In this blog post, we examine the phenomenon of South Korea’s science and technology research funding being concentrated on specific trends and policy directions, and explore why a research funding system with a long-term perspective is necessary.

Scientific Progress and Capital

During the Age of Discovery, the major European powers provided massive funding to explorers with the goal of enriching their nations and strengthening their military. This support enabled the opening 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 virtually no systematic support during the same period, resulting in relatively slow progress in those areas.
Similar examples can be found in the mid-20th century. Amid the Cold War rivalry, the United States and the Soviet Union poured massive funds into nuclear physics research, while fields such as underwater archaeology received relatively little support. These examples demonstrate that the advancement of science is closely tied to capital. In particular, a common pattern emerges: for a specific academic field to receive support from the government or private capital, it often had to be linked to political objectives or economic interests.
This trend continues today. Scientific and technological research requires massive funding, most of which is provided by the government or private capital. In South Korea, in particular, support for scientific and technological research tends to be heavily influenced by social concerns or policy trends.

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

The South Korean government has focused its investment in science and technology research on policy concepts or industrial strategies that come to the fore at specific times. Representative examples include new growth engines, green growth, the creative economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence (AI). This pattern—where research and development funds are concentrated in related fields whenever a new national strategy is proposed—has repeated itself.
A prime example is the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” This concept was used to describe the phenomenon of innovation occurring across industry and society as a whole through the convergence of various digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data, the Internet of Things, robotics, and cloud computing. These technologies are indeed transforming industrial structures and having a significant impact on daily life.
However, there are diverse views within academia and industry regarding the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” itself. While it is sometimes used overseas to describe specific technological innovations, the extent to which it is utilized as a core slogan for national policy varies greatly from country to country. In fact, terms such as “AI Transformation,” “Digital Transformation,” and “Industrial Digitalization” have recently become more widely used than “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
Furthermore, many of the technologies grouped under this term have been under research for decades. Academic research on artificial intelligence began in the 1950s, and the current boom in generative AI is also the result of long-term research. The Internet of Things (IoT) has also been the subject of serious discussion since the late 1990s, and “big data” is a concept that emerged during the development of large-scale data analysis technologies. In other words, the emergence of a new term does not mean that the technology itself was suddenly created.
The problem lies not with the terms themselves but with the way research is funded. If a pattern repeats where research funding is concentrated whenever a specific concept is emphasized in policy, while support for fields that fall outside the scope of policy interest is relatively reduced, the balance of the research ecosystem could be disrupted.
Of course, following trends is not always a negative thing. For example, as the issue of fine dust gained prominence as a social concern, research on air quality improvement technologies flourished, which had a positive impact on public health. The recent expansion of investment in the field of artificial intelligence is also highly significant in terms of securing national competitiveness. However, we must be wary of the phenomenon where excessive emphasis on a specific concept leads to the marginalization of other research fields.
Such trend-driven policy implementation also has a direct impact on the science and technology research community. In fact, it is not uncommon for researchers to believe that including keywords related to the government’s priority policies in their research proposals increases their chances of being selected. As a result, some researchers spend more time adjusting their language and renaming their projects to align with policy trends than on the substantive content of their research. This is criticized as a problem because it encourages a superficial response rather than a qualitative improvement in research.

A Support Structure Focused on Short-Term Results and the Marginalization of Fundamental Technology

South Korea’s science and technology research support system faces another problem: a support structure that is overly focused on short-term results. Science and technology research can generally be divided into basic research and applied research. Basic research, which explores natural phenomena and principles, requires long-term investment and sustained support. In contrast, applied research aims to develop and commercialize technologies by utilizing existing knowledge.
Some view large-scale investment in basic research with skepticism. This is because R&D investment is often made with the expectation of economic returns, and it is believed that applied technology-centered research creates a virtuous cycle by generating profits that in turn attract further investment. Since basic research takes a long time to yield results and its success is uncertain, it is perceived as a relatively risky investment from a capital perspective. This tendency becomes even more pronounced during difficult economic times.
In fact, South Korea has long achieved economic growth by developing applied technologies based on core technologies developed by advanced nations and then industrializing them. Against this backdrop, it is, to a certain extent, a natural outcome that R&D investment focused on applied technologies has been prioritized.
However, South Korea has now grown into a world-class industrial nation and has entered a stage where it is difficult to secure sustained competitiveness through mere technology adoption and improvement alone. In core sectors of future industries—such as semiconductors, biotechnology, aerospace, quantum technology, and artificial intelligence—securing independent core technologies is crucial to a nation’s competitiveness.
We are now in an era where we must accumulate our own intellectual property and secure core technologies capable of leading the world. To achieve technological independence and strengthen international competitiveness, long-term and stable research support is essential not only for applied technologies but also for basic science and core technologies.

The Case of Japan and the Direction South Korea Should Take

Japan is regarded as one of the leading countries that has consistently provided long-term support for basic science. The Japanese government has established a long-term support system for universities and research institutions and has made efforts to avoid evaluating research solely based on short-term results. As a result, Japan has produced numerous Nobel laureates in various scientific fields.
A prime example is Yoshinori Ohsumi, who won the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He was recognized for his work in elucidating the mechanism of autophagy in cells. He achieved this world-class accomplishment after decades of persistent research in a field that had previously received relatively little attention.
Another example is Koichi Tanaka, who won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. At the time, he was conducting his research as a corporate researcher, and the company’s continued investment in basic research—even when it was not directly linked to short-term profitability—led to world-class achievements.
Of course, Japan, too, has recently been facing challenges such as intensifying competition for research funding and changes in the research environment. Nevertheless, the fact that long-term support for basic research can yield significant scientific achievements remains highly significant.
In contrast, South Korea continues to face criticism that its research support system remains heavily focused on short-term results. Within a performance-driven evaluation culture, basic science—which requires long-term investment—is often placed at a relative disadvantage. Some companies are downsizing their long-term research organizations, and researchers continue to raise concerns about the difficulties of conducting stable, long-term research.
In this situation, strengthening South Korea’s long-term competitiveness in science and technology requires a perspective that goes beyond simple performance metrics. To achieve world-class results in the field of science, decades of consistent research and support are essential.

The Direction South Korea Should Take in Science and Technology Policy

So, what direction should South Korea take?
First, there is a need to improve the short-term, superficial research support system that merely chases trends. The phenomenon where new policy buzzwords emerge with every change in administration—leading to a sudden shift of research funds toward specific fields—can undermine the stability of the research ecosystem.
Furthermore, from a long-term perspective, a stable research support system must be established for various core technologies and basic science fields. To achieve this, not only must policymakers exercise responsible judgment, but the independence and autonomy of researchers must also be guaranteed. Researchers, too, must be able to conduct sustained research based on their own academic vision and research philosophy, rather than simply jumping on short-term trends.
Sustainable science and technology development is not determined solely by the scale of investment. A nation’s competitiveness in science and technology is determined by how far-sighted its research support is, how much autonomy it guarantees across diverse research fields, and how stable a research environment it fosters.
For South Korea to emerge as a true powerhouse in science and technology, it must move beyond a research support structure biased toward short-term results and trends and instead establish a system that fosters basic science and core technologies from a long-term perspective. That will be the most important investment in science and technology for future generations.