In this blog post, we examine the problems associated with South Korea’s science and technology research funding being dictated by trends, as well as potential solutions.

Scientific Development and Capital

During the Age of Discovery, European powers provided massive funding to explorers with the goal of enriching the nation and strengthening its military. This support enabled the discovery of new sea routes and the acquisition of colonies, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of national power. In contrast, academic fields such as child psychology received no support during the same period, resulting in limited progress in those areas.
A similar pattern emerged in the 1940s. While the U.S. and Soviet governments poured massive funds into nuclear physics research, there was virtually no support for underwater archaeology. These two examples demonstrate that the advancement of science is inextricably linked to capital. In particular, they share the commonality that for a specific academic field to receive support from capitalists or the government, it had to align with political objectives or economic interests.
This trend continues to this day. Scientific and technological research requires massive funding, and most of that funding is supplied by the government or private capital. In South Korea, in particular, there is a strong tendency for support for scientific and technological research to be dictated by prevailing trends.

South Korea’s Trend-Driven Science and Technology Support System

The South Korean government has focused its investment in science and technology research on concepts that gain prominence at specific times. For example, whenever concepts such as “new growth engines,” “creative economy,” or “Fourth Industrial Revolution” emerge, research and development funds have repeatedly been concentrated in those fields.
Let’s examine the recent trend centered on the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” This concept refers to a new era in which cutting-edge information and communication technologies—such as artificial intelligence, big data, and the Internet of Things—converge to bring innovation across all industries. As a result, the world is becoming more rapidly connected and changing more efficiently, while also having many positive impacts on daily life.
However, there are issues with the use and perception of the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” It is not universally used worldwide, and questions have been raised regarding the fact that it is overly concentrated within South Korea. According to Google search volume analysis, while the frequency of the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in English-speaking countries is low, the Korean term “4차 산업혁명” records relatively high search volumes.
Furthermore, most of the technologies referred to by this term have existed since the mid-to-late 20th century. Artificial intelligence has been actively researched since the 1980s, and the Internet of Things began to gain attention in 1999. “Big Data” is merely a recent label; the collection and analysis of vast amounts of data has long been a subject of research. Ultimately, despite the fact that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is a term with an unclear definition and ambiguous substance, the South Korean government is designing policies and allocating research funding around it.
Following trends is not always a negative thing. For example, the recent increase in mask usage and air purifier purchases due to fine dust can be considered a positive trend aimed at protecting public health. However, in the case of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” the problem lies in the fact that South Korean society is blindly following this trend despite the concept’s lack of clear substance.
This trend-driven policy implementation is having a direct impact on the field of science and technology research. It is said that at various universities in South Korea, projects containing the keyword “Fourth Industrial Revolution” are more likely to receive government research funding than those that do not. As a result, some researchers are forced to expend unnecessary administrative effort, such as forcibly changing the names of existing projects or drafting new proposals. This phenomenon invites criticism that South Korea’s science and technology funding is merely riding the wave of a passing trend.

A Support Structure Focused on Short-Term Results and the Marginalization of Core Technologies

South Korea’s science and technology research funding faces another problem: a support structure that is overly focused on short-term results. The field of science and technology research is generally divided into “fundamental technology” and “applied technology.” Fundamental technology pertains to basic sciences such as physics and chemistry and requires long-term research and sustained support. In contrast, applied technology is characterized by the ability to rapidly commercialize and bring products to market based on fundamental technology.
Some view support for fundamental technology with skepticism. They argue that investment in science and technology research is inherently aimed at generating profits, and that applied technology-centered research creates a virtuous cycle where profits lead to further investment. They view fundamental technology as a risky investment from a capital perspective because it takes a long time to generate profits and carries a higher risk of failure. Investment in fundamental technology becomes even more unappealing during times of economic instability.
In fact, in the past, South Korea achieved economic growth by developing applied technologies based on core technologies developed by advanced nations and exporting them. Against this backdrop, it was perhaps a natural outcome that investment in applied technology research, focused on short-term results, was given relative priority. However, today’s South Korea has grown into one of the world’s top 10 economic powers and has reached a point where it must move beyond the era of simply importing technology and engaging in assembly production.
It is now imperative to accumulate domestic intellectual property and secure core technologies capable of leading the world. To achieve technological independence and international competitiveness, long-term and stable research support for basic science—rather than applied technology—is absolutely essential.

The Case of Japan and the Direction South Korea Should Take

Japan is a prime example of a country that has consistently provided long-term support for basic science. The Japanese government has not demanded short-term results from university researchers but has instead maintained flexible investment tailored to the specific characteristics of each research project. The result has been a rise in the number of Nobel laureates.
For example, in 2016, Professor Emeritus Yoshinori Ohsumi of the Tokyo Institute of Technology was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work elucidating the mechanism of autophagy. For over 50 years, he quietly pursued research in a neglected field that had been out of the public spotlight, and throughout this entire process, he received consistent research support from the Japanese government.
The example of private companies is also noteworthy. In 2002, Koichi Tanaka, a company employee who did not even hold a Ph.D., won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Behind his success lay his company’s unique research policy. The company invested approximately 3 billion yen of its annual 8 billion yen R&D budget into basic science research, regardless of its commercial potential. This is a case that demonstrates just how important non-commercial basic research is.
In contrast, what about South Korea? Currently, the South Korean government and companies are providing research support from a very short-term perspective. Amid a performance-oriented social atmosphere, the field of basic science, which requires long-term support, is becoming increasingly marginalized. Companies are downsizing or closing their core technology research labs, and concerns are mounting that support for fundamental technology research is gradually diminishing even at state-funded research institutes.
In this situation, skepticism is growing regarding when South Korea will ever win a Nobel Prize in the science and technology sector. For a Nobel Prize based on scientific achievements—rather than the Peace Prize—to become a realistic goal for South Korea, a fundamental change in the current research support system is necessary.

The Direction South Korea Must Take in Science and Technology Policy

So, what direction should South Korea take? First and foremost, it must move away from a short-term, superficial research support system that merely chases trends. The vicious cycle where new terminology and policy directions emerge with every change of administration, causing research funds to be concentrated accordingly, must be broken.
Furthermore, a stable research support system for diverse core technologies must be established from a long-term perspective. This requires not only responsible judgment from policymakers but also the independence and conviction of researchers. Researchers, too, must be able to set their research directions based on their own academic visions and pursue their work consistently, rather than reacting sensitively to social trends.
Sustainable scientific and technological development is not determined solely by the scale of funding. It depends on how far-sighted we are, how well we guarantee autonomy and diversity, and how we create a research environment that transcends the logic of capital. For South Korea to leap forward as a true scientific and technological powerhouse, it is time to lay a new foundation, starting right now.