Science seeks objective truth, but it is sometimes distorted under the influence of politics and economics. Through cases such as the Hwang Woo-suk scandal, this article explores how science is manipulated and what we stand to lose as a result.
The Hwang Woo-suk Scandal and the Political Distortion of Science
On February 12, 2004, *Science* magazine announced via an online breaking news report that Hwang Woo-suk’s research team had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells for the first time in the world. Not only did all media outlets rush to report that a path to curing incurable diseases had been opened, but they also predicted that if this became established as an industry, it would become a golden goose that would sustain Korea’s future. The government also stepped forward to actively support the research team’s activities. Consequently, the general public, though unaware of the details, harbored expectations of a rosy future, including disease cures and the development of Korea’s bio-industry. However, in 2006, Professor Hwang Woo-suk was suddenly branded as little more than a criminal, accused of fabricating research results and violating bioethics laws. Why on earth did this happen?
The achievements of science are magnificent, and the most reliable solutions will continue to come from science. Yet, as the previous case illustrates, there are clear reasons why it is difficult to readily trust and follow what scientists say. This is because the science reported to us is politically distorted. The main entities responsible for distorting science can be broadly categorized as the scientific community itself, the media, and the government.
Distortions Within the Scientific Community
Let’s take a look at the scientific community itself. While detailed peer review among scientists is accepted, criticism from outside the scientific community is not welcomed. This is because science is divided into countless fields. Experts are reluctant to challenge one another. For an expert in one field to accept criticism from another, they must conduct detailed research, which is not easy due to a lack of specialized knowledge or time. Consequently, they fear venturing into another’s area of expertise, so raising issues or expressing dissent rarely occurs.
Let’s take one example. There is a cutting-edge theory in physics called “string theory.” Ironically, the “string theory” we encounter has gone through at least two stages of mediation. This is because only a tiny fraction of scientists can understand the papers published by the leading authorities on “string theory.” In other words, science writers and the media can only grasp its true nature after secondary papers explaining the original “string theory” papers have been published. The problem is that even these secondary papers often offer differing interpretations of the exact same statements found in the original paper. This leads to situations where scientists argue among themselves over how to interpret the original paper’s claims. While this is a somewhat extreme example, such difficulties in verification are becoming increasingly severe across all fields of modern science and technology. Given this situation, some scientists and technologists even resort to intentional deception. Taking advantage of the reality that it has become difficult to verify research results within the scientific and technological community, instances of data fabrication or plagiarism from other studies are occurring frequently. The most dramatic example is the data fabrication scandal involving physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, which sent shockwaves through the scientific community in 2002.
Media Distortion
This situation occurs just as frequently in the media. As every aspect of science has become specialized, the accumulation of knowledge has become institutionalized; consequently, even the methods of accessing that knowledge have become so specialized that they require significant education. In this context, science and technology reporting demands a very high level of expertise, making it difficult for journalists—who are non-experts—to cover these topics. Therefore, rather than addressing the specific details of science or the research process, the media tends to focus on “who” discovered “what.”
Science articles are rife with phrases like “world’s first” and “first by a Korean,” as seen in headlines such as “Samsung Electronics Develops World’s First 30-Nanometer DRAM” and “Hwang Woo-suk’s Team Succeeds in World’s First ‘Commercial Cloning of a Pet Dog.’” In other words, journalists face the environmental constraint of constantly being pressed for time and needing to find new and dramatic news stories, coupled with the difficulty of evaluating complex and uncertain science. As a result, journalists uncritically rely on scientific expertise. Looking at the Hwang Woo-suk scandal, the media merely took the lead in creating a “star scientist,” without paying attention to the content of Professor Hwang’s research or its political, economic, and social implications. Despite the fact that the suspicions raised by PD Notebook were reasonable, the majority of the media did not investigate them but instead rode the wave of patriotism to attack PD Notebook.
Government Distortion
Finally, let’s examine the government, which determines science policy. It can be said that all government agencies are fundamentally driven by similar motivations. They can only benefit if they convince us that they are indispensable. In other words, politicians do not want to be criticized by the public for wasting research funds. Therefore, when the government allocates funds to competing theories, it tends to favor an “all-or-nothing” approach rather than a trial-and-error one, and it does not tolerate the adoption of alternative theories. Problems arise because scientific verification procedures are not properly carried out in this process. Historically, the driving force behind scientific progress has been competition between theories, and this is the source of development for individuals and private companies. Research in the private sector inherently adopts a trial-and-error approach. Capital is invested in a variety of ideas and approaches, and profits are made from the one that succeeds. In a competitive market system, innovative ideas emerge, and competition between theories encourages new scientific approaches. However, government funding restricts the expression of dissent for political reasons, such as concerns over approval ratings stemming from financial waste, and as a result, competition stagnates or disappears entirely.
