Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences
In 2012, all the students in South Korea from elementary to high school went through the governme... more In 2012, all the students in South Korea from elementary to high school went through the government’s mental health screening. From a historical perspective, this paper examines why and how the Korean government launched the mass screening of students’ mental health and what enabled this nationwide data collection. By analyzing its driving forces, this paper reveals the ecology of power being forged at the intersection of multinational pharmaceutical companies, mental health experts, and the Korean government in the 2000s. The paper argues that, against the backdrop of the growing market for multinational pharmaceutical companies in South Korea, the rise in school violence became the catalyst for bringing old and new governmental tools, plans, and resources, putting all students under mental health screening. It shows the continuity as well as the transformation of developmental governmentality in a broader social change of South Korea under the influence of globalization. By doing ...
It was no accident that the first neuroscience community, the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP... more It was no accident that the first neuroscience community, the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP), took shape in the 1960s at MIT, the birthplace of cybernetics. Francis O. Schmitt, known as the founding father of the NRP, was a famous biologist and an avid reader of cybernetics. Focusing on the intellectual and institutional context that Schmitt was situated in, this article unveils the way that the brain was conceptualized as a distinct object, requiring the launch of a new research community in the US. In doing so, this article moves beyond the dominant narratives on the triumph of molecularization of the brain at the beginning of neuroscience. Instead, it argues that what brought researchers together in the name of neuroscience was not just a molecule but an aspiration to develop biological theories of the brain/mind, which resonated with biologists in a postwar context and was materialized through support for basic research. The article highlights the tension over the computer...
From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on i... more From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innovation, were established in South Korea. In May 2015, the Korean government announced another bold blueprint for R&D innovation emphasizing a serious approach toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
Against the dominant narrative of the history of artificial intelligence (AI), this paper shows h... more Against the dominant narrative of the history of artificial intelligence (AI), this paper shows how, during the period considered to be second global winter (1987–1993), the AI field experienced spring in South Korea. Putting the Korean language processing problem at the center, researchers began to lay the intellectual and social foundation of AI in South Korea in the late 1980s.
Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscienc... more Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscience took shape in South Korea focusing on Chan-Woong Park, who launched the Korean Society for Neuroscience in 1992. Park was a pharmacologist who studied ginseng and the brain from the 1970s. By revealing the way Park noted both opportunity and difficulty in the interdisciplinarity of neuroscience, this article reveals the context in which interdisciplinarity shaped studies of the brain in South Korea. To date, historians have followed the flow of knowledge, embedded in materials or instruments, to understand the transnational development of science and technology. This article focuses on the flow of value-interdisciplinarity, per se-which mediated uncertainties in studying the brain and galvanized ignorance in the name of neuroscience. By revealing the materiality and locality of interdisciplinarity and its role in facilitating ignorance, the article sheds new light on the transnational development of neuroscience.
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences , 2022
Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscienc... more Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscience took shape in South Korea focusing on Chan-Woong Park, who launched the Korean Society for Neuroscience in 1992. Park was a pharmacologist who studied ginseng and the brain from the 1970s. By revealing the way Park noted both opportunity and difficulty in the interdisciplinarity of neuroscience, this article reveals the context in which interdisciplinarity shaped studies of the brain in South Korea. To date, historians have followed the flow of knowledge, embedded in materials or instruments, to understand the transnational development of science and technology. This article focuses on the flow of value—interdisciplinarity, per se—which mediated uncertainties in studying the brain and galvanized ignorance in the name of neuroscience. By revealing the materiality and locality of interdisciplinarity and its role in facilitating ignorance, the article sheds new light on the transnational development of neuroscience.
The Korean Journal for the History of Science 42, no. 1 , 2020
This paper examines the process of importing scientific institutions from overseas by focusing on... more This paper examines the process of importing scientific institutions from overseas by focusing on the practice of benchmarking for the establishment of the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) in South Korea. Launched in 2011, the IBS aimed to play a central role in nurturing the new ecology of knowledge to the community of basic science researchers in Korea, just like the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG), Rikagaku Kenkyūjo (RIKEN), and Organisation europeenne pour la recherche nucleaire (CERN). Taking MPG, RIKEN, and CERN as desirable models for basic science, the IBS actively drew upon a particular memory about their developments. This paper traces the ways in which the MPG, RIKEN, and CERN were remembered in South Korea through the practice of benchmarking, which reveal the multi-faceted politics embodied in the formation of the IBS. For example, it highlights how the rising claim on the discovery of a new element in Japan and the changing ecology of R&D system in South Korea influenced the shaping of IBS’s identity. By considering benchmarking as a particular means of remembering the past, this paper underlines the historicity and politics of remembering the past and their meanings in understanding the role of basic science in Korea.
