From the Periphery to the Core: Strengthening Science Leadership Emerging in South Korea 17 th Feb., 2014 Ki-Seok Kwon (Hanbat National University) Jin-Guk Kim (PaiChai University) Policy Seminar, Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute

1. Science is Different from Technology – National Science System Approach 2. Conditions of Advancing Science in History 3. A Korean Context 4. Our Research Framework: Science Leadership 5. Expected Conclusions Contents 2

 Science is a complex process of theorizing, experiment, publishing and criticism (Popper, 1972)  Scientific Paradigm (Kuhn, 1996)  CUDOS (Merton, 1973)  Personal Knowledge (Polanyi, 1974), Tacit Knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) -> learning through practice and culture Science is different from Technology! 3

 Science and technology as dancing partners: independent but closely interacting activities (Derek de Solla Price, 1965)  The dance is not pre-given, but is created in particular historical circumstances (Arie Rip, 1992) Science is different from Technology! 4

 Six Economic Benefits: Economic Benefits of Publicly-funded Basic Research 5

 NSS (National Science System) approach Science is Working in a System 6 Scientific Community ‘Institutions’ (B): Policy Policy Organisation/process Policy regime/orientation S & T Support Organisations ‘Institutions’ (A): Social, Political, & Cultural Context International knowledge

 16,7C – Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge (1662), gentlemen and patronage  18,9C – Professionalization in France  19C – Institutionalization in Germany (e.g. laboratories and seminar in universities)  20C – Departments combining teaching & research in US universities, Decentralization & Competition  20C – Sustainable science system in Japan  J. Needham : Bureaucracy based on Confucianism and failure of Scientific Revolution in China => Lessons from science history in other countries Science Capital on the Move 7

 Deduction vs. Induction, Verification vs. Falsification  Popper: suggestion of falsifiable propositions is essential for [incremental] scientific progress  Kuhn: scientific progress through paradigm shift, Normal science -> anomalies -> scientific revolution  However, only a research firmly rooted on current tradition generate a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1959)  Recent Nobel Prize awarded research are mostly based on paradigm-shift research, particularly related to instrumentation (Hong, 2013) => Lessons from philosophy of science Progress of Scientific Knowledge 8

 From Catch- up to Post Catch-up: Sustaining Technological Leadership Why science is important for Korea now? 9

 However, Science has never been an autonomous sphere in Korean History Why science is important for Korea now? 기술 / 과학 과학 시장 정부 기술 10

 Due to the policy regime of basic research, chaotic policy measures has been exerted recently.  In other words, science is managed by the government based on technology policy expecting short-term output rather than long-term scientific capacity. Science without Science Policy? 11

 Suh (2005): compressed and unequal scientification (process rather than why), dependent scientification (periphery as an error), democracy and reflexibility  Song(2011): internal (quantitative growth, focus on applied research, weak u-i-g relations, few national leaders from scientists); external (low social status, scientists as governmental agents, scientists-centered thought, weak contribution to society)  Song(2002): industrial development (policy goal), increasing input factors (policy measures), bureaucratic control (policy culture) Characteristics of Korean Science (Policy) 12

 Strengths and weakness of Korean national science system - individual level: curiosity on nature, education fever, science leadership - organizational level: accumulated know-how of equipment building, collaborative R&D efforts (e.g. TDX) - national level: recognition of the importance of basic research, national technological capability, top-down approach Possibility of ‘Korean’ Science Policy 13

 We build up Four Cases: NFRI, KASI, NIMS, KRISS  Analyzing Framework at Three Levels: National, Organizational, and Individual Levels  Building up science leadership: stage model -Defining of mainstream question -Competing in solving problems defined -Learning how to solve the problems -Understanding scientific agenda and culture Our Research Framework 14

Usefulness of Various Tools in Basic Research and R&D/Innovation Programme Evaluation 15

 Build up sustainable endogenous science growth model at organizational and national levels  Prescription to other science institutions based on our own strengths - For example, int’l cooperation, cultural change, increasing autonomy is important to catch up other global competitors. Expected Conclusions 16

 Karl Popper(1972), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, London: OUP.  Polanyi, M. (1974), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, University Of Chicago Press.  Merton, R. [1942](1973), “The normative structure of science”, the Sociology of Science, pp  Thomas S. Kuhn (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.  I. Nonaka and H.Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford Uinveristy Press. References 17

Thank you !