Centuries of Co-evolution of Science and Western Society
It took centuries for Western societies to develop science into its current form [1–2]. The scientific method — hypothesizing, experimenting, and measuring — was refined over a long period by numerous individuals. Establishing even basic elements, such as defining a thermometer’s zero point or determining the scale of a degree, proved to be complex challenges [3].
This scientific development occurred within the context of Western societies, addressing their specific needs and accompanying societal changes (e.g., Newtonian physics and the theory of evolution). As a result, these societies have accumulated experiences of scientific benefits — ranging from conveniences and economic growth to military power — as well as its drawbacks, including laboratory accidents, unethical research practices, pseudoscience, and the premature misuse of research results (such as the indiscriminate use of X-rays for therapeutic purposes in the early 20th century). They have also had multiple opportunities to witness paradigm-shifting events brought about by figures like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein over centuries. Through these processes, societal understanding of science has gradually matured, appropriate regulations have been developed, and scientific and engineering disciplines have emerged, evolved, and diversified.
When I visited the Human Brain exhibition by the Prada Foundation in 2022, I was moved by its introduction (Link). It stated, “Historically, science and culture have been inseparable and in constant dialogue with each other. The advent of our ‘technological age’ has produced new frontiers of invention and new social, cultural, and political questions for humanity. Culture evolves with these profound shifts in scientific knowledge. And so too, our understanding of what it means to be human during increasingly uncertain times.” The fact that even a fashion foundation acknowledges such deep interactions between science, society, culture, and policy felt markedly different from Korea, and I envied it.
Science, Imported with Imperialism
In stark contrast, science arrived suddenly in Korea, alongside the booming cannons of imperialism. The impact of science and technology, clothed in social Darwinism and pushed forward with military force, was so tremendous that it led to daring experiments like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China. Unfortunately, Korea did not have the opportunity to process and experiment with this shock. Imperialism despised and exploited its colonies, and Korea’s situation as a Japanese colony was no different from that of other Western colonies. The situation was further exacerbated by the division of the country and the subsequent Korean War.
Although Korea has caught up to Western scientific achievements at a remarkable pace, science remains unfamiliar to many Koreans. It is vaguely perceived only as an absolute means for national strength and economic growth, a safeguard against repeating drastic experiences like colonization. In fact, Article 127(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly links science and technology with economic development, stating that the state must strive to develop the national economy through innovation in science and technology and the development of information and personnel. This perspective gives rise to numerous problems, which will be addressed below.
Problems Arising From Viewing Science as a Means of Economic Development
(1) Unstable and Biased R&D Investment
Paradoxically, perceiving science primarily as a tool for economic development often hinders economic advancement through scientific progress as it biases R&D investment toward research that appears to have immediate economic value. For instance, until about a decade ago, even basic science research proposals were required to discuss industrial prospects and socio-economic effects to receive governmental R&D support [4].
For instance, until about a decade ago, even basic science research proposals were required to discuss industrial prospects and socio-economic effects to receive governmental R&D support.
More about Basic Science Research Investment
The term “basic science” gained popularity in the early 2010s as frustrated researchers, facing poor support for fundamental research, raised their voices. Consequently, the budget for basic science nearly doubled during the Moon Jae-in administration (2017–2022).
Under the view of science and technology as mere tools for economic development, there is a public fear that lagging behind in scientific and technological progress could lead to economic decline and national crises akin to crises akin to past colonization. When politicians exploit this fear for political gain, it results in shortsighted R&D patterns that focus on a few famous scientists and trendy scientific topics. This pattern is pretty familiar to Korean researchers; for example, when the Go match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol significantly heightened national interest in artificial intelligence, their immediate concern was that government officials might hastily pursue R&D investments aimed at developing a ‘K-AlphaGo’ [4]. However, by the time a topic gains popularity among politicians, public officials, and the general public who lack expertise in the relevant fields, it is often too late to become a frontrunner or truly innovative. As a result, this investment approach has been criticized for preventing consistent support for essential research from the initial stages.
(2): Inadequate Sharing and Archiving of Research Outcomes
Since the goal of scientific and technological research is economic development, research outcomes are often inadequately shared with the taxpayers. For instance, in Korea, at least until 2016, publishing tax-supported research on public websites was considered a violation of copyright by politicians, some researchers and the general public [5]. This contrasts with Western countries, where there is a growing consensus that the outcomes of tax-funded research should be openly accessible. The European Union is aggressively promoting open access through Plan S, and in the United States, many papers that are not open access on journal websites can be viewed for free on PubMed Central.
