*The accident should be characterized more as failure of social/ organizational systems than as failure of technological systems.
➢ Japan’s nuclear community did not develop good social-scientific understanding about nuclear power utilization.
➢ Nuclear power utilization was isolated from people and controlled primarily by technocrats.
➢ Social scientists did not pay attention, or did not give objective analyses.

*Establishing scientific basis for resilience is necessary.
➢ Right understanding about “defense in depth, ”parKcularly,about the 5th level defense, with
➢ Comprehensive understanding about “damages” of a severe accident to be imposed on various stakeholders in the society.

*Establishing a strategy for legacy materials management is necessary for redefining new motive/objective for nuclear technologies.

*Public participatory decision making process is essential for implementing resilience.
➢ Public participatory decision making process needs to be reversible and adaptive.
➢ There should be sufficient variety in options available for comparison.

*Technology plays crucial roles in public participatory decision making process by providing greater variety in options, but it must serve for public good.

*To serve for such decision-making process, multifaceted performance assessment for technological options is useful.
➢ Performance metrics should be selected, based on in-depth analysis of issues that the society faces, and the goal that the society agrees.
➢ Performance assessment should be conducted not only by experts but also by lay people.
➢ Metrics, goals, and assessment should be done iteratively.