No ELSI, no data business?! What is this trending ELSI?

Kishimoto: However, thanks to this ELSI boom, both business and academia are finally starting to ask: What exactly is "E" in Japan? Simply put, it's about finding a "Japanese approach." The business opportunity might lie in something distinctly Japanese – neither European nor American. For example, while information banks are often called a uniquely Japanese approach, their theoretical foundation isn't necessarily well-established.

Shu: So, rather than viewing Japan's "E" as inferior or underdeveloped compared to the Western "E" and using that as a model, if we can properly express a uniquely Japanese "E," that could open up new possibilities, right?

Kishimoto: Exactly. Continuing on the topic of "E," there's currently a scramble for "E" happening globally. You could even call it a battle of imposition. America, Europe, and China are each asserting that their own "E" is the global standard. Considering this, it's fair to say "E" is at the core of every issue, from politics and economics to environmental conservation.

ELSI is a double-edged sword for academia

Shu: How do researchers view the reason industry is starting to focus on ELSI?

Kishimoto: To give a clear example, recently companies have been appealing to the government, saying, "Make regulations for us!" From the government's perspective, this is quite surprising. After all, the conventional wisdom in lobbying has always been "Remove regulations" or "Ease regulations."

Shu: That's an interesting development.

Kishimoto: In the last century, when new technologies emerged, the implicit default was that they were "safe." In other words, they were considered safe unless evidence proved them dangerous. However, in recent years, the default has shifted to "dangerous."

In other words, unless evidence of safety can be demonstrated, it's deemed dangerous, and society won't accept that product or technology. All new technologies start without a track record of safe use. So they can't demonstrate it through experience. Consequently, companies started wanting the government to create regulations, seeking that "stamp of approval" that says they're safe because they comply. But as the pace of technological development accelerates, legal regulations can't keep up. That's the tricky situation we're starting to see.

Shu: I see. So that's why companies start looking to academia.

Kishimoto: Exactly. Ideally, they should develop their own logic to demonstrate safety and present it to the world, but they lack that know-how. So, they collaborate with academia. First, they assess from an E (Ethics) perspective, consider S (Society), and ultimately tie it into L (Law) proposals. This approach might become mainstream going forward. However, there could be problems there too.

Shu: Meaning...?

Kishimoto: The biggest problem is likely the issue of "conflict of interest." What companies expect from academia is essentially the same as what they expect from government: an "official stamp of approval." However, if researchers only provide this "stamp of approval," they abandon their independence as researchers—that is, the critical spirit toward the real world they should inherently possess. In other words, ELSI is a double-edged sword for academia.

Shu: If handled poorly, it could lead to so-called "ethics washing" (criticism that companies are merely going through the motions of ELSI compliance to justify themselves), right?

Kishimoto: That's why we establish "third-party committees," but there's no single right answer for how much authority to grant them. The real challenge lies in how to build the "framework" that effectively drives the "E" (ethics) forward.

Shu: Transparency and accountability are crucial, of course. But in business, where competitive forces operate, you can't disclose everything. What's needed is a space and atmosphere where researchers and companies can speak openly, without hiding things from each other.

Kishimoto: That's what led to the launch of the "Data Business ELSI Research Group" in September two years ago. The activities and outcomes of this group, to which Zhu-san also contributed greatly, were summarized and presented at a symposium held late last year, which drew considerable interest.
 
We adopted the provocative theme "No ELSI, No Data Business," and it was particularly striking how many data business operators expressed a desire to consult with the study group about their future ELSI approaches.

Zhu: Against the backdrop of current trends, we sensed growing attention toward ELSI initiatives through industry-academia collaboration as a solution to the vague anxieties people were feeling.

What is proactive ELSI?

Shu: Listening to Professor Kishimoto's remarks so far, it seems he is exploring not a defensive approach like "risk hedging" or "risk management," but rather a proactive ELSI strategy.

Kishimoto: Exactly. For instance, isn't there a preconception that ethicists are "people only interested in abstract concepts"? Yet, when you actually meet and talk with them, they show tremendous interest in cutting-edge technologies developed by companies. Not leveraging that interest, those ideas, and analytical skills for business seems like a huge waste. It's true that objective data is lacking when it comes to building a uniquely Japanese "E." Given that, I believe bringing in professionals who previously seemed unrelated to business is an effective approach.

Shu: Even if we can't immediately present data, it's crucial to "articulate" new technologies and new concepts, isn't it? At the ELSI Research Group, I felt that creating connections between talented young researchers with such practical interests and the frontlines of data business was a mutual need for both sides.

Kishimoto: In creating a Japanese-style "E," I believe it's crucial for business to deeply understand "how people think?" and "what underpins those thoughts?" It's about knowing not just superficial "trends," but the underlying factors driving them, then articulating or quantifying them. That's what I mean by "proactive ELSI."