Compared to CERN and NASA, which offer public guided tour programs, Korean national research institutions are more closed off. Even materials that are not directly related to industry, such as photos of native fish or equipment leftover from research processes, are not shared. This makes it challenging for private science communicators to produce quality content and educate the public to enhance their scientific literacy. In contrast, NASA freely distributes many images related to aerospace technology and donates used equipment to schools. Through such sharing of resources, NASA not only contributes to the enhancement of global scientific understanding but also achieves promotional effect.
A lack of awareness for sharing research results conducted with tax money with the public is linked with poor archiving of research related materials. For instance, parts of the Naro Space Rocket intended for exhibition were sold to a scrap dealer, necessitating a rushed repurchase [6]. Although archiving is the responsibility of the National Science Museum, it has not been effectively implemented due to budget and space constraints. This lack of preservation also hampers the evaluation of policy effectiveness.
(3) Undervaluation of Safety
As science and technology are considered crucial tools for economic development, safety has often been neglected. At least until the 1990s, Korean elementary, middle, and high school curricula hardly addressed the potential risks and ethical issues brought by scientific and technological advancements, only discussing a rosy future. Personally, the first time I encountered a domestic example of the potential dangers of misused technology was when I watched a documentary around the year 2000, which dealt with the physical deformations in genetically engineered edible fish.
Technologies that safely manage hazardous processes hold competitiveness and industrial value. However, safety is still often regarded as a cost that burdens corporate profit-making. Consequently, the lack of attention and investment in safety has led to a steady increase in economic losses due to workplace accidents (about 33 trillion KRW in 2023), surpassing the total annual R&D budget of the Ministry of Science and Technology (about 27 trillion KRW in 2024) [7].
University laboratories also struggle with safety due to costs and a shortage of expert personnel. As a result, a significant amount of labor from non-expert graduate students has been invested in ensuring lab safety [8]. To resolve these issues and ensure the independence of safety assessments, the establishment of regional safety support centers was proposed. However, at least until 2019, the lack of experts in the field of safety made implementation difficult.
There are also limitations in the content of mandatory safety training. In U.S. graduate schools, students can learn about vaccines required before conducting animal experiments, animal ethics, and how to handle animal bites. However, the mandatory training in Korea lacked such practical content and felt more related to office knowledge. Legislation aimed at creating a safe laboratory environment (‘연구실 안전환경 조성에 관한 법률’) was first enacted in 2006 and has been continually improved since then [9].
(4) Issues Related to Research Ethics
The focus on economic development has resulted in inadequate awareness and institutional mechanisms for research ethics. For instance, in the notorious early 2000s scandal involving Hwang Woo-Suk, he not only fabricated data but also coerced affiliated researchers into donating oocytes. However, the public perceived the scandal as a matter of protecting core technologies critical to the nation’s economic development and an issue of patriotism. Consequently, Hwang’s data fabrication was viewed as a foreign conspiracy to steal national technology, leading to attacks on researchers and journalists who criticized him, and even bizarre incidents where people volunteered to donate oocytes.
Contrasts in the Understanding of Research Ethics between STEM Researchers and Others
This attitude contrasts with the response of Korean researchers to paper manipulation. During the Moon Jae-in administration, established following the Candlelight Revolution, researchers felt great disappointment and betrayal when Park Ki-young, who had been involved in the Hwang Woo-Suk scandal, was appointed as the head of the Science, Technology and Innovation Office (과학기술혁신본부장). Park Ki-young was a science and technology advisor in the presidential office in 2004 and had gained fame as a policy supporter of the then nationally celebrated Hwang Woo-Suk. She had led efforts to fund his research, assisted in easing regulations on cloning experiments, and had been included as a co-author on his Science paper without contributing to the research. Due to strong opposition from the scientific community, Park resigned just four days after her appointment. Politicians were taken aback by such a vehement response from the scientific community, highlighting the discrepancy in the understanding of research ethics between STEM researchers and others.
Problems related to research ethics reemerged in the early 2010s with the Humidifier Disinfectant case, which led to thousands of deaths or severe illnesses. A few researchers who had received funding from Oxy Reckitt Benckiser contributed to producing fraudulent results claiming the harmlessness of the company’s humidifier disinfectant. It was not until after 2017 that related universities and government departments began creating conflict of interest regulations [10].
Conflict of interest issues also exist within government departments. Basic science is primarily researched in universities, but various government agencies also participate in basic science research (e.g. the National Institute of Environmental Research, the National Institute of Biological Resources, and the National Institute of Ecological Research under the Ministry of Environment). Research conducted by these agencies often aims to provide data supporting currently promoted policies, making it difficult to ensure the independence of the research and the implementation of evidence-based policy. For instance, the environmental impact assessment of the Four Major Rivers (4대강 사업) by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences was influenced by policy directions [11].
