Japan has been losing scientific prominence, in contrast to Chinaʼs rapid rise, since the 2000s, shortly after Japan's science, technology, and innovation policy was implemented based on the five-year Science and Technology Basic Plan (Part 1, Chapter I). Particularly, declining research performance of Japanese national universities is a grave problem. However, opinions among policy makers about the cause have been divided into two opposing groups for years, and the government has been failing to take effective measures to revive university research (Part 3, Chapter II). Meanwhile, the Basic Plan has changed significantly. It was oriented to be a bottom-up plan strengthening the foundation of the research and development system in the first and second Basic Plans (1996-2005). However, the government became more conscious about innovation in the third Basic Plan (2006-10). The fourth and fifth Basic Plans (2011-20) have gained top-down characteristics. The Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation (CSTI) was empowered. The CSTI and Basic Plans have become embedded in relevant ministries and policies (Part 2). In Japan, major universities and big companies have a significant presence in university-industry collaboration. Researchers or technology licensing officers, who are conscious of both basic research and technology commercialization, play a pivotal role there. However, universities need to simplify their organizational structure and make university-industry collaboration efforts more attractive to specialists with diverse expertise and skills (Part 3, Chapter III). Regarding R&D-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises and startups, the effectiveness of the policy measures depends on the selection mechanism of the targeted companies and their characteristics, and it is necessary to learn from the precedents of policies and practices in other countries (Part 3, Chapter IV). In recent years, the CSTI has not only initiated several large science and technology programs but also administered them directly. Their management approach is different from best practices from around the world (Part 3, Chapter I). In the European Union, a series of policies, including the European Research Area, Cohesion Policy, and Regional Innovation Strategies, have been implemented since 2000 to promote the overall harmonious development of its member countries. Member countries collaborate to coordinate national research systems and achieve coherent research policies in the EU (Part 1, Chapter II). The United Kingdom, which formally left the EU in January 2020, had observed the decline of the inflow of research grants and FDI from the EU even before its exit. Concerns about the possibilities for the UK to lose its appeal to foreign researchers are also significant, and the UK needs to take measures to address the rising uncertainty now (Part 1, Chapter III). Science and technology policy in the United States has been drifting without clear leadership in the White House since the start of the Trump administration in 2017. Government agencies and programs from the Obama administration continue to run on autopilot. Meanwhile, rising tensions between the U.S. and China have reached the science domain and are impacting global scientific communications (Part 1, Chapter IV). Countries are engaged with various foresight activities to understand the social aspects of innovation and have gradually implemented regulatory systems to assess the societal implications of research activities in light of such issues as research integrity, ELSI (ethical, legal, and social implications), and biosecurity. More recently, public participation in innovation-related activities has been expanding. Citizens, as well as professionals, are engaged with research and scientific efforts; an intermediary and multilayer approach to innovation, not limited to policy or project levels, has become increasingly important (Part 1, Chapter V). 〔The table of contents and the summary in English are contained in the following document. https://doi.org/10.11501/11472878〕