From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innov... more From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innovation, were established in South Korea. In May 2015, the Korean government announced another bold blueprint for R&D innovation emphasizing a serious approach toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
Against the dominant narrative of the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this paper shows h... more Against the dominant narrative of the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this paper shows how, during the period considered to be second global winter (1987-1993), the AI field had experienced spring in South Korea. Putting the Korean language processing problem at the center, researchers began to lay the intellectual and social foundation of AI in South Korea in the late 1980s.
(in Korean) “융합연구를 어떻게 하면 촉진시킬 수 있을까?”
최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 ... more (in Korean) “융합연구를 어떻게 하면 촉진시킬 수 있을까?” 최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 연관되어 있다. 융합연구를 무엇이라 정의하느냐에 따라 이를 촉진시키는 정책적 수단들에 대한 생각 또한 달라질 수밖에 없다. 융합연구를 새로운 두 이질적인 학문이 만났을 때 일어나는 결합의 결과라 생각한다면, 전혀 접점이 없을 것 같은 두 영역에 연결고리를 만들어주는 장치들이 필요할 것이다. 이보다는 융합연구를 창조적인 개별 연구자가 서로 다른 지식들을 자신만의 방식으로 해석하는 과정에서 나오는 산출물이라고 생각한다면, 창의적 능력을 지닌 연구자들을 양성하는데 도움이 되는 수단들을 고려하게 될 것이다. ... 하지만 융합연구의 정의 및 유형에 대한 개념적인 연구는 많이 진행된 반면, 실제로 특정 지역 또는 영역에서 융합연구에 대한 개념이 어떻게 상정되고 있는지 분석한 연구는 드물다고 할 수 있다 (박기범 & 황정태, 2007; 엄융의 외, 2010; 홍성욱 외, 2012; 오현석 외 2012; 서동인 & 오현석, 2014; 백연정, 2016). 즉 융합연구의 보편적인 개념적 특성은 많은 조명을 받았지만, 한국이라는 나라에서 융합연구 개념이 논의되는 특징적인 양상 및 형태를 조명한 연구는 많지 않았다. 최근 황병상 외 (2016)가 『한국융합정책론: 융합기술과 산업융합』을 통하여, 한국에서 논의되고 있는 융합연구정책을 정책학적 관점에서 분석한 바 있으나, 이미 제도화된 주요 법률 및 국가계획을 위주로 분석함으로써 논의 양상 자체를 조명하는 데는 한계를 보였다.
본 연구는 “학술 연구”를 다양한 지적 상상력이 응집되고, 구체적인 실천의 장이 마련되는 중요한 공간으로 인식하고, 한국의 융합연구정책을 둘러싼 상상이 어떠한 방식으로 드러나는지 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통하여 융합연구에 대한 한국의 “사회기술적 상상”을 진단하고자 하며, “경계사물”이라는 개념을 소개함으로써, 향후 대안적 상상을 논할 시발점을 제시하고자 한다....
This paper aims to show the historical contingency of policy entrepreneurship in science by analy... more This paper aims to show the historical contingency of policy entrepreneurship in science by analyzing the case of brain research in South Korea during the last decade of the 20th century. This decade saw an increasing emphasis placed upon the development of information technology and its use for societal changes. The rise of the “Information Society” in Korea was an important context for shaping the field of brain research as an amalgam of multiple disciplines which led to the passage of the Brain Research Promotion Act; the first law in the world enacted to promote brain research. This paper, through focusing on in what context someone takes up an entrepreneurial role, shows how the concept of interdisciplinarity has been shaped by, and how it has influenced the development of brain research and its related policy measures in Korea. It ultimately reveals the contingent and transient aspect of a policy entrepreneur and his effect on building a new field.
