Support, but do not meddle in the sciences

If the government keeps up the principle of “support without intervention” for the science and technology field, K-science and technology will prosper.

LEE BYOUNG-HUNThe author is a professor of semiconductor engineering at Postech. When the government implements policies to support science and technology, it is easy to fall into a trap of “one size fits all.” Efficient science and technology can upgrade the economy when policy departs from uniformity.

Whenever the administration changes, “true believers” — eager to reorganize science and technology policy to keep up with new buzzwords such as the green revolution, creative economy, the fourth industrial revolution and artificial intelligence (AI) — flood the scene.

While I envy the unflinching faith that the world should be painted in one color — for instance, “Children should be taught to code” or “All students must take AI courses” — I also feel sorry for such a thinking system devoid of error verification.

In this government, the novel slogan of “breaking down the research cartel and enhancing efficiency” has emerged. Researchers are being targeted as guilty by association. The government’s blind focus on expanding global research while spending less also needs to be verified, as its logic seems to come from non-experts.

The government can provide as many funds as researchers need. The problem is the qualifications of the people who select the worthy researchers and calculate the size of their funding. If such people are not recognized for their expertise and authority, they can be called a “cartel.”

According to the common sense of the venture industry, successful investment experts and successful entrepreneurs do not coincide. Professional researchers with no experience in planning and investment too often get involved in spending budgets on science and technology, while the people versed in the work have no discretion. When a problem arises, a solution is reached through a committee’s uniform decision-making process.

When you look at the research support policies of rival countries, the gap that Korea needs to close is evident. When the EU launches a mega-project, it allows researchers to freely use research funds within its limits. The United States’ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency also gives technical experts autonomy over their budgets so that they can work for a long period of time in one field.

If that system is applied to Korea, it will be like giving the team leader of the Korea Research Foundation full discretion to use research funds and freely decide the scale of projects and support systems. If team leaders are given such authority, it will immediately create a stir. Korea does not have the same “followership” culture.

Establishing respected and trusted science leadership is not an easy task. Such science policy and project planning are only possible when people with expertise in research management and planning are trained at the same time.

The cultural policy of “supporting without intervention” established the foundation for today’s globally successful K-culture. If the government keeps up the principle of “support without intervention” for the science and technology field, K-science and technology will prosper. If unprofessional people keep opening the pot lid, the rice will be half-cooked.