Sixth Award of JSPS Prize

Report and Remarks by Dr. Leo Esaki at JSPS Prize Award Ceremony

As chair of the JSPS Prize Selection Committee, I wish to describe the selection process for the sixth annual JSPS Prize and to offer some words of encouragement to the young recipients.

In April 2009, a request for referrals was sent out to universities, research institutes and related academic societies. Altogether 364 individuals were nominated to the Selection Committee. For a period of approximately five months from June 2009, the Research Center for Science Systems, established within the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, carried out the preliminary screening, based on the results of which the 12-member Selection Committee chose the recipients for the sixth JSPS Prize.

Meeting on 25 November, the Committee selected you, the 25 gifted young researchers gathered here, as the 2009 JSPS Prize recipients. In coming up with today’s result, the members of the Committee did all within the limits of our knowledge and wisdom to evaluate fairly the research accomplishments and future prospects of each person within the very rich field of nominees. On your selection for this prestigious award, I wish to extend both you and the colleagues who support your work a most hearty congratulations. Unmistakably, each of you is an exceptionally talented researcher. I look forward to this Prize giving you added impetus in advancing your research initiatives.

Looking back at the screening process, due to limits in the members’ ability to make perfect choices, there is a possibility, however remote, that we could have errored in our selection of some of you. If this should be case with any of you, I hope you will use your receipt of this Prize as a stepping stone to making, through valiant effort, wonderful achievements in the future—achievements that will correct our mistake.

Speaking of evaluations, in November Japan’s S&T community received a stringent assessment in the budget screening/streamlining sessions of the “Government Revitalization Unit.” Some of you may have incurred a negative impact from this process. For researchers to have their budgets cut is a serious problem, one over which a howl of indignation is only natural. Nonetheless, Japan’s science and technology could benefit from more open, public assessment: In that context, I believe the current government “screening” process may be a good start in a positive direction.

Progress driven by an ongoing process of doing and receiving evaluation is an essential characteristic of a competition-enriched democratic society. However, the extremely rapid pace at which the Revitalization Unit is carrying out its task diminishes the quality of its evaluation results. For an evaluation process to be effective, candor and open-mindedness are essential. The Japanese, however, show a strong inclination toward conducting evaluations based on preconceived notions. If the quality of Japan’s science and technology is to be enhanced, we will first need to improve our evaluation skills and techniques.

Please indulge me a moment to speak about myself. What gave birth to the “Esaki tunnel diode” was the support I received from the Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation, now the Sony Corporation, and a high appraisal given the diode by members of Bell Labs which had developed the transistor. A paper I had written on the discovery of the Esaki diode was carried in the Physical Review of the American Physical Society, through which it was disseminated worldwide, ultimately, finding its way to Stockholm.

By the way, I was born in 1925, a good 40 or 50 years before you, the Prize recipients. Nevertheless, a research report I penned will very soon be published in the correspondence column of Nature. Retrogressing 50 years, it was in February 1960 that I went to America, having transferred to the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center on the outskirts of New York. The several dozen Esaki diodes I brought with me would become the material for that Nature article on what had happened to those diodes—what forms of longevity they took—over these 50 years.

Well, it is only natural for you young scientists to devote your thoughts to today’s and tomorrow’s research; but when you hit a dead end or get bogged down in your work, pondering what your research will be like in 50 years might offer you some mental diversion and a fresh restart. With that suggestion, I conclude by praying for your utmost happiness and success.