President’s Claim About R&D Success Rate Sparks Debate
President Lee Jae-myung recently made a statement about South Korea’s research and development (R&D) success rate, claiming it exceeds 90%. This remark has sparked significant backlash from the scientific community, which views the claim as “unverified and incomplete information.” The controversy highlights a growing concern about the accuracy of data used in policy discussions and public statements.
At an event called the ‘National Report Meeting for South Korean Citizens Dreaming of Scientists and Technologists Again,’ President Lee emphasized the need to innovate the talent recruitment and R&D ecosystem. During this meeting, he remarked, “I heard that South Korea’s R&D success rate exceeds 90%. It’s the most absurd thing.” His intention was to challenge risk-averse research practices that prioritize guaranteed outcomes over innovative, high-risk projects.
However, this statement has been met with skepticism. Several scientists have pointed out that there is no official statistic confirming a 90% R&D success rate. They argue that the president’s repeated use of this figure in an official setting is misleading and problematic. Critics suggest that the presidential office and relevant ministries may have failed to provide accurate information to the president, resulting in such remarks being presented as factual.
This is not the first time President Lee has made similar claims. In 2021, during his presidential campaign, he mentioned the same 90% success rate at the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). He stated, “I was told that the success rate of state-funded R&D projects is 90%. It seems only projects guaranteed to succeed were supported.” This history raises questions about the consistency and reliability of the data being cited.
In reality, there is no government-wide aggregate of the national R&D success rate. A government official explained, “Some ministries have compiled success rates for specific projects.” For instance, two years ago, the Ministry of SMEs and Startups announced a high-risk, high-return R&D initiative, stating, “The Ministry of SMEs and Startups’ R&D success rate exceeds 95%.” However, these figures are limited to specific tasks within certain ministries and represent a negligible portion of the total R&D activities across the country.
Yeom Han-woong, director of the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) and former vice chairman of the National Science and Technology Council under the Moon Jae-in administration, highlighted the lack of an official R&D success rate statistic. He told this newspaper, “There is no official R&D success rate statistic compiled by the government, yet it appeared in the president’s official remarks.” Yeom added, “It is a serious issue that the president perceives researchers as only pursuing easy projects, yet no advisors or staff explained that such statistics do not exist.”
A Ministry of Science and ICT official responded to the controversy, stating, “If we consider the proportion of R&D projects rated as ‘average or higher’ in evaluations, it is around 90%.” They added, “The research field also broadly recognizes this rate.” However, this interpretation is not universally accepted. A professor at a Seoul engineering university expressed surprise at the long-standing citation of the 90% R&D success rate, calling it baseless. They warned, “If science and technology policies are based on unverified facts, they are unlikely to function properly.”
Key Points of Contention
- The claim of a 90% R&D success rate lacks official validation.
- Specific ministries may report high success rates, but these are not representative of the entire national R&D landscape.
- The absence of a unified government statistic raises concerns about the accuracy of data used in policy decisions.
- Experts warn that relying on unverified facts could lead to ineffective science and technology policies.
The debate underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in data presentation, especially when it comes to shaping national policies and public perceptions. As the discussion continues, the scientific community remains vigilant, urging for more rigorous and reliable data to inform future decisions.