Professor Woo-Seok Hwang’s embryonic stem cell research failed due to distortions by the scientific community, the media, and the government, and is an example of how science can be distorted by a lack of scientific validation and political interests in South Korea.

Hwang Woo-Seok and the political distortion of science

On February 12, 2004, Science magazine broke the news on the Internet that Hwang Woo-seok’s team had succeeded in creating the world’s first human embryonic stem cells. Not only did the media rush to report that the way to cure incurable diseases had been opened, but they also predicted that it would be a golden egg that would feed Korea in the future if it became an industry. The government also promised to actively support the research team’s work, and the general public, without knowing the details, had high hopes for a rosy future of curing diseases and developing the Korean bio industry. However, in 2006, Professor Hwang Woo-seok was suddenly labeled as an unscrupulous person, accused of manipulating research results and violating bioethics laws. Why did this happen?
Science has made great contributions, and it will continue to provide us with the most reliable solutions, but as we’ve seen, there is a history of not always believing what scientists say. This is because the science that is reported to us is politicized. There are three main sources of distortion: the scientific community itself, the media, and governments.

Scientific distortion

Let’s take a look at the scientific community itself. While detailed verification among scientists is tolerated, criticism from outside the scientific community is not welcomed. This is because science is divided into many disciplines. Experts are reluctant to challenge each other. For an expert in one field to accept criticism from another, he or she would have to do a detailed study, which is not easy due to lack of expertise, lack of time, etc. As a result, they are afraid to intervene in other people’s areas of expertise, so they rarely raise questions or voice their disagreements.
Here’s an example: there’s a new theory in physics called superstring theory. Funnily enough, the version of superstring theory that we hear about has gone through at least two stages of intermediation. This is because very few scientists are able to understand the papers published by the top authorities on superstring theory, which means that only after a second paper explaining the first paper is published do science writers and the media get to know it. The problem is that even secondary papers often have different interpretations of the same statement in the original paper. This creates a situation where scientists are now arguing over how to interpret the statements in the original paper. While this is a rather extreme example, the difficulty of verification is becoming more prevalent across all fields of modern science and technology. This has led some scientists to engage in intentional deception. The difficulty of verifying research results within the scientific community has led to the practice of falsifying results and plagiarizing other research. One of the most dramatic examples of this is the case of physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who shocked the scientific community in 2002 by fabricating papers.

Media distortions

The same thing happens when it comes to the media. As all processes in science have become specialized, the accumulation of knowledge has become institutionalized, and the way to access it has become specialized to the point that it requires significant training. In this situation, science and technology reporting requires a high level of expertise, and it is not easy for non-specialists to report on science and technology. Therefore, the media focuses on the “who” and “what” of the discovery rather than the specifics of the science or the research process. Science stories are full of “world firsts” and “Korean firsts,” such as “Samsung Electronics develops the world’s first 30-nanometer D-RAM” or “Hwang Woo-seok’s team succeeds in commercially cloning the world’s first ‘pet dog.'” In other words, journalists are always pressed for time and looking for new and dramatic stories, while also facing the challenge of evaluating complex and uncertain science. This leads journalists to rely uncritically on scientific expertise. In the case of Hwang Woo-Seok, the media rushed to make a star scientist out of him and did not pay attention to the content of his research or its political, economic, and social implications. Most of the media were busy riding the wave of patriotism and vilifying the PD Notebook, even though the allegations raised by the PD Notebook were reasonable.

Government distortions

Finally, let’s look at governments that make science policy. All government agencies are basically motivated by the same thing. They benefit from convincing us that they are indispensable. In other words, politicians don’t want to be criticized by the public for wasting research funds. Therefore, when governments commit money to competing theories, they tend to take an all-or-nothing approach rather than a trial-and-error approach, and they don’t tolerate the adoption of alternative theories. This creates a problem because the scientific validation process is not well established. Historically, competition between theories has been the driving force behind scientific progress and the source of advancement for individuals and private companies. Research in the private sector is inherently trial-and-error. Capital is invested in many different ideas and approaches, and money is made on the one that succeeds. A competitive market system encourages innovative ideas, and competition between theories encourages new approaches to science. However, government funding restricts dissent for political reasons, such as the approval ratings problems associated with wasting money, and as a result, competition stagnates or disappears altogether.

