United States in attracting foreign scientific and technological talent. There are many foreign students in Japan, but comparatively few of them stay for any extended period beyond their education. Such imported talent has been a key contributor to U.S. successes in basic research, especially since many foreign students have chosen to settle here after their education is complete. Second, Japanese culture has for the last 120 years (not just recently as some believe) excelled at absorbing and using information from abroad. Even prior to the Meiji Restoration of the 1860s, Japan imported the best of foreign (primarily Chinese) culture and technology, adapting it as appropriate. Japan's Charter Oath, which bears a resemblance to our Declaration of Independence, says in part, "knowledge shall be sought throughout the world, and the foundations of the empire shall be strengthened." During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, foreign experts were recruited, including specialists on railways, mining engineering, communications, and medicine. In 1873 the Imperial College of Engineering in Tokyo (later Tokyo University) became the first university in the world to offer a program in electrical engineering. James Clerk Maxwell said of the work done there by the founding professors, William Ayrton and John Perry, that they had "... moved the center of gravity of electrical engineering greatly eastward." One of Ayrton's Japanese students helped to found one of the companies to form Toshiba, and another became one of the founders of NEC. Countless students were sent abroad at great expense to learn and come back and build upon what they had studied. Third, basic research requires staying power and very long term investment. Given the current economic situation in Japan and the recent closer view of the bottom line in industry, it is questionable whether the commitment can be sustained. Some reductions in R&D spending have been reported recently at Fujitsu, Hitachi, JVC, NEC, and Toshiba. Industrial funding of research at Japanese universities has also seen reductions. While the need to send students abroad has greatly diminished due to the excellent schools at home, the Japanese continue to be passionate about learning about the world's good ideas. They have no qualms about honoring foreigners who have achieved greatness. For example, last year Dr. George Heilmeir was honored for his work on liquid crystals while he was a researcher at RCA laboratories. It is a sobering fact that here was a man being honored in Japan for work that could have meant tremendous profits to RCA or other U.S. companies had they exploited this discovery themselves. Unfortunately, we just let it go. In the West, and particularly in the U.S., being associated with a technological failure is usually detrimental to one's career. In Japan, decisions are made by consensus, and risks are shared by all concerned. If a program fails to meet its technological objective, the people associated with the undertaking share the disappointment; but seldom does such a failure threaten an individual's career, because the group made the decisions. Moreover, the Japanese try to learn from failures, documenting findings just as if the results had been positive. As a result, there appears to be much less "going over the same ground" in Japan than in the United States. The ICOT program, mentioned earlier, is a good case in point. Its almost impossibly ambitious goals were not achieved, but much was learned from the attempt, and the program did raise Japan's level of competence in computer science. Parenthetically, realizing that they have gone as far as anyone in this area, the Japanese invited international participation in their next computer science effort -- the RWC Initiative (also known as the Sixth Generation Project). For policy reasons, the U.S. has declined to participate in the whole program, but has agreed to cooperate in aspects related to optoelectronics. WTEC Observations The WTEC studies covering Western Europe are still too few to make many general statements, so I will mention only a few findings, mostly dealing with the FSU. The first and probably most important conclusion is that we in the United States have taken an overly narrow view of opportunities in the FSU. "Soviet" has meant "Russia" to most of us in the West, and Russia has meant Moscow. The Soviets wanted the window to the Soviet Union to be through Moscow, and we continue to suffer from that tunnel vision. However, it is outside of Moscow in Russia, and in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic countries, that many exciting possibilities exist. To be sure, it will take more time to find them, but the rewards are worth it. The once closed cities are now open; much of the technology (applied research and advanced development) is found outside Moscow, which has been the center of basic research. For example, Kharkiv boasts the world's largest aviation complex; Dnipropetrovsk is the site of the most modern former Soviet rocket facility; and Mykolaev has the only nuclear aircraft