Under an authoritarian political regime, science and scientists are likely to be influenced both directly and indirectly by the ideology of the government. Using the expression “ideologically correct science,” Mark Walker et al. (2003) presented various examples in which scientists met the demands of the government instead of resisting against the regime to uphold the neutrality or purity of science. Can this claim be equally applied to Korea, a country that has been relatively late in its pursuit of developments in science and technology?

The 1960s to 1980s was a period of dramatic change in the politics, economy, and society of Korea. The military dictator had risen to power in a coup d’etat, and the authoritarian regime in the 1970s was especially coercive. During this period, however, Korea transformed from an agricultural country having a GNP per capita less than 100 dollars into an advanced industrial nation with heavy chemicals accounting for 70% of industries. The key driver behind this change was science and technology. The military regime tried to provide political justification through economic development and national security, placing the spotlight on science and technology due to its relevance to both goals. The government mobilized scientists for this purpose, and in turn, the scientists attempted to improve the poor conditions of science and technology.

Korea’s science and technology have attained short-term growth based on mutual utilization between the authoritarian regime and scientists, but the negative spillover of such compressed development still has a significant influence on the Korean scientific community today. In the development of Korea’s modern science and technology under an authoritarian regime, this presentation will focus on how political leaders, technocrats, and scientists changed their perception of science and technology, how such differing views were modulated, and what kind of role was played by each group in the actualization process. This case study of Korea will lead to more meaningful and in-depth discussions on the dynamics of science and politics, and the relationship between scientists and the authoritarian political regime.