“March for Science”, March for changing science policy (해커스 에세이&스피치 컨테스트, 2017.4.16)

2017년 4월에 학교 게시판에 붙어있던 포스터를 보고 작성한 공모전 지원 글이다. 아래 글에도 나오지만 당시 4월 22일 지구의 날을 맞아 March for Science 시위가 전세계적으로 일어날 예정이었고, 관련해서 글을 하나 써봐야지 하고 있던 중에 해당 포스터가 눈에 들어온 것이다. 

에세이 부문에 지원했고, 주어진 질문 중 한 개를 선택해 그것에 대해 에세이를 작성하는 것이었는데, 나는 이미 March for Science 시위라는 주제를 갖고 있던 터라 "What do you think the future will hold in your projected field of interest?"라는 지정 질문에 글을 끼워맞춰보았다. 물론 참가상 이상의 수확은 없었다. 흑흑.

한편 MfS 시위는 처음 시작된 미국에서만큼은 follow-up이 활발히 이뤄지고 있다. 올해도 여러 행사가 개최되는 듯 하니 관심있는 분들은 https://www.marchforscience.com/ 링크를 참조하면 되겠다. 우리나라의 경우 ESC를 주축으로 시위를 개최한 바 있다. 사실 우리나라에서는 시위라기보다 행진이나 행사가 개최되었다고 보는 것이 맞을 것이다.

“March for Science”, March for changing science policy

“Science, not silence!” The voices would fill every city squares over the world on April 22^nd, the Earth day of this year. Few researchers first organized the “March for Science” in Washington DC to rebel against the US president Donald Trump, who showed a hostility toward scientific community. Now, surprisingly, the March spread out to about 500 other cities including two from South Korea, becoming a global event. Not only many scientists but also large numbers of non-scientists who have their say about science join the event.

The March calls for an attention especially from people who concern science policy because the March is the actual place where one can see how the conversation between science and society goes along. As it is an unprecedented global rally endorsed by several scientific communities, the March would be the cornerstone for a new paradigm in science policy. The official website of the March also shows that it is not only about science itself, but also, or even more about science policy. Their missions absolutely correspond to the dual definition of science policy – ‘policy for science’ and ‘science in policy’ respectively, by stating that the March “champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science” and promotes “evidence-based policies in the public interest”.

Marchers over the world not only support US marchers against the Trump administration, but they all have their own issues based on the main principles and goals of the March. In Korea, the March coincides with a special context that the former President Park Geun-Hye was impeached and arrested due to the political scandal. Discussions on its interpretations and implications ensued, and many commentators construed her removal as an end of the Park Chung-Hee era, who was a former president with dictatorship, and also the father of Park Geun-Hye.

The discussions are also valid in the science and technology sector, too. Until now, Park Chung-Hee is called as ‘the Science President’ and praised for laying the foundation of Korean science and technology by building institutions and infrastructure at the early stage of it. However, more critics are now pointing out that his regime has left the jeopardized independence of scientific community, and science was only mobilized as a tool for economic development. They argue that the top-down approach in science policy, which established in Park Chung-Hee era and living until now, is hindering the advancement of national scientific capacity. 

Withstanding to the critics, scientists in Korea consider the time as an opportunity for changing the governance of financial policy for science. A viewpoint that regarding science as an engine of economic development has long dominated in Korea and made the national science budget highly concentrated on development rather than basic scientific research. Therefore, a research topic that is not expected to make money could not be funded well. Now Korean scientists are getting together to claim for the importance of their various research interests. They reject to prove how their research would contribute to the national economic growth or several governmental buzzwords like ‘creative economy’ in their research proposal. Engineers and Scientists for Change (ESC), one of the host organization of the March in Seoul, started a crowd-funded research project to break bounds of the government funding and conduct a research pursuing their own value that could not be realized with the government funding. In this way, public and scientists who share the common value could succeed pursuing their value with science.

It is clear that the March is the declaration of locating science in multiple and various position, not only for the national economic growth. Science policy, especially in Korea, has not been asking what science can do. It only counted for efficiency and profitability of science. Under that paradigm, scientists have been passive, only responded to what the government demanded and funded. Now the paradigm is shifting. Science might give an answer, but democracy asks questions to be answered. It is undoubtful that the “March for Science” would be the turning point of science policy, as not only scientists but also the public are asking for new objectives of science. This calls for a new science policy that mediates different values projected to science rather than tapping on a calculator.