carrier shipyard. Another observation is that, while the people in the FSU are very hospitable, they are becoming weary of the large number of delegations that are visiting with no follow up. To a far greater extent than in Japan, there is an expectation in the FSU of a quid pro quo. That is one of the reasons we have included invitations to some of our hosts to visit the U.S. and attend our workshops, affording them an opportunity to meet potential research or business partners. Their infrastructure is crumbling, and the window for collaborative work will not remain open much longer. Facilities will deteriorate, or the people will leave. Worse yet, political changes could close these sites to the West, and a new arms race could well begin. This should not come as a surprise; it has happened already twice in this century. Lastly, focusing now on Western Europe, the WTEC panels are finding a substantial body of excellent basic research in Germany, France, Switzerland and other Western European countries. There is a fair amount of willingness there to invest in research, and even to support intra-European efforts (e.g., CERN). Additionally, one finds a surprising number of U.S.-educated and experienced Europeans who have returned to their native countries after spending 20 years or more in U.S. facilities such as AT&T Bell Laboratories or IBM Watson laboratory. With the demise of the Superconducting Supercollider Project (SSC), I suspect a fair number of our best high energy physicists will be going to Europe soon. The two most recent major discoveries in high temperature superconductivity were made in Europe -- the first in Switzerland, and the most recent in France. I do not want to argue whether or not the SSC was a good investment at its inception, but I do feel that once the U.S. decided to fund such an important and long term project, terminating it in the middle of construction was unfortunate. Many first rate scientists committed their careers to it, and the U.S. government and the State of Texas had already committed and expended billions. CONCLUSION JTEC/WTEC has initiated 36 studies of foreign technology over the past 10 years (six are still in progress, and final reports are expected in 1994). This series of studies gives a fairly comprehensive picture of the status and trends, and the strengths and the weaknesses, of Japanese R&D over a wide spectrum of strategic technology areas. It is inevitable that the 22 executive summaries included in this volume will be vulnerable to misinterpretation when taken out of the context of the full reports. Nevertheless, even a brief perusal of these summaries conveys an overall impression of Japanese R&D that is scarcely subject to misinterpretation: Japan is engaged in a systematic effort to achieve parity with, or superiority over, the United States in virtually every technology that is of current or potential economic significance. The Europeans are evidently following a similar path of strategic investment in high technology. The mechanisms by which Japan and Europe have pursued this strategy, and the extent to which they are succeeding, cannot help but be of great interest to policymakers in the United States and in the rest of the world. The Japanese make no secret of their objectives or methods in pursuing their strategy; quite the contrary, they offer the rest of the world a possible blueprint for the pursuit of economic prosperity through thoughtful long-range investment in science and technology. The authors of the JTEC and WTEC reports and the other contributors to this summary report hope that readers will find this information to be a useful contribution to the debate over how valid and applicable this Japanese model of technological and economic development is to the rest of the world. Since 1992 the world has been experiencing a recession, and Japan and Europe are not immune to its effects. Industrial funding for R&D in the U.S. is down, and there is talk that Europe is following suit. Even in Japan there are signs of strain. The JTEC electronic packaging panel heard comments from some of their Japanese hosts last fall that traditional supplier relationships are being disrupted by the recession. However, there is no indication yet that there has been any wholesale cutback in Japanese R&D funding, either in the private sector or in the government. If the Japanese follow their previous strategy, they will use this time to increase R&D rather than cut it back. Time will tell, and we hope our current and future JTEC reports will provide us with more detailed information. But the recession is certainly not sufficient grounds for the United States to become complacent about the long-term economic and technological challenge posed by Japan and Europe. Too many people have contributed to the overall JTEC/WTEC effort to list here, though we are grateful for all of their work -- and particularly for the work of the panelists and chairpersons of all the study teams, without whom there would have been no JTEC program. I would also like to thank the numerous hosts in