The Fundamental Reason for Distortion
We have seen how science can easily be distorted through the scientific community itself, the media, and the government. So what is the fundamental reason that makes such distortion possible? It is precisely because what is true is highly uncertain. The future is unknown, and this uncertainty presents an opportunity for those who seek to politicize science. Therefore, we must question whether science that issues dire warnings about the future or proposes an idealized, rosy future is being distorted for political purposes.
The Problem with Political Distortion
So why is this political distortion a problem? The key point is that the politics contaminating science is not aligned with the interests or values of the majority of citizens, but rather with the interests of specific factions. In fields related to biotechnology—such as cloning, genome mapping, and stem cells, which are cutting-edge scientific areas—commercial interests, including patent rights, are intricately intertwined. Consequently, the likelihood of science being distorted is even higher. Looking at the case of Hwang Woo-suk’s research team, even excluding unofficial private-sector support amounting to tens of billions of won, the team received official funding totaling 65.8 billion won from the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Information and Communication. In other words, when funding dominates science and technology, science is likely to become a servant of politics, and this leads to the problem of scientific distortion. Let us examine one of the serious issues: the phenomenon of a kind of collusive relationship forming between corporations and scientists. Corporations sometimes position themselves as the staunchest supporters of research that aligns with their own interests. A prime example is how oil majors like Shell have consistently funded research that downplays the threat of global warming. This collusion extends not only to scientists and engineers receiving research funding from corporations but also to cases where they hold corporate stock. A scientist researching the side effects of a new drug would face a significant conflict of interest if they were to publish negative findings while risking a drop in the stock price of the company in which they hold shares. If science is swayed by political interference and commercial interests in this way, it will have a tremendous negative impact on the future of humanity.
To better understand this, let us first consider what the core values of science are and what we expect from it. Science can be defined as the knowledge derived from studying phenomena that appear to occur by chance, discovering the principles and laws that govern their existence and occurrence, and then theorizing and systematizing them. Therefore, the essence of science lies in predictability, universality, and objectivity. We expect science to improve our quality of life through extended lifespans, disease treatments, and other advancements. However, distorted scientists like to be seen as people pursuing ideals, but behind the ideals they pursue lies selfishness. By engaging in politics, they destroy objectivity, the core value of science. As they become preoccupied with securing research funding day after day to maintain their positions, the pure scientific spirit they once revered has been pushed aside. In other words, verification, debate, and discussion have been relegated to the background. Over the years, scientists have mastered the art of strengthening their own positions. This is done by issuing the aforementioned dire warnings about the future or proposing an idealized, rosy future. The media reports on this uncritically. Examples include the “global warming issue” or claims regarding Professor Hwang Woo-suk’s research, such as “In ten years, Professor Hwang’s research will sustain our nation.” Of course, it is true that the debate over global warming has become particularly heated recently. The point here is not to argue the merits of global warming. Rather, I want to emphasize that the problem lies in the fact that, in the process described above, scientific verification procedures are not properly followed, resulting in research findings that serve the interests of specific groups rather than the interests or values of the majority of the public. In other words, the problem is that these politically distorted research results blind the public’s eyes and ears.
Examples of Scientific Distortion
Let’s examine the power outage that occurred in South Korea on September 15, 2011, from this perspective. The September 15 power outage was an incident in which the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) intentionally implemented rolling blackouts across the country to prevent a larger disaster by alleviating a power shortage that had reached the brink of a blackout. The surface-level cause lies with the Korea Power Exchange, which had miscalculated power demand forecasts. In other words, when the forecasted demand exceeded the actual supply, KEPCO implemented rotating blackouts by region to prevent a nationwide blackout. To put it another way, the underlying cause can be attributed to supply failing to keep up with demand. Every summer, we frequently encounter phrases such as “the worst heatwave in years” or “deadly heatwave warnings.” According to the latest statistical data from the Korea Meteorological Administration, an analysis of the highest daily average temperatures recorded during the summer months of July and August over the past 30 years (1993–2023) revealed that 67 out of 95 regions in South Korea recorded the top three highest daily average temperatures between 2021 and 2023. In particular, 2023 was recorded as the hottest year in South Korea, with an annual average temperature of 13.7 degrees Celsius, surpassing the previous record of 13.4 degrees set in 2015. July 2023 was recorded as the hottest month in Earth’s history. In other words, as the records show, we have literally endured murderous heat over the past two years, which has caused a surge in summer electricity demand. Furthermore, the skyrocketing consumption of industrial electricity over the past decade has further increased electricity demand.
