Science pursues objective truth, yet it is sometimes distorted under the influence of politics and economics. Through cases including the Hwang Woo-suk scandal, we explore how science is manipulated and what we consequently lose.
The Hwang Woo-suk Scandal and the Political Distortion of Science
On February 12, 2004, Science magazine announced via an online breaking news report that Hwang Woo-suk’s research team had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells for the first time in the world. Not only did all media outlets report that a path to treating incurable diseases had opened, but they also predicted that if this became an established industry, it would become a golden goose that would feed the future of Korea. The government also pledged strong support for the team’s research activities. Consequently, the general public, even without detailed knowledge, harbored rosy expectations for a future of disease cures and the advancement of Korea’s bio-industry. Yet, by 2006, Professor Hwang Woo-suk found himself branded almost as a criminal overnight, accused of fabricating research results and violating bioethics laws. Why did this happen?
The achievements of science are monumental, and the most reliable solutions will continue to emerge through science. Yet, as seen in the previous case, there are clear reasons why it’s difficult to readily trust and follow what scientists say. This is because the science reported to us is politically distorted. The main entities distorting science can be broadly categorized as the scientific community itself, the media, and the government.
Distortion by the Scientific Community
Let’s examine the scientific community itself. While detailed peer review among scientists is accepted, criticism from outside the scientific community is not welcomed. This stems from science being divided into numerous specialized fields. Experts are reluctant to challenge each other. For an expert in one field to accept criticism from another, they must conduct detailed research. This is difficult due to lack of specialized knowledge, lack of time, and other reasons. Therefore, they fear intervening in another’s specialized field, making it rare for them to raise issues or express dissent.
Let’s take one example. There is a cutting-edge theory in physics called ‘string theory’. Ironically, the ‘superstring theory’ we encounter has undergone at least two intermediary stages. This is because only a tiny fraction of scientists can understand the papers published by the foremost authorities on ‘superstring theory’. In other words, science writers and the media can only grasp its substance after secondary papers explaining the original ‘superstring theory’ paper emerge. The problem is that even secondary papers often offer differing interpretations of the exact same statements in the original paper. This leads to situations where scientists themselves argue over how to interpret the original paper’s statements. While this example is somewhat extreme, such difficulties in verification are intensifying across all fields of modern science and technology. Given this situation, some scientists and technologists resort to deliberate deception. Taking advantage of the reality that verification of research results within the scientific and technological community has become difficult, manipulating results or plagiarizing other studies frequently occurs. The most dramatic case is the paper fabrication scandal by physicist Jan Hendrik Schön in 2002, which sent shockwaves through the scientific community.
Media Distortion
This situation similarly occurs when it moves to the media. As all processes in science have become specialized, knowledge accumulation has been institutionalized. Consequently, even the methods of accessing knowledge have become highly specialized, requiring significant education. In this context, science and technology reporting demands extremely high expertise. It is not easy for journalists, who are non-specialists, to report on science and technology. Therefore, the media tends to focus on ‘who’ discovered ‘what’ rather than delving into the specific content or research process of science. Science articles frequently use phrases like “world’s first” or “first Korean to achieve,” as seen in headlines such as “Samsung Electronics Develops World’s First 30-Nanometer DRAM” or “Hwang Woo-suk Team Succeeds in World’s First ‘Commercial Cloning of a Pet Dog.’” Journalists face the environmental constraint of constantly being pressed for time to find new and dramatic stories, coupled with the difficulty of evaluating complex and uncertain science. Consequently, journalists uncritically rely on scientific expertise. The Hwang Woo-suk scandal reveals that the media led the charge in creating star scientists, paying little attention to the actual content of Professor Hwang’s research or its political, economic, and social implications. Despite the reasonable suspicions raised by PD Notebook, most media outlets did not investigate them. Instead, riding a wave of patriotism, they were busy attacking PD Notebook.
Government Distortion
Finally, let’s examine the government, which determines science policy. All government agencies can be said to be fundamentally motivated by similar incentives. They benefit by convincing us they are indispensable. In other words, politicians do not want research funds to be wasted and face public criticism. Therefore, when the government allocates funds for competing theories, it tends to favor an all-or-nothing approach rather than trial and error, and it does not tolerate the adoption of alternative theories. Problems arise because the scientific verification process is not properly carried out in this process. Historically, the driving force behind scientific progress has been competition between theories, and it is the source of development for individuals and private companies. Private sector research inherently embraces trial and error. Capital is invested in diverse ideas and approaches, with profits generated from the one that succeeds. In a competitive market system, innovative ideas emerge, and competition between theories encourages new scientific approaches. However, government funding constrains dissent for political reasons, such as concerns over approval ratings stemming from fiscal waste. Consequently, competition stagnates or vanishes entirely.