Japan, Europe, Canada, and the former Soviet Union, who have been very gracious in accepting our teams, sharing information, and making our visits very memorable. I will conclude by thanking those whose efforts have most directly led to the success of JTEC/WTEC and to the publication of this document: Paul Herer of the National Science Foundation, who manages the JTEC/WTEC program for NSF; Frank Huband, formerly in charge of JTEC at NSF and now executive director of the American Society for Engineering Education; Duane Shelton, director of the International Technology Research Institute at Loyola College; Michael DeHaemer, principal investigator for the JTEC/WTEC grants at Loyola College. Additionally, I want to give special thanks and credit to Geoff Holdridge of the JTEC/WTEC staff, who edited and produced this summary report. REFERENCES Clinton, President William J. and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. 1993. Technology for America's Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Washington, DC (USGPO1993-347-397/80412). Commission of the European Communities. 1990. EC Research Funding: A Guide for Applicants. Brussels, Belgium. Gamota, George and Wendy Frieman. 1988. Gaining Ground: Japan's Strides in Science and Technology. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. Government of Japan. 1988. Trends and Future Tasks in Industrial Technology. Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Hane, Gerald J. 1993. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 1993-94, page 56. International Technology Research Institute. 1992. JTEC/WTEC Program Summary. Baltimore, MD. NTIS PB94-107083. Japanese Technology Evaluation Center. 1991. JTEC Program Summary. Baltimore, MD, NTIS PB92-119429/XAB. Sakaiya, Taichi. 1993. Across the Board. page 48. Scientific American. January 1994, p. 144. The Washington Post. 1993. Feb. 23, 1994, p. A24, col. 1. United States Government. 1990. Emerging Technologies: A Survey of Technical and Economic Opportunities. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. United States Government. 1991a. Critical Technologies Plan. Department of Defense. Washington, D.C. United States Government. 1991b. National Critical Technologies List. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C. United States Government. 1993. Science and Engineering Indicators - 1993. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (NSB 93-1). Uyehara, Cecil. 1991. "JTEC Studies - A Common Thread," Third Japanese Science and Technology Information Conference, Nancy, France, May 15-18, 1991. KEY Some of the JTEC and WTEC panels chose to present their basic conclusions in tabular form. Table 9 explains the notations used in the tables throughout this document, except as otherwise noted. Figures use a variety of notations, which are explained under each figure. TABLE 9 Explanation of the Notation: Position of Subject Country(ies) Relative to that of the United States Absolute Position ("status") Rate of Change ("trend") ++ + 0 þ -- Far ahead Ahead Even Behind Far behind þ>> þ> = <þ <<þ Pulling away sharply Pulling away Holding position Falling behind Slipping quickly DATABASE USE AND TECHNOLOGY IN JAPAN April 1992 Gio Wiederhold, Stanford University (Panel Chair) David Beech, Oracle Corporation Charles Bourne, DIALOG Information Services Nick Farmer, Chemical Abstracts Service Sushil Jajodia, George Mason University David Kahaner, Office of Naval Research Toshi Minoura, Oregon State University Diane Smith, Xerox Advance Information Technology John Miles Smith, Digital Equipment Corporation BACKGROUND AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS This report presents the findings of a group of database experts, sponsored by JTEC, based on an intensive study trip to Japan during March 1991. Academic, industrial, and governmental sites were visited. The primary findings are that Japan is inadequately supporting its academic research establishment, that industry is making progress in key areas, and that both academic and industrial researchers are well aware of current domestic and foreign technology. Information sharing between industry and academia is effectively supported by governmental sponsorship of joint planning and review activities, and enhances technology transfer. In two key areas, multimedia and object-oriented databases, export of Japanese database products, typically integrated into larger systems, is on the horizon. Database research in industry relies heavily on publications from the U.S. and Europe for conceptual input. The researchers are well-read and often well connected with foreign academic sources; thus they provide an important path for technology transfer. Role of the Japanese Government The Japanese government, overall, seems to have less influence on research directions than is perceived by outsiders, although it does appear that the Japanese government has done more than most governments to further database use and technology. Academic researchers have considerable flexibility in choosing the directions for government-sponsored research. The level