International Conference on the History of Science in East Asia, 2019
It was no coincidence that Chan-Woong Park (1935-2014), the first president of the Korean Society... more It was no coincidence that Chan-Woong Park (1935-2014), the first president of the Korean Society for Neuroscience (KSN), was a pharmacologist studying ginseng’s medical effects in the 1970s. This paper shows how a Korean ginseng played a distinctive role as a research material in South Korea, which ultimately led to the formation of the first Korean neuroscientists’ group, the KSN, in the early 1990s. At that time, ginseng was not only a promising exportable item but also an unusual research subject for neuroscience. Through analyzing a wide intellectual and social network of Park, this paper reveals an intermingling of seemingly unrelated artifacts, such as ginseng, neuron, brain, mind, and computer chip, in the late 20th century in South Korea. It examines a conceptual and material setting at which a particular interdisciplinary gathering of brain researchers was formed and shaped in South Korea. By doing so, this paper pays attention to differences and discrepancies of research cultures, for example, between biological science vs medical science, basic research vs industrial research, and computer science vs cognitive science in South Korea. It ultimately shed light on the nature of interdisciplinarity in a developing country and its implications on plurality in science and technology.
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences
In 2012, all the students in South Korea from elementary to high school went through the governme... more In 2012, all the students in South Korea from elementary to high school went through the government’s mental health screening. From a historical perspective, this paper examines why and how the Korean government launched the mass screening of students’ mental health and what enabled this nationwide data collection. By analyzing its driving forces, this paper reveals the ecology of power being forged at the intersection of multinational pharmaceutical companies, mental health experts, and the Korean government in the 2000s. The paper argues that, against the backdrop of the growing market for multinational pharmaceutical companies in South Korea, the rise in school violence became the catalyst for bringing old and new governmental tools, plans, and resources, putting all students under mental health screening. It shows the continuity as well as the transformation of developmental governmentality in a broader social change of South Korea under the influence of globalization. By doing ...
It was no accident that the first neuroscience community, the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP... more It was no accident that the first neuroscience community, the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP), took shape in the 1960s at MIT, the birthplace of cybernetics. Francis O. Schmitt, known as the founding father of the NRP, was a famous biologist and an avid reader of cybernetics. Focusing on the intellectual and institutional context that Schmitt was situated in, this article unveils the way that the brain was conceptualized as a distinct object, requiring the launch of a new research community in the US. In doing so, this article moves beyond the dominant narratives on the triumph of molecularization of the brain at the beginning of neuroscience. Instead, it argues that what brought researchers together in the name of neuroscience was not just a molecule but an aspiration to develop biological theories of the brain/mind, which resonated with biologists in a postwar context and was materialized through support for basic research. The article highlights the tension over the computer...
From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on i... more From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innovation, were established in South Korea. In May 2015, the Korean government announced another bold blueprint for R&D innovation emphasizing a serious approach toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
Against the dominant narrative of the history of artificial intelligence (AI), this paper shows h... more Against the dominant narrative of the history of artificial intelligence (AI), this paper shows how, during the period considered to be second global winter (1987–1993), the AI field experienced spring in South Korea. Putting the Korean language processing problem at the center, researchers began to lay the intellectual and social foundation of AI in South Korea in the late 1980s.
Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscienc... more Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscience took shape in South Korea focusing on Chan-Woong Park, who launched the Korean Society for Neuroscience in 1992. Park was a pharmacologist who studied ginseng and the brain from the 1970s. By revealing the way Park noted both opportunity and difficulty in the interdisciplinarity of neuroscience, this article reveals the context in which interdisciplinarity shaped studies of the brain in South Korea. To date, historians have followed the flow of knowledge, embedded in materials or instruments, to understand the transnational development of science and technology. This article focuses on the flow of value-interdisciplinarity, per se-which mediated uncertainties in studying the brain and galvanized ignorance in the name of neuroscience. By revealing the materiality and locality of interdisciplinarity and its role in facilitating ignorance, the article sheds new light on the transnational development of neuroscience.
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences , 2022
Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscienc... more Neuroscience did not suddenly become a global endeavor. This article examines the way neuroscience took shape in South Korea focusing on Chan-Woong Park, who launched the Korean Society for Neuroscience in 1992. Park was a pharmacologist who studied ginseng and the brain from the 1970s. By revealing the way Park noted both opportunity and difficulty in the interdisciplinarity of neuroscience, this article reveals the context in which interdisciplinarity shaped studies of the brain in South Korea. To date, historians have followed the flow of knowledge, embedded in materials or instruments, to understand the transnational development of science and technology. This article focuses on the flow of value—interdisciplinarity, per se—which mediated uncertainties in studying the brain and galvanized ignorance in the name of neuroscience. By revealing the materiality and locality of interdisciplinarity and its role in facilitating ignorance, the article sheds new light on the transnational development of neuroscience.
