As Chair of the Social Scientific Study Group on Minamata Disease, I am feeling profoundly moved by our achievement of finally submitting the Study Group's report to the National Institute for Minamata Disease.

The objective of the Study Group was narrowed down to the process as to how the cause of Minamata disease was ascertained and what steps were taken up until the government's consensus opinion was reached. The work of examining the development as to how the policy decision-making delay - as it took the government 12 years after the detection of the mysterious illness - brought on the wider spread of harrowing damage, including, most notably, another occurrence of Minamata disease that took place in Niigata, not only pressed the administration to have a serious reflection on it, but must also have struck the Study Group members, who each had been involved in the Minamata disease incident in their varying positions, as a demanding deliberation.

Some might criticize the action taken by the National Institute for Minamata Disease of approaching these challenges by setting up a study group, arguing that this is too late a move, now that more than 40 years have already passed since the official recognition of Minamata disease. However, until September 1995, when the patients' group accepted the solution to the Minamata disease problem offered by the government and the dispute raised to hold the national government accountable was then brought to settlement, there was not even the slightest expectation that a state-run research institution would gather up researchers having different standpoints to lead a debate about "lessons." While the Kansai lawsuit is still pending, with plaintiffs refusing to accept the government-offered solution, the dispute has been put to rest on the political front and there is now a growing momentum towards reconciliation on the social level as well, as is seen in the moyai-naoshi (rebonding) movement being called for in Minamata.

When I looked at the faces of the Study Group members at its first meeting, as I accepted to serve as chair, I felt apprehensive: even given the fact that the dispute has seen a political settlement, would it be possible for a group consisting of people with such differing standpoints to debate and reach a collective conclusion? This, however, gradually proved to be an unnecessary apprehension.

The administration bureau kindly sorted out the views voiced by the respective members at each meeting and also drafted texts to be used as discussion material and collected referential documents. They got down to developing material that loyally followed the views of the members and never once tried to set any boundaries to the discussion. While it appeared that it had originally been hoped that a report would be finalized in roughly one year's time, we decided to take the liberty of setting priority on carrying out a thorough debate.

Lively discussions took place, as the members spoke on the basis of their own experience from their respective standpoints, with facts that would, when written, be displeasing to some people being revealed from time to time. Harsh opinions were voiced, pointing a finger at the administration and the companies involved.

As, however, the debate was gradually boiled down further and further each time, a shared awareness was generated between members who apparently championed totally different standpoints and the task of drawing a lesson from that process proceeded steadily. In the end, the report was put together, with virtually no part remaining as a juxtaposition of opposing views or a mere transcription of individual views in the way they were given.

In my capacity of Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respect to every one of the Study Group members who participated and cooperated from a grand perspective in the proceeding of a tough debate, and express my deep gratitude to all the people at the administration bureau who worked hard, all for the purpose that this research carried: never, ever to repeat the mistake of Minamata disease.

The Scientific Study Group on Minamata Disease was established in July, 1997 as a research project of the National Institute for Minamata Disease (hereinafter referred to as "NIMD") in accordance with the spirit of the "Prime Minister's speech on the solution of the Minamata disease issue," a cabinet council decision when a political solution was brought in relation to Minamata disease in 1995.

The goal for the Study Group was set on sorting out and looking into the tragedy of Minamata disease, in particular the development that caused its damage to grow further, from a social science perspective with a focus placed on the responses taken by the respective parties involved, including public authorities, companies, research institutions and victims, and on drawing lessons that could be applied in governmental policy decision-making and corporate business efforts to fight pollution not only in Japan but also in other countries.

Having first set a limitation on the scope of time to be covered by the Study Group only to the period following the official recognition of Minamata disease in May 1956 up until the government issued its consensus view in September 1968, NIMD set out in April 1997 to select people from a range of medical doctors and researchers who had been involved with treatment and research of Minamata disease at the initial stage of its discovery, researchers who had been long studying the Minamata disease issue for many years, and researchers of contemporary environmental issues.

