Leadership vacuum in science agencies must be addressed quickly

Oh Se-jung

The author is a professor emeritus of physics and astronomy and a former president of Seoul National University.

President Lee Jae Myung’s approval ratings have recently climbed into the high 60 percent range. A Korea Gallup survey last week found 65 percent of respondents evaluated his performance positively, while the National Barometer Survey reported a 69 percent approval rating. These results appear to reflect favorable views of his pragmatic policies in economic and foreign affairs, his practical handling of state issues, and his active communication with the public through live television broadcasts and social media.

The KAIST campus in the central city of Daejeon. [YONHAP]

Some observers, however, express concern that the administration relies too heavily on the president’s personal leadership style and his tendency to oversee matters in detail. Ideally, a president should set the overall direction of governance, while ministers and civil servants handle day-to-day operations, creating a government that operates through systems rather than individuals. Stable governance is more likely when it is sustained by the cooperation of many rather than dependence on a single figure.

For such a system to function, appropriate personnel must be placed throughout the government. Real change occurs not in presidential meetings but at operational sites, making leadership at the working level particularly important. At present, however, while the president remains active, the field responsible for implementing his directives appears insufficiently prepared.

The situation in Korea’s science and technology sector illustrates this problem. Since taking office in the era of AI, the Lee administration has emphasized science and technology and introduced a range of policies. It has restored the position of deputy prime minister for science and technology, created a senior presidential secretary for AI future planning, expanded the national research and development budget to a record level, and exempted projects from preliminary feasibility studies. It has also decided to abolish the project-based system, long criticized by researchers and is discussing follow-up measures.

Despite these institutional changes, the research field where innovation must occur appears unprepared. One key reason is the absence of leadership in public science and technology institutions. For example, the president of KAIST and the head of the Institute for Basic Science have both been operating in acting capacities for more than a year after their terms expired. Among the 23 government-funded research institutes under the National Research Council of Science and Technology, four institutions, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, have yet to appoint successors after their leaders’ terms ended. Two more, including the Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, are expected to face similar situations soon. More than a quarter of these institutes are experiencing leadership gaps, and in some cases, appointments have been delayed for nearly two years following political upheaval.

Why are these appointments being delayed? Institutionally, candidates are recommended by an executive recommendation committee composed of experts and then appointed by a board of directors. In principle, the process should be independent of politics. In practice, however, there are widespread reports that the presidential office intervenes under the pretext of personnel verification, introducing political considerations. Reports suggest that the unusually prolonged delay in appointing the KAIST president is related to this issue.

Officials from audited institutions attend a parliamentary audit by the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee at the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute in Daejeon on Oct. 24, 2025. [NEWS1]

While some level of vetting is necessary for heads of publicly funded institutions, it is doubtful that the presidential office is better positioned than expert committees or boards to identify suitable candidates. Moreover, a busy president cannot oversee every appointment, leaving room for powerful figures to exert influence. Leaders appointed under such conditions may face questions about their legitimacy, which can limit their effectiveness.

The world is entering an era of technological competition. A leadership vacuum in institutions directing research undermines national competitiveness. It resembles a situation in which the commander in chief issues numerous directives, but the field commanders responsible for execution are absent.

Effective governance requires distinguishing between what should be done and what should not, and decisively eliminating the latter. In appointing heads of science and technology institutions, the presidential office should focus on building a system that selects capable candidates rather than intervening in individual decisions. Respecting the authority of boards as defined by law would be an important first step. Although political involvement in such appointments has existed under previous administrations, breaking from this practice would constitute meaningful reform. If included among the government’s broader efforts in science and technology, such a change could become a significant achievement.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.