[Initial Reaction] We Beat Japan? ... 'Science Powerhouse' Still Far Away

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] "So when exactly is it going to be commercialized?" "Isn't this just hype that wastes the budget?"

These are common comments attached to the dozens of daily news reports on various scientific and technological developments. Even from the perspective of writing these articles, there is curiosity. The phrase "world's first" frequently appears in press releases. There are many cases where it seems that rapid commercialization could cure diseases, dramatically improve the quality of human life, or enhance the competitiveness of our companies in the industrial field. Some announcements even fill us with national pride, making us think, "At this point, isn't Korean science and technology at the world's top level?"

However, the reality is that the practical benefits are not that significant. According to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy's "2020 Technology Transfer and Commercialization Status Survey Report," the proportion of newly developed technologies by public research institutions such as universities and public research institutes in Korea that are transferred to private companies is only 35.9%. The most important measure, "technology transfer efficiency"?the ratio of the amount recovered through technology transfer to the R&D investment?is only around 2%. For every 100 won spent, only 1 to 2 won is recovered. Although public research institutions have recently increased their R&D budgets, resulting in more scientific and technological achievements and active transfers to the private sector, the "cost-effectiveness" is still not good.

Of course, it is understandable that some feel impatient. It is naturally necessary to prevent tax money from being wasted merely to satisfy the curiosity of "eccentrics." While covering "metamaterials" recently, I honestly thought "what a waste of money" when I saw technologies related to Harry Potter's "invisibility cloak" that were loudly reported in the media but later abandoned. The government explains this by saying that public research is mainly focused on basic and fundamental technology development, and it is supporting efforts to increase the maturity level so that more technologies can be commercialized. The aim is to activate research that discovers ideas with commercial potential in laboratories and commercializes them according to market demand.

After enduring the "lost 20 years" and recently suffering from failures in COVID-19 quarantine, Japan is now being celebrated as having been surpassed. However, the reality of Korea, which lacks basic and fundamental technologies and has not produced a single Nobel laureate in science and technology, is still a "castle in the air." Although Japan is facing a rapidly declining young population due to an aging society and has had a stagnant economy for over 20 years, it can survive on the foundation of basic science and fundamental technologies built with craftsmanship. But Korea's situation is different. Industries where Korea is strong, such as semiconductors and batteries, have developed dramatically, but isn't the foundation weak?

Consider the United States, the world's leading technological powerhouse. Professor Park Hoon-chul of Konkuk University, selected as "Scientist of the Month" in August, recalls the thrill he felt when attending the unmanned aerial vehicle conference held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2002. At that time, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced it would support seemingly unrealistic and eccentric research topics, which some professors complained about. However, DARPA's response was a masterpiece: "We think that if even one out of 100 funded projects succeeds, it is enough." The room fell silent for a moment. Professor Park decided, "I will try some new research too," and focused for 15 years on insect-type flight technology, which attracted little attention from others, eventually reaching world-class levels. In this way, the U.S. has a "challenging R&D" system that encourages various research methods without penalizing failure, even allowing changes in research goals during the process, to develop disruptive innovative technologies. Ultimately, based on such science and technology, the U.S. was able to win the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It takes at least 30 years, and sometimes up to 50 years, for "science" to become technology. While minimizing waste and moral hazard, a flexible science and technology policy that actively encourages bold challenges by geniuses is necessary.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.