To address this situation, we have no choice but to increase supply. However, increasing supply is no easy task. When considering energy sources broadly—fossil fuels, nuclear power, and renewable energy—it is practically difficult to increase the share of fossil fuels. Since South Korea, a country that does not produce a single drop of oil, imports oil and coal from abroad, there are clear limits to how much we can import. Furthermore, since coal causes environmental pollution, we have no choice but to turn our attention toward expanding nuclear power or renewable energy. Nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than any other energy source. If the pollutants emitted when burning coal or oil are considered a common enemy of humanity, then nuclear power—which boasts thousands of times more energy than coal—can be said to produce almost no pollutants. However, as seen in the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the sheer horror of a nuclear explosion has instilled a deep-seated fear in our collective memory, and because political arguments reinforce this fear, negative perceptions of nuclear power are widespread.
To be more specific, the 1960s arrived amid accelerating industrialization and a rapid global increase in nuclear energy production, a period dominated by environmentalists, and doubts about nuclear safety spread among the public. A small number of scientists stepped forward to frighten the public and undermine trust in the new technology. The media soon began to spread fear. Looking at the U.S. example, in December 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a speech titled “Atoms for Peace,” aiming to supply abundant electricity to regions of the world suffering from power shortages through nuclear energy. However, as explained earlier, with the dangers of nuclear energy being disseminated to the general public by the anti-nuclear movement and the media, the U.S. government had no choice but to revise its energy policy. The energy policy of Democratic President Carter after 1976 can be described as the epitome of ignorance and irresponsibility. His energy policy presented a list of fuels he disliked, including nuclear energy, coal, and oil—fuels that accounted for 73% of the U.S. energy supply. In this ironic situation, the development of alternative energy became urgent. In other words, this is the direction a government sensitive to public approval ratings has no choice but to take. Of course, the development of alternative energy remains important today and is an area that requires continuous effort. It is a clear fact that natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power generation have been developed, and significant progress has been made in many areas. Nevertheless, many agree that such energy sources are simply incapable of meeting current demand. In terms of efficiency, it would take approximately 1,030 square kilometers of wind power to generate the same amount of electricity that a single nuclear power plant covering 1 square kilometer produces in 24 hours. The situation is similar for solar power; generating the same amount of electricity requires about 325 square kilometers. Consequently, achieving the vision of renewable energy requires scaling up operations rather than relying on small-scale projects. Consequently, environmentalists demand tax exemptions. Since it is more advantageous for the government to grant these tax benefits than to face accusations of destroying the environment, such incentives are typically provided.
In the current situation, it is a reality that there is almost no reporting on the improved safety of nuclear power plants following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, nor on safety-related issues highlighting the differences between South Korea’s nuclear plants and those in Fukushima.
The Dangers of One-Sided Policies
The author is not here to judge whether nuclear power plants are good or bad, or whether renewable energy is good or bad, nor to argue about what the future should look like. What we must be wary of is one-sided policy. A small number of papers or studies that contradict this are buried under the majority and do not even become a subject of debate. Naturally, the general public is unaware of the existence of such facts. As ordinary citizens with no way of discerning political interests, we end up accepting scientific facts and arguments without any verification. Considering the significant role science plays in modern society, this clearly means we are living our lives with our right to know being compromised. This is where the problem arises: the authenticity of the information we receive. We have lived our lives in complete silence regarding science. A doctor’s word was treated almost as a matter of faith, and scientists were hailed as great figures who would change the world. However, doubts have begun to surface about whether we can trust the papers or experimental results they publish, and the case of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk has sparked a rapid escalation of debate over scientific facts. When we consider the costs that are beyond imagination, we can surmise who will benefit from science and how it will be carried out. In other words, it seems extremely difficult for science to continue on an independent path. Therefore, amidst these distorted scientific phenomena, we need to reflect on what is science, what should be science, and what should not be science. Could it be that the various theories I have hitherto considered to be science were not things I actually “knew,” but rather things I merely “believed” to be science? At the same time, let us reflect on the essence that allows science to exist as science by asking what makes science truly scientific and where humanity’s science is headed today.