The Fundamental Reason for Distortion
We have seen how science can be easily distorted by the scientific community itself, the media, and governments. So, what is the fundamental reason this distortion becomes possible? It is precisely because what is true is highly uncertain. The future is unknowable, and this uncertainty presents an opportunity for those seeking to politicize science. Therefore, we must question whether science presenting dire warnings about the future or proposing idealistic, rosy futures might be distorted for political purposes.
The Problem with Political Distortion
So why is this political distortion problematic? Crucially, the politics contaminating science are not those aligned with the interests or values of the majority of citizens, but rather politics tied to the interests of specific power groups. In fields related to biotechnology—such as cloning, genome mapping, and stem cells—commercial interests like patent rights are sensitively intertwined. This makes the potential for scientific distortion even higher. Examining the case of Hwang Woo-suk’s research team, even excluding hundreds of billions of won in unofficial private sector funding, the team officially received 65.8 billion won in support from the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Information and Communication. In other words, when funding dominates science and technology, science becomes more likely to become a servant of politics, and this causes the problem of science being distorted. Let’s look at one serious problem: the phenomenon of a kind of collusive relationship forming between corporations and scientists. Companies often position themselves as the most steadfast sponsors of research that aligns with their interests. A prime example is how oil majors like Shell have persistently funded research downplaying the threat of global warming. This collusion extends beyond scientists receiving research funding from corporations; it also includes scientists holding corporate stock. A scientist researching the side effects of a new drug would face a significant conflict of interest if they were to publish negative findings, knowing it could cause the stock price of the company they own shares in to fall. If science becomes swayed by political interference and commercial interests in this manner, it will have an enormous negative impact on humanity’s future.
To better understand this, let’s first consider what the core values of science are and what we expect from it. Science can be defined as the study of phenomena that appear to occur by chance, discovering the principles and laws that underpin their existence and occurrence, then theorizing and systematizing this knowledge. Therefore, the core of science lies in predictability, universality, and objectivity. We expect science to improve our quality of life through extended lifespans, disease cures, and more. However, distorted scientists like to be seen as idealistic pursuers, yet behind their ideals lurks self-interest. By pursuing politics, they destroy objectivity, the core value of science. Obsessed with securing research funding day after day just to keep their positions, the pure scientific spirit they once revered has been pushed aside. In other words, verification, debate, and discussion have been relegated to the background. Over the years, scientists have mastered methods to strengthen their positions. This involves either issuing terrifying warnings about the future or proposing idealistic, rosy futures. The media reports these uncritically. Examples include coverage of ‘global warming issues’ or claims like ‘Professor Hwang Woo-suk’s research will sustain our nation in ten years’. Of course, it’s true that the debate surrounding global warming has become fiercely polarized recently. The point here isn’t to argue the merits of global warming itself. The problem lies in the fact that the scientific verification process is often bypassed in this process, leading to research outcomes that serve the interests of specific groups rather than the broader public’s interests or values. In other words, the issue is that these politically distorted research results cloud the public’s vision and hearing.
An Example of Scientific Distortion
Let’s examine the phenomenon of the blackout that occurred in Korea on September 15, 2011, from this perspective. The 9.15 blackout was an incident where Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) intentionally implemented rolling blackouts across various regions to prevent a larger accident, as the power shortage situation had reached the brink of a blackout. The surface cause lies with the Korea Power Exchange, which miscalculated power demand forecasts. Specifically, when forecasted demand was projected to exceed actual supply capacity, KEPCO implemented regional rolling blackouts to prevent a nationwide blackout. In other words, the underlying cause was that supply failed to keep pace with demand. Every summer, phrases like ‘the hottest in years’ or ‘deadly heatwave warnings’ become commonplace. According to the latest statistical data from the Korea Meteorological Administration, an investigation into the highest daily average temperatures recorded during the summer months of July and August over the past 30 years (from 1993 to 2023) revealed that 67 out of 95 regions in South Korea recorded their highest to third-highest daily average temperatures between 2021 and 2023. Notably, 2023 was recorded as the hottest year in South Korea, with an annual average temperature of 13.7°C, surpassing the previous record of 13.4°C set in 2015. July 2023 was recorded as the hottest month in global history. In other words, as the records show, the past two years have literally brought murderous heat, causing summer electricity demand to skyrocket. Furthermore, the surging industrial electricity usage over the past decade has further amplified electricity demand.