of government funding for industrial laboratories is relatively low, and does not influence market-driven priorities. However, these projects do require regular meetings of academic, government, and industrial researchers, increasing mutual awareness, understanding, and enhancing technology transfer. Driving Force: The Japanese Electronics Industry An important driving mechanism in database development is the Japanese capability in the area of developing electronic products. High-quality image acquisition, transmission, storage, display, and digitized voice data are emphasized. The panel concluded that purchasers of systems with multimedia requirements will, with Japanese image-processing hardware, acquire Japanese database software. This field is likely to grow rapidly. Computer-assisted design (CAD), computer-assisted engineering (CAE), and other application areas that are critically dependent on graphics will be the initial applications of this technology. Hardware Japanese hardware for computer systems is roughly equivalent to U.S. systems, except again in the areas of multimedia support and optical mass storage, where the Japanese have a substantial advantage. Parallel architecture and database accelerator schemes are of active interest in Japan. Hardware support for database systems is provided equally well by Japanese and foreign companies. Sony is an important supplier of workstations, but U.S. companies such as SUN Microsystems are also well represented. Japanese mainframe-based database systems are similar to their U.S. counterparts, but this market shows less growth and is less fluid. Relevant research on topics such as database accelerators is being pursued. This work can be seen as a specialization of research into parallel computation, which is pursued by computer researchers everywhere with equal intensity. The payoff is likely to come as demands on database computation increase. The Database Industry in Japan The JTEC study also surveyed the industry that maintains databases and sells information retrieved from these databases. In this area, Japanese databases provide useful service internally, but are not in a position to export their services. There is substantial use in Japan of Western databases, both via U.S. and European vendors and via Japanese resellers. Some internal developments are oriented towards providing image data as well. Providing such services on an international scale awaits high capacity communication lines and acceptance standards. In this area the relative situation seems stable. While Japan is not viewed today as a world-level player in the database area, the infrastructure is in place for Japan to make important contributions in areas where there is high growth potential and linkage with consumer hardware. Qualitative Comparisons Between the U.S. and Japan The panel has prepared a qualitative comparison of the present status and trends in database systems research in the U.S. and Japan. The subject matter covered by the panel was divided into seven subtopics: mainframes, hardware-PC, workstation- servers, storage, database content, database management systems, and new database technologies. (See Figs. 6-12). Figure 6. Mainframes Figure 7. Hardware - PC Figure 8. Workstations - Servers Figure 9. Storage Figure 10. Database Content Figure 11. DBMSs Figure 12. New DB Technologies MACHINE TRANSLATION IN JAPAN January 1992 Jaime G. Carbonell, Carnegie Mellon University (Panel Chair) Elaine Rich, MCC (Panel Cochair) David Johnson, IBM Masaru Tomita, Carnegie Mellon University Muriel Vasconcellos, Pan American Health Organization Yorick Wilks, New Mexico State University BACKGROUND The goal of the JTEC report on machine translation is to provide an overview of the state of the art of machine translation (MT) in Japan, and to compare Japanese and U.S. technology in this area. The term "machine translation" as used here includes both the science and technology required for automating the translation of text from one human language to another. SUMMARY In Japan, machine translation is viewed as an important strategic technology that is expected to play a key role in Japan's increasing participation in the world economy. As a result, several of Japan's largest industrial companies are developing MT systems, and many are already marketing their systems commercially. There is also an active MT and natural language processing (NLP) research community at some of the major universities and government/industrial consortia. The principal use for MT today is in translating technical documentation for products to be sold abroad. The volume is still relatively small but appears to be growing steadily. There is also an increasing use of MT embedded in other applications, such as database retrieval systems, electronic mail, and (in the prototype stage) speech-to-speech translation systems. Users have reported varying degrees of success with MT. While a few users have actually experienced lower productivity using MT compared to conventional approaches, productivity gains of 30 percent appear average. Higher