National Strategic Technologies Widening Their Scope Amid External Pressures [Reading Science]

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-su] "It only widened its meddling amid all sorts of external pressures." This is a criticism from some in the science and technology community regarding the 'National Strategic Technology Development Plan' officially announced by the government on the 28th.

In December last year, two new fields?next-generation nuclear technology and advanced mobility?were suddenly added to the 10 essential national strategic technologies announced by the previous administration. The aerospace sector was also expanded to include marine, thus broadening it to the aerospace and marine fields.

The designation of national strategic technologies has been discussed since 2019, triggered by Japan's export restrictions on semiconductor materials, parts, and equipment to Korea. It also reflects the increasingly intense technological hegemony competition between the U.S. and China. In an era where science and technology determine a nation's fate, the aim is to secure technological sovereignty in sectors that play a core role in the economy and security. The plan is to concentrate investment in future core technologies to widen the gap in leading fields and to establish a foothold for catching up in lagging areas.

Accordingly, selection and concentration were paramount. Given Korea's population of 50 million, limited territory, and finite resources, this was inevitable for the scale of its economy. Korea cannot imitate a country like China, which has pursued a 'space rise' over the past decade with over 300,000 personnel and a budget more than ten times that of Korea, in an imprudent manner. A strategy to excel in all fields is tantamount to saying "let's all fail together."

However, criticism has arisen that the recent national strategic technology selections only widened meddling due to political external pressures and industrial lobbying. First, next-generation nuclear technology, specifically Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), despite Korea being a leader, still shows no sign of resolving technical safety challenges. Even the sodium reactor ambitiously pursued by Bill Gates showed research results earlier this year indicating persistent explosion risks, marking a sluggish case. Although the rationale is that it serves as a means to achieve carbon neutrality, it remains uncertain that SMRs will be completed by 2050 to become an alternative energy supply. Efficiency and economic feasibility have also not been verified. Especially, no one can guarantee how the public will react to an energy strategy that plans to build hundreds of SMRs near cities across the country. Questions have been raised whether this reflects the current administration's stance, which was launched opposing the previous government's nuclear phase-out policy.

This contradicts President Yoon Suk-yeol's campaign pledge to "strictly separate politics and science." President Yoon criticized the previous government's nuclear phase-out policy as a hasty push that dragged politics into the realm of science and technology, and was the only candidate to promise political neutrality in scientific research. Yet, doubts remain whether this is being implemented.

The same applies to the sudden inclusion of advanced mobility fields such as Urban Air Mobility (UAM). UAM is already being enthusiastically pursued by large corporations like Hyundai Motor and SK Telecom. There are questions about whether it is a technology closely related to the nation's fate or technological sovereignty. The expansion into the marine sector, justified by resource development and securing, is suspected to be a matter of inter-ministerial balancing.

A science and technology official said, "Korea's administration already dominates science, and this national strategic technology designation process seems to be a typical example. It appears to actively reflect the influence of regime change, inter-ministerial division, and interest group proposals." He added, "It is economically efficient to establish long-term plans and build foundations only in truly essential fields while leaving the rest to the private sector."