To address this phenomenon, increasing supply is the only solution. However, expanding supply is no simple task. When considering major energy sources—fossil fuels, nuclear power, and renewable energy—increasing the share of fossil fuels is practically difficult. As a country without a single drop of oil, South Korea imports petroleum and coal from abroad, meaning there are clear limits to how much can be imported. Furthermore, coal causes environmental pollution, leaving us no choice but to turn our attention toward increasing nuclear power or renewable energy. Nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than any other energy resource. If the pollutants emitted when burning coal or oil are humanity’s common enemy, then nuclear power, boasting thousands of times more energy than coal, can be said to emit almost no pollutants. However, as seen through the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the terrifying nature of its explosion has formed a deep-seated fear in our collective memory. Coupled with political arguments reinforcing this fear, negative perceptions of nuclear power are widespread.
Looking more specifically, the 1960s arrived amid accelerating industrialization and a global surge in nuclear energy production, coinciding with the rise of environmentalists. Doubts about nuclear safety spread among the public. A small group of scientists stepped forward, frightening the masses and shattering trust in this new technology. The media soon began spreading fear. Looking at the U.S. example, in December 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a speech titled “Atoms for Peace,” aiming to supply abundant electricity via nuclear power to regions suffering from global power shortages. However, as explained earlier, with the dangers of nuclear energy disseminated to the general public by the anti-nuclear movement and the media, the U.S. government had no choice but to revise its energy policy. President Carter’s energy policy after 1976 can be described as the epitome of ignorance and irresponsibility. His energy policy presented a list of disliked fuels, specifically naming nuclear energy, coal, and oil – fuels that accounted for 73% of America’s energy supply. This ironic situation made the development of alternative energy sources urgent. In other words, it was the direction a government sensitive to public approval ratings had no choice but to take. Of course, developing alternative energy remains important today and requires sustained effort. Natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power generation have been developed, and significant progress has clearly been made in many areas. Nevertheless, many agree that such energy sources absolutely cannot meet current demand. From an efficiency standpoint, producing the same amount of electricity generated by a single nuclear power plant over 24 hours would require approximately 1,030 square kilometers of wind farms. Solar power faces a similar situation. Producing the same amount of electricity would require about 325 square kilometers of solar panels. Consequently, achieving the vision of renewable energy requires scaling up, not operating on a small scale. Consequently, environmentalists demand tax exemptions. It is advantageous for the government to grant these tax benefits rather than face accusations of environmental destruction, so they are granted.
In the current situation, following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, there is virtually no reporting on the enhanced safety of nuclear power plants or on safety-related issues highlighting the differences between our country’s nuclear plants and those in Fukushima.
The Dangers of Unilateral Policy
The author is not here to judge whether nuclear power plants are good or bad, or whether renewable energy is good or bad, nor to argue how things should be in the future. What we must guard against is unilateral policy. Minority papers or verifications opposing this are buried by the majority and never become subjects of debate. Naturally, the general public remains unaware of their very existence. With no way to discern political interests, we end up accepting scientific facts and arguments without any verification. Considering the weight science carries in modern society, this clearly means we are living with our right to know mortgaged. This is where the problem arises: the authenticity of the information we accept. We have lived in strict silence regarding science. A doctor’s word was almost like a religious belief, and scientists were regarded as great figures who would change the world. However, doubts began to emerge about whether we could trust the papers or experimental results they published. This doubt has rapidly escalated into a debate over scientific facts, exemplified by the case of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk. Considering the unimaginable costs involved, one can guess in whose favor science will progress and how it will be executed. In other words, science seems to find it extremely difficult to walk its own path anymore. Therefore, amidst distorted scientific phenomena, we need to reflect on what is science, what should be science, and what should not be science. Could it be that many theories I’ve hitherto considered science were not things I ‘knew,’ but rather things I ‘believed’ to be science? Simultaneously, let us consider what makes science truly science, and where humanity’s science is heading now—through these questions, let us contemplate the very essence that allows science to exist as science.