The Korean Journal for the History of Science 42, no. 1 , 2020
This paper examines the process of importing scientific institutions from overseas by focusing on... more This paper examines the process of importing scientific institutions from overseas by focusing on the practice of benchmarking for the establishment of the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) in South Korea. Launched in 2011, the IBS aimed to play a central role in nurturing the new ecology of knowledge to the community of basic science researchers in Korea, just like the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG), Rikagaku Kenkyūjo (RIKEN), and Organisation europeenne pour la recherche nucleaire (CERN). Taking MPG, RIKEN, and CERN as desirable models for basic science, the IBS actively drew upon a particular memory about their developments. This paper traces the ways in which the MPG, RIKEN, and CERN were remembered in South Korea through the practice of benchmarking, which reveal the multi-faceted politics embodied in the formation of the IBS. For example, it highlights how the rising claim on the discovery of a new element in Japan and the changing ecology of R&D system in South Korea influenced the shaping of IBS’s identity. By considering benchmarking as a particular means of remembering the past, this paper underlines the historicity and politics of remembering the past and their meanings in understanding the role of basic science in Korea.
From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innov... more From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&D), focusing on innovation, were established in South Korea. In May 2015, the Korean government announced another bold blueprint for R&D innovation emphasizing a serious approach toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
Against the dominant narrative of the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this paper shows h... more Against the dominant narrative of the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this paper shows how, during the period considered to be second global winter (1987-1993), the AI field had experienced spring in South Korea. Putting the Korean language processing problem at the center, researchers began to lay the intellectual and social foundation of AI in South Korea in the late 1980s.
(in Korean) “융합연구를 어떻게 하면 촉진시킬 수 있을까?”
최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 ... more (in Korean) “융합연구를 어떻게 하면 촉진시킬 수 있을까?” 최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 연관되어 있다. 융합연구를 무엇이라 정의하느냐에 따라 이를 촉진시키는 정책적 수단들에 대한 생각 또한 달라질 수밖에 없다. 융합연구를 새로운 두 이질적인 학문이 만났을 때 일어나는 결합의 결과라 생각한다면, 전혀 접점이 없을 것 같은 두 영역에 연결고리를 만들어주는 장치들이 필요할 것이다. 이보다는 융합연구를 창조적인 개별 연구자가 서로 다른 지식들을 자신만의 방식으로 해석하는 과정에서 나오는 산출물이라고 생각한다면, 창의적 능력을 지닌 연구자들을 양성하는데 도움이 되는 수단들을 고려하게 될 것이다. ... 하지만 융합연구의 정의 및 유형에 대한 개념적인 연구는 많이 진행된 반면, 실제로 특정 지역 또는 영역에서 융합연구에 대한 개념이 어떻게 상정되고 있는지 분석한 연구는 드물다고 할 수 있다 (박기범 & 황정태, 2007; 엄융의 외, 2010; 홍성욱 외, 2012; 오현석 외 2012; 서동인 & 오현석, 2014; 백연정, 2016). 즉 융합연구의 보편적인 개념적 특성은 많은 조명을 받았지만, 한국이라는 나라에서 융합연구 개념이 논의되는 특징적인 양상 및 형태를 조명한 연구는 많지 않았다. 최근 황병상 외 (2016)가 『한국융합정책론: 융합기술과 산업융합』을 통하여, 한국에서 논의되고 있는 융합연구정책을 정책학적 관점에서 분석한 바 있으나, 이미 제도화된 주요 법률 및 국가계획을 위주로 분석함으로써 논의 양상 자체를 조명하는 데는 한계를 보였다.
본 연구는 “학술 연구”를 다양한 지적 상상력이 응집되고, 구체적인 실천의 장이 마련되는 중요한 공간으로 인식하고, 한국의 융합연구정책을 둘러싼 상상이 어떠한 방식으로 드러나는지 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통하여 융합연구에 대한 한국의 “사회기술적 상상”을 진단하고자 하며, “경계사물”이라는 개념을 소개함으로써, 향후 대안적 상상을 논할 시발점을 제시하고자 한다....