Underlying reasons for distortion

We’ve seen how easily science can be distorted by the scientific community itself, the media, and governments, but what are the underlying reasons why this is possible? The answer is simple: because what is true is highly uncertain. We don’t know what the future holds, and this uncertainty creates an opportunity for those who want to politicize science. It is therefore worth questioning whether science that is based on dire warnings about the future, or science that suggests an idealized rose-colored future, is being distorted for political purposes.

The problem with political distortion

So why is this political distortion a problem? It’s important to note that the politics that taints science are those that serve the interests of particular factions, not the interests or values of the majority of citizens. In the case of biotechnology, a field of cutting-edge science that includes cloning, genome mapping, and stem cells, commercial interests, such as patent rights, are sensitively intertwined. This makes it more likely that science will be distorted. In the case of Hwang Woo-seok’s team, the research team received officially 65.8 billion won in funding from the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning, not including tens of billions of won in unofficial private sector support. When money dominates science and technology, science is more likely to become the handmaiden of politics, which leads to distorted science. One of the most serious problems is the nexus between corporations and scientists. Corporations are often the biggest supporters of research that serves their interests. Oil majors like Shell have consistently funded research that underestimates the threat of global warming, for example. In addition to receiving research grants from companies, scientists can also own stock in companies. A scientist studying the side effects of a new drug would have a huge conflict of interest in publishing negative findings at the risk of hurting the stock price of the company in which they hold shares. If science is subject to political interference and commercialization, it will have a huge negative impact on the future of humanity.
To understand this better, let’s first consider what the core values of science are and what we expect from it. Science is the study of seemingly random phenomena to discover, theorize, and systematize the principles and laws that cause them to exist and occur. At its core, science relies on predictability, universality, and objectivity. We expect science to improve our quality of life, such as extending life and curing diseases. However, while crooked scientists like to portray themselves as idealists, their ideals are driven by self-interest. By pursuing politics, they destroy the core value of science: objectivity. The day-to-day struggle to secure funding and keep their seat at the table pushes aside the pure scientific spirit they once revered. In other words, verification, argument, and debate take a back seat. Over the years, scientists have learned how to strengthen their position. They’ve learned to bolster their position by issuing dire warnings about the future or proposing an idealized rose-colored future. The media uncritically reports them. For example, when it comes to the issue of global warming or Prof. Woo-Seok Hwang’s research, it is said that “10 years from now, his research will feed Korea. Of course, there has been a lot of debate about global warming in recent years. This is not about whether global warming is right or wrong. What I’m saying is that the problem is that the scientific verification process is not properly followed, and as a result, the results of the study are related to the interests of a particular group of people rather than the interests and values of the majority of people. In other words, the problem is that these politically distorted findings are hidden from the public’s eyes and ears.

