|
|
 |
 During the period from October 29 to 31 , 2003 , the 36th peer review was carried out at the Komae Research Laboratory and Low Dose Radiation Research Center ( Komae-shi, Tokyo ), Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry . Over the two-day period of the peer review, Dr. Michiko Abe , Honorary Scientist, National Institute of Radiological Sciences , participated as the observer from outside of NSnet. We would like to present his opinions and impressions, which we have compiled below.The purport of introducing the observer this time and the contents of the observer evaluation (perspectives) have been indicated separately. |
1. Introduction
|
For many years, I have been conducting studies at a national institute concerning radioactive substances and radiation in the environment we live in as well as the amount of radiation therefrom to which ordinary people are exposed.
From the standpoint of such a researcher, I observed objectively as a third party some aspects of the peer review process.
|
2. About the Peer Review
|
(1) Status of Review Activities (Overall Activities)
The review subject that I observed on this occasion was a research center similar to the one I worked for when I was a researcher. Although the research center has many similarities to other general institutes and organizations subjected to peer review, it has one characteristic that is significantly different from others. It is that the center has a physical research department. My standpoint as mentioned above and experience in participating in the peer review may also be different from those of other observers.
What I felt at this time as an observer is merely in regards to one single peer review activity and one single subject.
It is not necessary to mention that the review is very effective in continuing a sense of tension, inducing stimulation, identifying points to be reflected on, and so forth in carrying out business activities at the facilities. It is necessary, however, to notice that the research objective of the subject, which is a research and development institute, does not directly lead to the safety of nuclear power. Let's take a broad view of it. When the objective of this research institute and others becomes clear, the risk value in considering the connection of safety to nuclear power will be established, which will then, without doubt, greatly contribute to awareness toward the safety of nuclear power. It should be kept in mind, however, that such results will not be produced instantly.
The main tasks of such an institute will not result in success without ample financial resources, time frames, and personnel. Such consideration is essential to research into low dose radiation, in particular.
In other words, this type of institute needs to be subjected to peer review, giving priority to promoting research, while clearly differentiating it from engineering or managerial reviews. This will, in turn, contribute to nuclear safety.
I will make some comments from a rather biased viewpoint as described above.
|
(2) Participating in the Peer Review
It seems desirable to conduct peer review at intervals without disturbing research efforts. Longer intervals might relax the sense of tension. Unexpectedly, the current status seems to be favorable.
Looking at the forum for exchanging opinions between reviewers and those who are reviewed from the viewpoint of an observer, it sometimes seemed more appropriate to ask more in-depth questions. I was able to share my experience because I was given an opportunity to speak after the end of official meetings.
It seemed that appropriate consideration was given to the facilities and equipment of the Low Dose Radiation Research Center , in terms of both the effectiveness of research and safe operation. It is expected that such measures will be continued over a long period of research.
(3) Message for Peer Review Activities
| a. |
It seems that efforts are being made to realize open and straightforward opinion exchange about general matters and appropriate and in-depth discussions are being carried out. |
| b. |
It was observed that reviewers were trying to interact with the subject institute under an equal footing basis, which seemed desirable for peer review. |
| c. |
One of the original missions of peer review, that is to promote and continue a sense of tension, seems to be being carried out successfully in general. However, a sense of tension in the area of research cannot be created and maintained easily, which should be left up to scientific societies or publishing papers, rather than depending on peer review. |
| d. |
It seems that, if the system of peer review continues to work effectively, although considerably troublesome procedures are imposed on member companies, it may be useful in terms of general connections. However, different organizational structures may be desirable in producing physical research results. |
| e. |
Peer review represents a sort of qualitative guarantee in all aspects. If guarantees of individual aspects are provided in some ways within a certain quantitative range, specific problems and solutions thereof may be shared in simpler meetings. |
| f. |
The success of peer review depends on the quality of peer review. Thus, it would be a good idea to appoint excellent reviewers on a full-time basis when this project is fully functional and have them conduct reviews professionally for ten years or so. If there is any waste at present, it is expected to be reduced. |
| g. |
If parties concerned in the review become unequal or not open, the review loses its practical meaning. If this were the case, then it should be appropriate to shift to qualitative guarantee by random sampling. |
| h. |
It seems important to include among reviewers not only personnel from member research institutes, but also personnel widely from non-member companies when conducting peer review on research institutes. |
| i. |
Although an item referred to as Technology Dissemination was seen somewhere, dissemination through a database seems to be insufficient. As always said, person-to-person dissemination (transmission) should be regarded as important. |
| j. |
A point of contact between radiation-handling-nuclear facilities and local residents lies in public relations, including the implementation of monitoring outside the facilities and an insignificant impact thereof. I am commenting here because I heard an instance of implementation of this peer review, which is unsatisfactory from the above-mentioned viewpoint. If any serious attempt is made to address this problem, comprehensive discussions should be carried out with or without public relations.