This paper aims to show the historical contingency of policy entrepreneurship in science by analy... more This paper aims to show the historical contingency of policy entrepreneurship in science by analyzing the case of brain research in South Korea during the last decade of the 20th century. This decade saw an increasing emphasis placed upon the development of information technology and its use for societal changes. The rise of the “Information Society” in Korea was an important context for shaping the field of brain research as an amalgam of multiple disciplines which led to the passage of the Brain Research Promotion Act; the first law in the world enacted to promote brain research. This paper, through focusing on in what context someone takes up an entrepreneurial role, shows how the concept of interdisciplinarity has been shaped by, and how it has influenced the development of brain research and its related policy measures in Korea. It ultimately reveals the contingent and transient aspect of a policy entrepreneur and his effect on building a new field.
International Conference on the History of Science in East Asia, 2019
It was no coincidence that Chan-Woong Park (1935-2014), the first president of the Korean Society... more It was no coincidence that Chan-Woong Park (1935-2014), the first president of the Korean Society for Neuroscience (KSN), was a pharmacologist studying ginseng’s medical effects in the 1970s. This paper shows how a Korean ginseng played a distinctive role as a research material in South Korea, which ultimately led to the formation of the first Korean neuroscientists’ group, the KSN, in the early 1990s. At that time, ginseng was not only a promising exportable item but also an unusual research subject for neuroscience. Through analyzing a wide intellectual and social network of Park, this paper reveals an intermingling of seemingly unrelated artifacts, such as ginseng, neuron, brain, mind, and computer chip, in the late 20th century in South Korea. It examines a conceptual and material setting at which a particular interdisciplinary gathering of brain researchers was formed and shaped in South Korea. By doing so, this paper pays attention to differences and discrepancies of research cultures, for example, between biological science vs medical science, basic research vs industrial research, and computer science vs cognitive science in South Korea. It ultimately shed light on the nature of interdisciplinarity in a developing country and its implications on plurality in science and technology.
It was not just a coincidence that the new field of neuroscience began to take shape in the early... more It was not just a coincidence that the new field of neuroscience began to take shape in the early 1960s at MIT where cybernetics received much attention. This paper examines how the metaphor between the computer and the brain was shared among mathematicians, computer scientists, and electrical engineers in the 1950s, and how it stimulated a biologist, Francis O. Schmitt, who laid the foundation of Neurosciences Research Program (NRP) at MIT in 1962. By analyzing his notes, speeches, and papers, made for not only scientific journals but also religious meetings, this paper underscores how Schmitt’s desire of developing a big theory in brain studies—something at the level of quantum theory— was reflected in the emergence of neuroscience in the U.S. It also shows the influence of the decline of cybernetics on the development of the new field of neuroscience from the mid-1970s. The ambition to develop a big theory in brain studies gave way to the emphasis on building a large database from the 1980s, which resulted in the launch of the Human Brain Project in the 1990s in the U.S. From the vantage point of the rise and fall of the brain-computer metaphor, this paper revisits the history of neuroscience that became a big science of its own in the late 20th century.
In 2004, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health organized by George W. Bush announced a plan... more In 2004, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health organized by George W. Bush announced a plan for screening all the U.S peoples’ mental health. It aimed to translate many scientific researches funded by the federal government to various sectors in society; the first place targeted was school. The translation, however, could not be realized because of harsh oppositions particularly from parents and civic groups. It happened rather at a far distant area – South Korea – about eight years later. This paper aims to examine how and why the Korean government launched a mass screening of students’ mental health in 2012, and what enabled various translations beneath it; including a translation from documented guidelines to actual practices, from laboratory knowledge to practical guidelines, from cases in foreign countries to policies in domestic countries, and moreover from social problems to medical problems. Through analyzing the rise and impact of mass screening project in South Korea, this paper contributes to revealing the meaning of translations in a particular social and cultural context.
International Congress of History of Science and Technology, Brazil, July, 2017
Not all the AI researchers in the world went through the “AI winter” period in the late 1980s. Th... more Not all the AI researchers in the world went through the “AI winter” period in the late 1980s. The rough periodization of AI history – the cyclic narrative between the “Golden Age of AI” and the “AI Winter” – prevented researchers from understanding and examining diverse attempts, ideas, and practices in the field of AI. It was in the “AI winter” period that the field of AI began to spring in South Korea in the context of rising emphasis on democratizing and localizing personal computers. While witnessing the rise and fall of the AI in the U.S and the global tension between the U.S and Japan in the late 1980s, the Korea researchers delicately found their way to build their discipline emphasizing a local problem – processing Hangul – and a distinctive solution – using the brain. Processing the Hangul was regarded as the utmost important task to secure and nurture Korean culture in the upcoming ‘Tele-topia’ era, and the AI research got spotlighted as the ‘object-oriented basic research’ which would terminate many controversies about the mechanization and computerization of Hangul and enabled the general citizen to use the computer easily with their own language. With the aim of paving the way toward information society that fits with Korean society, the dialogues between the computer and the brain came to be highly brought up in the late 1980s and the early 1990s in South Korea which led to the establishment of new academic societies, new laboratories, a new leading group of researchers, a new funding, and a new computer algorithm.