An example of science distortion

Let’s look at the phenomenon of the September 15, 2011 blackout in South Korea from this perspective. The blackout occurred on September 15, 2011, when the KEPCO deliberately cut off electricity to various parts of the country in a rotating fashion to prevent a larger blackout. The ostensible culprit is the KEPCO, which made a mistake in forecasting electricity demand. In other words, when the forecasted demand exceeded the actual supply, the KEPCO implemented regional blackouts to prevent a nationwide blackout. In other words, the deeper cause was that the supply could not keep up with the demand. Every summer, we hear phrases like “the biggest heat wave in years” and “killer heat warnings”. According to the latest statistics from the Korea Meteorological Administration, when examining the highest average daily temperature records for July and August over the past 30 years (1993 to 2023), 67 out of 95 regions in South Korea recorded the highest average daily temperatures from 2021 to 2023. In particular, 2023 was the hottest year in South Korea, with an average annual temperature of 13.7 degrees Celsius, surpassing the previous record of 13.4 degrees Celsius in 2015. July 2023 was recorded as the hottest month in the history of the planet, meaning that the country has experienced literally killer heat in the last two years, which has led to an explosion in summer electricity demand. In addition, the explosion in industrial electricity use over the last decade has further increased electricity demand.
The only way to solve this problem is to increase supply. However, increasing supply is not a simple matter. Given that the energy supply is composed of fossil fuels, nuclear power, and renewable energy, it is difficult to increase the share of fossil fuels. Korea imports oil and coal from overseas, so there is a limit to how much we can import. Coal is also polluting, so we have no choice but to turn to nuclear power or renewable energy. Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly of all energy sources. If the pollution from burning coal or oil is public enemy number one, then it’s safe to say that nuclear power, with thousands of times the energy of coal, produces almost no pollution. However, as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster illustrates, the horrors of a nuclear explosion are strongly embedded in our memories, and political rhetoric supports a negative view of nuclear energy.
More specifically, in the 1960s, when industrialization was accelerating and the world was rapidly increasing the production of nuclear energy, environmentalists were gaining ground, and doubts about the safety of nuclear energy were spreading among the public. A small group of scientists stepped forward to scare the public and destroy confidence in the new technology. The media soon began spreading fear. In the United States, in December 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a speech titled “Atomic Energy for Peace,” which aimed to bring abundant electricity to underpowered parts of the world through nuclear energy. However, as explained earlier, the anti-nuclear movement and the media spread the dangers of nuclear energy to the general public, forcing the U.S. government to revise its energy policy. The energy policy of Democratic President Carter after 1976 is the epitome of ignorance and irresponsibility. His list of disfavored fuels included nuclear energy, coal, and oil, which provided 73% of the country’s energy supply. This ironic situation makes the development of alternative energy urgent. It’s a direction that governments sensitive to public approval ratings have no choice but to take. Of course, the development of alternative energy sources is still important and should be an ongoing endeavor. Natural gas, hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, etc. have been developed, and there is no doubt that much progress has been made. However, what many people agree on is that these energies will never be able to keep up with current demand. In terms of efficiency, it would take about 1030 square kilometers to generate as much electricity from wind power as one nuclear power plant produces in 24 hours. The situation is similar for solar power. It takes about 325 square kilometers to generate the same amount of electricity. As a result, if we want to fulfill the vision of renewable energy, we need to go big, not small. This is why environmentalists demand tax exemptions. Governments would rather give in to environmentalists’ demands than be accused of destroying the environment.
In the current situation, little is reported about the improved safety of nuclear power plants after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan or the differences between Korea’s nuclear power plants and those in Fukushima.

The dangers of unilateral policies

I’m not arguing that nuclear power plants are good or bad, renewables are good or bad, or what the future should look like. What we need to be wary of is unilateral policies. The few papers or verifications to the contrary are drowned out by the majority and become moot. Naturally, the general public is not aware of their existence. Unaware of the political stakes, we accept scientific facts and arguments without any verification. Given the importance of science in modern society, it’s clear that we are mortgaging our right to know. Here’s the problem. It’s the authenticity of the information we accept. We’ve been taught to keep science to ourselves. The words of doctors are taken on faith, and scientists are viewed as great people who will change the world. However, we are beginning to question whether we can trust their published papers or experimental results, and the case of Dr. Woo-Seok Hwang has led to a rapidly growing debate about scientific facts. Considering the unimaginable costs, it is easy to see how science will be conducted in a way that favors those in power. In other words, science seems to have a very hard time following its own path anymore, and it is necessary to reflect on what is science, what should be science, and what shouldn’t be science in the midst of this distortion. Could it be that many of the theories that I have thought of as science were not actually ‘known’ but ‘believed’ to be science? At the same time, let’s think about the essence of what makes science science, and where human science is going, by asking what makes science science.