numbers are typical for restricted domains and lower numbers for broader domains. Most uses of MT require some human pre- or post-editing to produce acceptable quality translations. SPECIFIC R&D COMPARISONS In both the U.S. and Japan, total funding for MT appears to be on a gradual but steady rise. Japanese commitment to MT is greater than that of the U.S., though the U.S. commitment is by no means insignificant. In both Japanese and U.S. markets, MT is gaining gradual acceptance (Fig. 13), with Japan having and maintaining a lead. The same situation and trends are present for the integration of MT systems into other text processing software (Fig. 14). Figure 13. Acceptance of MT Figure 14. Integration of MT Improved accuracy appears to be the single most important factor in determining how widely MT will be accepted. Japanese and U.S. efforts are expected to show steady improvement in accuracy between now and the mid- to late-1990s (Fig. 15). MT requires multiple knowledge sources, which are large and expensive to build and maintain. Consequently, they are valued resources in MT research and are even more important in successful MT system deployment. Japan is currently leading the U.S. in private knowledge sources, and this lead may be widening (Fig. 16). Figure 15. Accuracy of MT Figure 16. Private Knowledge Sources Although Japan also leads in shared knowledge bases (Fig. 17), the gap may narrow assuming continued funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other U.S. government agencies that are targeting some funds specifically at building shareable knowledge sources. The basic science and technology underlying MT is natural language processing (or computational linguistics), which is the study of computer processing of language. Traditionally the U.S. has been a bastion of scientific research in this area, but research funds in the U.S. have been decreasing. Funding in Japan and Europe has been increasing and will surpass the U.S. level, if it has not already done so. Thus, the U.S. risks being surpassed (Fig. 18) in the one area where it has traditionally led: computational linguistics, both the basic theory and computational methods. The U.S. is ahead of Japan in some areas. For example, the U.S. currently leads Japan in technological diversity, that is, the variety of approaches to MT (Fig. 19) and linguistic diversity, that is, the number of languages being developed (Fig. 20). Present trends indicate that although the U.S. will maintain its lead in technical diversity, the gap will narrow in linguistic diversity. The U.S. also maintains a lead in other related research areas. For example, the U.S. leads in speech recognition technology (Fig. 21), but both the U.S. and Japan are working on the early integration of speech technology into speech-to-speech MT. The U.S. also has a narrow lead in natural language processing technologies (Fig. 22) such as automatic extraction of knowledge from text, NLP-based human- computer interfaces, routing and classification of texts for assimilation, etc. Figure 17. Shared Knowledge Sources Figure 18.Funding for Basic Research in Natural Language Processing Figure 19. Technological Diversity Figure 20. Linguistic Diversity THE FUTURE A substantial amount of research is being conducted in Japan. Figure 23 shows that funding for MT R&D in Japan is substantially higher than in the U.S., although U.S. funding is expected to increase. New Japanese corporate funding is more focused on productivity and commercialization. Figure 24 indicates the expected increase in commercial MT in Japan in response to this trend. Figure 21. R&D in Speech Recognition and Figure 22. R&D in Other Natural Language Speech-to-Speech MT Processing Technologies Figure 23. Funding for R&D in Figure 24. Commercial Use of MT MT Technology While there are unlikely to be any major technology breakthroughs in MT during the next five years, steady progress is expected, especially in the quality of machine translations. As knowledge bases grow in quantity, quality, and comprehensiveness, the sharing of these intellectual properties will become more common. User interfaces are also improving, partially as a result of the positive feedback from the growing community of MT system users. As a result, the Japanese fully expect to see a return on the substantial investment that they have made and are continuing to make in MT. X-RAY LITHOGRAPHY IN JAPAN October 1991 James T. Clemens, AT&T (Panel Chair) Robert W. Hill, Hill Associates (Panel Cochair) Franco Cerrina, University of Wisconsin Gene E. Fuller, Texas Instruments R. Fabian Pease, Stanford University Henry I. Smith, MIT BACKGROUND The goal of the JTEC report on X-ray lithography, fully funded by the Office of Naval Research, is to provide a detailed appraisal of the technology, personnel commitments, and strategies for implementation in manufacturing of X-ray lithography in Japan. Integrated circuits (semiconductors) are the key components of modern computers, communication systems, consumer electronics, and the new generations of smart machines and