International Society for the History of the Neurosciences, 2015
Nikolas Rose and Joelle M. Abi-Rached have argued that the modern neuroscience in the United Stat... more Nikolas Rose and Joelle M. Abi-Rached have argued that the modern neuroscience in the United States appeared in the 1960s with the establishment of the Neuroscience Research Program by Francis O. Schmitt (1903-1955). As the epistemological basis of the new field, they highlighted the emergence of a new way of seeing the brain, the neuromolecular gaze. This paper aims to argue against their claim on the birth of the neuromolecular gaze by analyzing Francis O. Schmitt's various aspects as a scientist as well as a theologian. By showing how various perspectives Schmitt had on the brain, this paper demonstrates that what makes the modern field of neuroscience was not the epistemological shift toward the neuromolecular gaze, but rather the coexistence of various epistemologies. In addition, this paper introduces a similar way of thinking about the brain appeared in South Korea based on an examination of Chung Ho-Sun who contributed to passing the Brain Research Promotion Act in the late 1990s. By comparing the similarities and differences between Francis O. Schmitt and Chung Ho-Sun, this paper reconsiders the nature of the modern field of neuroscience and how historians have to write about the history of neuroscience.
South Korea (henceforth, Korea) has been known as a country that showed remark-able success in fa... more South Korea (henceforth, Korea) has been known as a country that showed remark-able success in family planning in the 1960s. Its total fertility rate dropped from 6.0 in 1960 to 2.06 in 1983. Regarding this change, several international organizations appraised the Korean government’s program as the most successful family planning in the twentieth century. How did this change happen? Did it result from the Korean government’s authoritative power in the 1960s? To date, given the rise of military regime in the 1960s, the role of the authoritative government has been much high-lighted in understanding Korea’s family planning. Jo Eunjoo’s new book, Family and Government, however, stresses a need to move beyond such a narrow analytic scope. Korea’s family planning was neither just a story of Korea nor that of its government. Putting Korea in the context of Cold War, the author reveals a wide range of stakeholders like international organizations, public officials, non-profit organizations, doctors, statisticians, surveyors, nurses, drivers, and housewives – which constituted a new form of governmentality in Korea. From a historical and sociological viewpoint, the author examines Korea’s family planning from the 1960s to the 1970s, which poses important questions on the role of government, society, and family in the rise of biopolitics.
What makes data valuable for biology? Nowadays ‘‘big data’’ has become a buzzword in many researc... more What makes data valuable for biology? Nowadays ‘‘big data’’ has become a buzzword in many research fields, yet few researchers have seriously considered such questions as why data is valuable, how it has become useful, and what historical and philosophical meanings contemporary considerations of data in biology imply. In Data-Centric Biology, Sabina Leonelli engages historical and philosophical insights in understanding the intertwined labors and practices hidden in big data biology. In doing so, she provides a new philosophical framework that guides readers to follow different routes of ‘‘data journey.’’ By deliberately using an analogy with a ‘‘journey,’’ Leonelli stresses how data require a process of preparation for travelling and shows how, in spite of the preparation, like most journeys, things do not always go as planned. But, she notes, it is precisely this ‘‘lack of smoothness and predefined direction [that makes] their travel epistemologically interesting and useful’’ (p. 41). Like the data she investigates, Leonelli herself travels along different lines of literature in different fields, especially those at the intersections of history of science, social studies of science, and philosophy of science, while at the same time interacting with practitioners in biology, bioinformatics, and computer science....(to be continued)
(in Korean) 과학은 시대의 산물이자 시대를 바꾸는 원동력이다. 과학의 발전은 사회 속에서 이루어지고, 사회의 제도와 문화에 변화를 일으킨다. 과학연구의 출발점이 개인... more (in Korean) 과학은 시대의 산물이자 시대를 바꾸는 원동력이다. 과학의 발전은 사회 속에서 이루어지고, 사회의 제도와 문화에 변화를 일으킨다. 과학연구의 출발점이 개인의 지적 호기심이라 하더라도, 이를 추구하기 위한 수단과 방법은 사회에서 제공되기에, 그 지향점으로 사회적 효용성과 수용성 및 신뢰성을 고려하지 않을 수 없게 되었다. “사회 속의 과학 (Science in Society)”에 대한 깊은 이해가 필요한 이유가 여기에 있다.
