Kyoto and the responsibilities of scientific progress

The main hall of the Kyoto International Conference Center during

the 23rd Annual Meeting of the STS forum. Photo: GEN DE ART

For more than a millennium, Kyoto has been a place where cultural traditions have been preserved, reinterpreted and passed from one generation to the next. In October 2026, the ancient capital became a setting for a different kind of conversation: how scientific progress might reshape societies over the coming decades, and who should bear responsibility for the decisions that follow.

The 23rd Annual Meeting of the Science and Technology in Society forum (STS forum) took place at the Kyoto International Conference Center from 4 to 6 October. Under the theme “Navigating Tectonic Shifts in Science, Technology, and Society,” the meeting brought together researchers, policymakers, business leaders and other participants to examine the relationship between scientific innovation and the institutions responsible for governing its consequences.

The central question was not simply what science might make possible. It was how societies should respond when technological capabilities develop faster than the political, ethical and institutional frameworks intended to guide them.

An Ancient Capital, a Longer View

Kyoto offered more than a historic backdrop to the meeting. Its cultural landscape provided a useful perspective on the relationship between change and continuity.

The city’s temples, gardens and traditional architecture are often described in terms of preservation. Yet their continued existence also reflects centuries of adaptation, maintenance and decisions about what should be carried forward.

Scientific institutions face a related challenge. Research advances through experimentation, criticism and the revision of established knowledge. At the same time, the benefits of scientific progress depend on institutions capable of sustaining public trust, supporting long-term inquiry and responding to consequences that may not become visible for decades.

The STS forum’s emphasis on long-term perspectives invited participants to consider scientific and technological development beyond immediate commercial or political priorities. Questions about the next generation, and even the next century, become particularly significant when decisions made today may shape future societies in ways that cannot easily be reversed.

Beyond Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence remained an important subject, but the discussions extended into a wider set of concerns surrounding science and society.

Digital sovereignty, scientific trust, sustainable development and international cooperation are increasingly connected. Decisions about the governance of emerging technologies cannot be separated from questions about access to research, the concentration of technological capabilities or the capacity of public institutions to evaluate scientific evidence.

These challenges are not confined to individual countries. Scientific knowledge circulates internationally, while the regulations, funding systems and political priorities that shape its application remain largely national.

This creates a persistent tension. International collaboration is essential to scientific progress, yet geopolitical competition can restrict the exchange of knowledge and weaken the relationships on which research depends.

Science diplomacy therefore has significance beyond formal cooperation between governments. It concerns the conditions under which researchers and institutions can continue to work across borders, particularly when political relationships become more difficult.

Knowledge Across Generations

On 3 October, ahead of the annual meeting, the “Dialogue between Young Leaders and Nobel Laureates” brought distinguished scientists into conversation with emerging researchers and future leaders.

The significance of such an encounter extends beyond the opportunity to meet internationally recognised scientists. It places different generations of researchers within the same discussion about scientific responsibility.

Scientific achievement is often presented through discoveries, prizes and individual careers. Yet research also depends on the transmission of knowledge: the questions that senior scientists encourage younger colleagues to pursue, the standards of evidence they establish and the intellectual independence they help cultivate.

For the next generation, the challenge is not merely to inherit increasingly powerful technologies. It is to determine how those technologies should be developed and used.

The dialogue represented an important dimension of the wider forum: scientific progress is inseparable from the people and institutions that sustain it over time.

Nobel laureates at the Dialogue between Young Leaders and Nobel Laureates, held on 3 October. Photo: GEN DE ART

The Kyoto Vision

Alongside the STS Forum Annual Meeting, the United States hosted an event on 4 October to announce the “Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science,” a joint declaration endorsed by 17 countries, including Japan.

The declaration addressed priorities for strengthening scientific research institutions, advancing artificial intelligence in support of scientific discovery and preparing the next generation of researchers. It also considered how research is organised and funded, and how access to scientific data, computing resources and research infrastructure can support discovery.

The distinction between this US-hosted announcement and the STS forum itself is important. Although the events took place in the same period and addressed related concerns, the Kyoto Vision was a governmental initiative rather than a declaration adopted by the STS forum.

Its relevance to the broader discussions in Kyoto lies in the growing recognition that scientific advancement depends not only on individual discoveries but also on the systems that make research possible.

Funding structures, research evaluation, institutional independence and international cooperation all influence which scientific questions receive attention and which discoveries can eventually benefit society.

A group discussion session during the forum. Photo: GEN DE ART

Why Trust Science?

Scientific knowledge develops through testing, criticism and revision. These processes are among its greatest strengths, but they can also make scientific conclusions difficult to communicate in public debates that favour certainty and immediate answers.

The challenge becomes more pronounced when scientific questions intersect with political priorities, commercial interests or rapidly evolving digital technologies.

Public trust cannot be secured simply by presenting more scientific information. It also depends on transparency, institutional accountability and the ability to explain both the strengths and limitations of available evidence.

Researchers, universities, governments and businesses each have responsibilities in this process. The credibility of science depends not only on the quality of research but also on the conditions under which scientific knowledge is produced, communicated and applied.

The discussions in Kyoto highlighted the need to consider scientific trust as a continuing relationship between research institutions and the societies they serve.

The Future Is a Human Decision

The final day of the forum, 6 October, brought the meeting’s wider questions back to the relationship between scientific capability and human responsibility.

A discovery does not determine its own social consequences. Between the laboratory and everyday life lie decisions about access, responsibility, economic priorities and the distribution of benefits and risks.

These decisions are made by people and institutions, often under conditions of uncertainty.

Kyoto offered a particularly relevant perspective. Its cultural continuity has depended not on resisting change, but on deciding what deserves to be preserved and how it should be adapted to new circumstances.

The same principle applies to scientific progress. The future will be shaped not only by what humanity becomes capable of discovering, but by the choices it makes about what to develop, what to protect and what to pass on.

Reporting: Olivia Matsumoto