instruments. Microlithography is one of the most critical elements of the semiconductor manufacturing process because it determines the minimum feature size and the functional capabilities of the semiconductor. The quality of the microlithography process is critical in determining the yield and cost of semiconductors and hence the competitiveness of the electronics industry. At present, all volume semiconductor manufacturing is done with optical UV (ultraviolet) projection lithography. X-ray lithography, however, holds the promise of providing higher yields in manufacturing semiconductors by virtue of enhanced process latitude, process robustness, and resolution. SUMMARY The major Japanese microelectronics firms have a broad, well-developed strategy for research and development of microlithography technology that includes UV, deep UV, X-ray proximity and projection, and electron-beam lithographies. They are investing in all of these alternatives. All of the manufacturers visited either had in- house X-ray programs, were members of the SORTEC X-ray consortium, or both. Their commitment to X-ray lithography was firm and appeared to be well balanced. In the U.S. there is limited interest from semiconductor manufacturers in X-ray technology, with the exception of AT&T, IBM, and Motorola. Research Funding Most funding for X-ray lithography efforts in Japan comes from individual industrial organizations. The Japanese government directly and indirectly has provided seed money to major research and development efforts. The government has funded roughly $70 million of the SORTEC development through MITI, and industry has funded $30 million. Japanese companies are making the major part of the X-ray investment in their own companies. In the U.S., there has been a significant X-ray lithography program for over ten years at IBM. Motorola has recently joined the effort. Congress has provided money to DARPA for applied research and development on X-ray lithography in all sectors of the technical and industrial community. However, the U.S. industrial community has not been independently preparing itself for insertion of X-ray lithography into manufacturing. Optical Lithography The consensus among Japanese semiconductor manufacturers was that optical lithography would continue to evolve for advanced semiconductor manufacturing until the late 1990s, and that the potential switch to X-ray lithography would probably occur when the minimum critical dimension reached 0.25 micron or less. While their first choice for 256 megabit dynamic random access memory (DRAM) was optical, they were prepared to use X-ray technology for manufacturing. Although they recognized potential of higher yield and lower manufacturing costs with X-ray, manufacturers will not change technology until absolutely necessary. This same viewpoint prevails in the United States and in Europe. Synchrotrons There were many large efforts in Japan to develop synchrotron-based lithography systems because they are bright, collimated sources. Smaller laser and gas plasma sources, while more desirable from a granularity standpoint, were not visible or discussed in detail. X-ray projection projects exist; they were mentioned at several companies but not extensively discussed. The size, cost, and configurational aspects of synchrotron-based X-ray lithography did not appear to be serious issues in Japan with the DRAM manufacturers. Their view was that if X-ray lithography were used, it would be for large-volume manufacturing, which would require multiple synchrotron facilities. Cost has been a major issue with the U.S. and European manufacturers since their volume semiconductor production has not been DRAM-based, their companies are smaller, and many are not using the leading edge of microlithography technology. The initial investment is beyond the means of most of these manufacturers; only IBM, AT&T, and Motorola have major active internal X-ray programs. Also, in the U.S. several synchrotrons originally developed for other purposes are being used in part for X-ray lithography R&D. DARPA is administering a program sponsored and financed by Congress that attempts to overcome some of these difficulties by helping to build the infrastructure necessary for X-ray lithography. DARPA is expanding that program to support other lithographic alternatives. Other Research Development of X-ray mask technology, exposure systems, and resists has been pursued vigorously in Japan, as has integration of the total system. There appeared to be a consensus that materials for X-ray masks were adequate. The Japanese were using silicon nitride membranes with tantalum absorber mask technology licensed from NTT. They were researching silicon carbide membrane and tungsten absorber materials, and planned to research diamond membranes. The major mask concern was 1X electron-beam mask patterning, specifically errors in feature placement and dimension control. There was no work on mask inspection and repair underway; the Japanese believe these tools will be available from domestic or overseas sources when required. Several inde