이 책의 목적은 “사회 속의 과학”의 관점에서 한국 기초과학 정책의 역사를 조망하는 것이다. 한국전쟁 이후 국가를 재건할 시기에 기초과학을 위한 정책은 정부의 우선순위에서 밀려나 있었고, 1980년대에 들어서야 대학의 과학교육 및 연구기능 강화를 위한 움직임이 가시적으로 나타나기 시작했다. 유전공학육성법, 기초과학진흥법과 같은 제도적 장치가 마련되었고, 1990년대에 들어서 과학기술한림원, 고등과학원 등 새로운 기관이 설립되었으며, 대학에서 다수의 우수연구센터가 이공계 분야에 신설되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 기초과학에 대한 정책적 관심은 다른 응용개발 분야에 비해 적다는 비판이 상존했는데, 이를 극복하기 위한 노력 끝에 2011년 기초과학연구원(IBS)이 설립되었다. 이 책은 기초과학연구원의 설립배경과 성장과정을 분석하여 개발도상국에서 선진국으로 전환하는 시기의 한국 사회에서 기초과학이 갖는 다층적 의미를 보일 것이다.
이 책에서 우리는 “사회 속의 과학”의 관점을 적극적으로 활용할 것이다. 먼저 기초과학에 대한 담론이 형성되고 선택되며 제도화되는 과정의 사회적 맥락에 주목하고, 기초과학이 전략화·대형화되는 과정 속에서 새로운 기관 설립의 정당성은 어떻게 주장되는지 살펴볼 것이다. 또한 자율성·수월성·개방성·창의성과 같은 과학자 사회의 전통적 가치가 특별히 강조되고 기관 운영철학으로 활용되는 과정을 조사하며, 투명성·공정성·합목적성과 같은 민주주의의 덕목이 사회에서 요구되는 과정을 분석할 것이다. 이와 함께 기관의 정체성이 도시의 정체성과 어떻게 연계되어 진화되는지 논의할 것이다.
Many observers have assumed that the American Human Brain Project of the 1990s marked the culmina... more Many observers have assumed that the American Human Brain Project of the 1990s marked the culmination of the “computer revolution” in neuroscience. The Project aimed to build a large-scale brain database and drew an international participation from countries including South Korea. The development of the Human Brain Project was, however, not a sudden or inevitable consequence of the adoption of new computing technologies in neuroscience. It rather represented the contingent gathering of divergent moral economies which shaped the values of data and data practices in neuroscience in different countries. From a historical and comparative perspective, my book project examines distinctive evolutionary processes of the “computer revolution” in the U.S. and South Korea and its culmination in the Human Brain Project in the post-Cold War period. By doing so, it traces the conjoint rise of big data and big biology at the interdisciplinary intersection of brain, mind, and computer studies in the late 20th century.
This talk presents an overview of my book in progress, mainly focusing on the U.S. It will highlight two moments in the history of neuroscience, when its plural term, neurosciences, was highly used and resonated to address the issue of heterogeneous ideas and practices in brain science. The first moment was when the first neuroscience community was formed at MIT in the 1960s with the launch of the “Neurosciences Research Program.” The second moment was when the “Neurosciences Research Branch” was newly built at the National Institute of Mental Health in the 1980s which led the Human Brain Project in the U.S. By focusing on those two moments, this talk will show the changing meaning of computing technologies, the shaping of interdisciplinarity in neuroscience(s), and the making of big science project during and after the Cold War.
This presentation revisits the history of neuroscience in the late 20th century through the lens ... more This presentation revisits the history of neuroscience in the late 20th century through the lens of big science.