Although not related to basic science, another example is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, which suddenly halted an external evaluation of the economic costs of maintaining two railroad systems (the privately operated SRT and the state-owned KTX) [12]. (I’m curious how other developed countries address this issue for evidence-based policy.)
Efforts for Improvement
Due to the above problems, many Korean scientists believe that an amendment of Article 127, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which views science and technology as tools for economic development, is necessary. According to an online survey conducted by the Biological Research Information Center (BRIC) in October 2017, which involved 2,280 scientists, over 70% of respondents felt that this clause needed revision [13].
More about the Biological Research Information Center (BRIC)
Although many online communities for collaboration among domestic researchers were created by the government around this time, BRIC has remained the most active and enduring. BRIC played a crucial role in finding Hwang Woo-Suk's data fabrication. It has also conducted timely surveys among STEM professionals (not limited to biology), sharing issues and providing data for policy improvement whenever significant events related to science and technology occur. These surveys are timely, with questions formulated based on a deep understanding of STEM researchers and research practices, resulting in high response rates and useful outcomes. Unlike many surveys in Korea that do not share results with participants, BRIC always shares, archives, and visually presents the results, promoting discussion.
Despite repeated postponement of the constitution amendment, scientists have been persistently working to change the perception that equates science and technology with economic development [14–15]. I believe that, as has been the case so far, these efforts by scientists will continue to raise social awareness of the issues and gradually bring about improvements.
Sharing Lessons: Overcoming the Long Shadows of Imperialism Together
To recognize and improve upon the issues addressed above, we have gone through many trials and errors, consuming significant time, effort, and resources. Therefore, I believe that sharing Korea’s experience will benefit other former colonies like us.
In the following articles, I will address (1) the difficulties arising from the lack of systems and skills developed over centuries for dealing with the fields of science and technology, and (2) our efforts to address these difficulties, focusing on those since 2010. The next articles are scheduled to be uploaded on July 20th and 27th.
References
[1] 거의 모든 것의 역사. 빌 브라이슨 (2003) 까치글방(Original book title: “Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson)
[2] 통계학의 피카소는 누구일까. 데이비드 살스버그 (2011) 자유아카데미(Original book title: “The Lady Tasting Tea: How Statistics Revolutionized Science in the Twentieth Century” by David Salsburg)
[3] 온도계의 철학. 장하석 (2013) 동아시아(Original book title: “Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress” by Hasok Chang)
[4] ““300억 들여 ‘K-알파고’ 만든다는 소린 마세요” “기초과학 꾸준히 지원을”” 경향신문 2019.03.13. (Link)
[5] “‘공짜 논문’, 유명대학 교수도 그냥 당한다: [현장 리포트] 개인저자 동의 없이 무료 서비스… 사라지는 학술논문 저작권” 오마이뉴스 2015.12.14. (Link).
[6] “‘전시하려던’ 나로호 부품 고철상에…관리 기준도 없었다” KBS 2020.06.26. (Link)
[7] “산재로 인한 경제손실, 국가예산 5% 넘겼다…“5년 동안 1.5배 늘어”” 한국경제 2023.09.12. (Link)
[8] “[할일 많은 대학원생의 피땀눈물] 왜 나는 안전할 수가 없어” BRIC 2019.09.24. (Link)
[9] 법제처 국가법령정보 센터 “연구실 안전환경 조성에 관한 법률” (Link)
[10] 정세권 (2019) "과학기술 연구의 ‘이해 충돌’ 문제와 연구진실성 - 가습기 살균제 독성실험 사례를 중심으로" STEPI Fellowship (Link)
[11] “‘4대강 사업’ MB가 부처 의견 무시하고 일방적 추진···감사원, 4번째 감사결과 발표” 경향신문 2018.07.04. (Link)
[12] “[단독] “해마다 수백억 손해”…국토부 관료들 알고도 뭉갰다?” MBC 2021.06.29. (Link)
[13] "헌법 내 과학기술, 어떻게 볼 것인가? 설문조사 결과" BRIC 2017.10.26. (Link)
[14] ""과학기술 혁신은 경제발전 수단 아냐"…과학자들 헌법 개정 의견 나와" 동아사이언스 2017.11.26. (Link)
[15] "[이지 사이언스] 헌법과 과학…"'경제발전에 종속되는 과학기술' 바꾸자"" 연합뉴스 2023.07.22. (Link)
Commentaires