After 10 people kindly agreed to serve as members, the first meeting of the Study Group was held on July 5, 1997 in the city of Kumamoto, at which we decided to ask Mr. Michio Hashimoto to chair the Study Group.

The Social Science Section of NIMD's Department of International Affairs and Research took on the role of an administration bureau for the Study Group and engaged in sorting things out to pave the way for the drafting of a report under the guidance of Chair Hashimoto, who, at our request, embarked on working entirely from scratch, down from tasks such as selecting significant developments and facts and defining points for deliberations.

Each time, the administration bureau developed a rough draft made up of a compilation of views given by members, which it then had the Study Group flesh out with more depth. As the number of topics to be examined increased progressively, the Group would meet over two days to engage in study and discussion, starting with its fifth meeting (May 8 and 9, 1998).

Then, for the Group's sixth meeting (July 19 and 20, 1998), the bureau began drawing specific lessons and going over them time and again in their entire text, which eventually amounted to more than 100 pages long, down to the meticulous wording details, with new facts and observations added to it from time to time, until it finally brought the report to completion.

While we strove to ensure the accuracy of factual progress and assessments by checking documents and testimonies that remained, the report may in all likelihood still contain wrong interpretations or miss significant facts. What is written in this report is, therefore, by no means an ultimate conclusion and it is our expectation to see criticism come from a good number of readers.

Last but not least, we would like to pay our profound respect to Chair Hashimoto, and to every one of the members, who did not hesitate to devote, in spite of their busy schedule, so much of their time and efforts over a long period of time to participate in the Study Group's discussion and the drafting of the report.

Now that 40 years have passed since the appearance of the Minamata disease issue, which arguably marked the rise of industrial pollution, an agreement has just been reached between parties involved, bringing its settlement to fruition, thanks to the hard work of a large number of people.

Aside from the issue of compensation for certified Minamata disease patients, which had already been settled by legislative means providing compensation and other remedies regarding pollution-caused health damage, redress for people not eligible for patient certification remained an unsettled matter in relation to the Minamata disease issue to this day.

I have made wholehearted efforts so as to provide an early solution of this matter, working in close coordination with the ruling party and local municipalities as well. I would like to express my respect from the bottom of my heart for those people who have exerted themselves all the while, notably those from various organizations who have decided to make an anguished decision, despite the weighty past they have behind them.

With a settlement now reached, I extend my profound condolences to the people who passed away in agony and bitter grief. When I think about incurable emotions and feelings of many people who have been forced for so many years to suffer distress beyond description, I am filled with a sentiment of genuine remorse.

The Minamata disease issue not only brought about serious health damage but also impacted the local community in an extensive and ruinous fashion, breaking the bonds between people living there, among other things.

It is my earnest hope that this settlement will lay the first stone for the building of a community for the people in the regions affected by Minamata disease, where they could soon, as soon as practically possible, join hands together and live a life with a content mind.

Looking back at the developments since the occurrence of the Minamata disease issue up to where we are today, I believe that we, the government, have made every possible effort that could have been made at each given time. Nevertheless, I also deem that we must frankly reflect on the fact that it took such a long time in the end until we determined the cause of Minamata disease and took appropriate steps in relation to the companies involved, with the second case of Minamata disease that took place in Niigata considered as well. I am also feeling a refreshed determination that catastrophic pollution like this should never, ever be repeated again.

Now that the dispute has been settled, the government is committed to putting various measures into practice, including comprehensive healthcare projects, support to Chisso and community revival and revitalization, to name a few, working hand in hand with the local governments. We are also eager to humbly learn from the tragedy of Minamata disease, considering it as a lesson, to accelerate the implementation of Japan's environmental policies and, further, to make international contributions by harnessing our experience and techniques to proactively give assistance to countries worldwide.