For your information, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry recently started distributing nuclear related brochures to general residents in the Metropolitan area, in which no nuclear facilities are sited, and there is a tendency to expand the target population.
|
| K. |
Let's focus on safety control regarding research and development. It is meaningful to conduct research to achieve whatever the objective is. It is often difficult to ensure the safety of the implementation of research at the same time. Please forgive me for citing an out-of-date example. Madame Curie's research into radium, etc. from the 19 th to 20 th centuries undermined her health because she always gave research the highest priority. Unfortunately, it was the time in which the adverse effect of exposure to a large amount of radiation was not fully recognized. At present, radiation control is ensured under the law in compliance with ICRP recommendations and workers are protected because of over estimated dose values. It seems that the peer review checked such control aspects very well. Formal radiation control in accordance with the law is being implemented appropriately everywhere in Japan . However, it is not reasonable to assume that individuals have reached the state in which they consider their own safety. Reviewers seem to have asked in-depth questions and understood the actual status very well. I wonder, however, if they have adequately captured the level of safety consciousness of individual personnel, including researchers subjected to the review. |
|
3. Conclusion
|
Although it seems that general peer review is largely successful, it should be reconsidered from the aspect of research.
To make physical research successful requires the preparation of appropriate ideas and plans, a wide range of research areas, sufficient budgets, and timeframes. The idea of efficiency as represented by economic efficiency is the most poisonous to the forefront cutting-edge research.
I understand that peer review is to promote the mutual understanding of voluntary safety promotional activities between reviewers and organizations reviewed, obtain hints for improvements, ensure thorough safety consciousness across the entire nuclear industry, improve morality, and share nuclear safety culture. However, I hope that more efforts will be committed to promoting research and development as well as to safety issues, taking advantage of the review. It is also hoped that personal and organizational ethics will improve in all aspects.
|
4. Participation status of third-party observer (reference)
|
(1) Observer: Dr. Michiko Abe
Position:
- |
Honorary Scientist, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
Main career and posts:
| 1959- |
Graduated from Faculty of Domestic Science, Ochanomizu Women's University (majored in chromo-chemistry) |
| 1959- |
Joined National Institute of Radiological Sciences (National Institute of Radiological Sciences), Science and Technology Agency ( Engaged in research into the behavior of environmental radiation (including radioactive substances) and human dose of them) |
| 1974- |
Senior Researcher, Division of Environmental Health, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
| 1976- |
Doctor of Science . (S hort-term visiting researcher in Soviet Union under the Japan-USSR Cultural-Exchange-Project) |
| 1991- |
Head of 4th Laboratory, Division of Environmental Health, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
| 1995- |
Director of Training School Division, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
| 1996- |
Retired from National Institute of Radiological Sciences. (Continued to be a Senior Research Counselor up to 2002)
Inaugurated as a Scientific Consultant of the Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization |
| 2001- |
Retired from Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization |
| 2002 to present |
|
Honorary Scientist, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
Official Posts:
- |
Scientific Member, Environmental Monitoring Section, Surveillance Committee of Environmental Radiation in Tokai Area, Ibaraki Prefecture |
- |
Member, the Okayama Prefectural Radiation Committee |
- |
Member the Advisory Committee for Training Courses, National Institute of Radiological Sciences |
- |
Member, the Accident Survey Committee Concerning the Fire and Explosion Accident at the Tokai Establishment of the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) (1997) |
- |
Special Adviser, the Uranium Reprocessing Plant Criticality Accident Investigation Committee of the Nuclear Safety Commission (1999) |
Publications:
- |
" Environmental Radioactivity - Behavior, Biological Concentration and Radiological Assessment" (Sohuto-saiensu-sya , co-author) |
- |
"Environmental Radiation Monitoring" (Nuclear Safety Research Association (Gensiryoku Anzen Kenkyu Kyokai), co-author) |
- |
"Our Life and Radiation" ( Denryoku-Shipou-Sha , co-author) |
- |
"Energy and Me - Easy Understandable Contents and Explanation of Radiation" (Energy for the 80's) |
(2) Peer review (location)
36th peer review ( Komae-shi, Tokyo )
(3) Participation schedule
For two days, October 29 and 30 , of the review term of October 29 to 31 , 2003
|
translated by NSnet
|
|
|