In 1962, the field of neuroscience, known as the modern brain study, was launched in the U.S., with the establishment of the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP). Led by Francis O. Schmitt, a well-known biologist at the MIT, the NRP has been regarded as the symbol of the triumph of molecularization in brain studies in the 20th century. However, this presentation reveals how Schmitt hoped to move beyond molecular approaches to develop a big theory in brain studies akin to quantum theory in physics. By unveiling Schmitt's notes, interactions with cyberneticians including Norbert Wiener, and his writings as a religious person as well as a scientist, it re-examines the beginning of modern brain study in the U.S. and shows why the plural term "neurosciences" was coined instead of use of the singular "neuroscience" in the 1960s.
In addition, this presentation analyzes how the idea of developing a big theory in brain studies gave way to the emphasis on gathering and managing big data from the late 1970s. When the National Institute of Mental Health pushed ahead a new Neurosciences Research Program with the establishment of Neurosciences Research Branch in the 1980s, it had the same name to the NRP, named in the 1960s, but the meaning of 's' in neurosciences was different. Based on the analysis of the formation and evolution of the NRB in the NIMH in the 1980s, this presentation ultimately compares the two different ideas of neurosciences developed in the late 20th century and sheds light on comparative senses of the Cold-War and the post-Cold War research programs in the U.S.
Uploads
Papers by Youjung Shin
toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D
innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 연관되어 있다. 융합연구를 무엇이라 정의하느냐에 따라 이를 촉진시키는 정책적 수단들에 대한 생각 또한 달라질 수밖에 없다. 융합연구를 새로운 두 이질적인 학문이 만났을 때 일어나는 결합의 결과라 생각한다면, 전혀 접점이 없을 것 같은 두 영역에 연결고리를 만들어주는 장치들이 필요할 것이다. 이보다는 융합연구를 창조적인 개별 연구자가 서로 다른 지식들을 자신만의 방식으로 해석하는 과정에서 나오는 산출물이라고 생각한다면, 창의적 능력을 지닌 연구자들을 양성하는데 도움이 되는 수단들을 고려하게 될 것이다.
...
하지만 융합연구의 정의 및 유형에 대한 개념적인 연구는 많이 진행된 반면, 실제로 특정 지역 또는 영역에서 융합연구에 대한 개념이 어떻게 상정되고 있는지 분석한 연구는 드물다고 할 수 있다 (박기범 & 황정태, 2007; 엄융의 외, 2010; 홍성욱 외, 2012; 오현석 외 2012; 서동인 & 오현석, 2014; 백연정, 2016). 즉 융합연구의 보편적인 개념적 특성은 많은 조명을 받았지만, 한국이라는 나라에서 융합연구 개념이 논의되는 특징적인 양상 및 형태를 조명한 연구는 많지 않았다. 최근 황병상 외 (2016)가 『한국융합정책론: 융합기술과 산업융합』을 통하여, 한국에서 논의되고 있는 융합연구정책을 정책학적 관점에서 분석한 바 있으나, 이미 제도화된 주요 법률 및 국가계획을 위주로 분석함으로써 논의 양상 자체를 조명하는 데는 한계를 보였다.
본 연구는 “학술 연구”를 다양한 지적 상상력이 응집되고, 구체적인 실천의 장이 마련되는 중요한 공간으로 인식하고, 한국의 융합연구정책을 둘러싼 상상이 어떠한 방식으로 드러나는지 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통하여 융합연구에 대한 한국의 “사회기술적 상상”을 진단하고자 하며, “경계사물”이라는 개념을 소개함으로써, 향후 대안적 상상을 논할 시발점을 제시하고자 한다....
Conference Presentations by Youjung Shin
toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&D
innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.
최근 많은 정책 전문가들이 던지는 이 질문은 사실 “융합연구란 무엇인가?”라는 근본적인 논의와 밀접하게 연관되어 있다. 융합연구를 무엇이라 정의하느냐에 따라 이를 촉진시키는 정책적 수단들에 대한 생각 또한 달라질 수밖에 없다. 융합연구를 새로운 두 이질적인 학문이 만났을 때 일어나는 결합의 결과라 생각한다면, 전혀 접점이 없을 것 같은 두 영역에 연결고리를 만들어주는 장치들이 필요할 것이다. 이보다는 융합연구를 창조적인 개별 연구자가 서로 다른 지식들을 자신만의 방식으로 해석하는 과정에서 나오는 산출물이라고 생각한다면, 창의적 능력을 지닌 연구자들을 양성하는데 도움이 되는 수단들을 고려하게 될 것이다.
...
하지만 융합연구의 정의 및 유형에 대한 개념적인 연구는 많이 진행된 반면, 실제로 특정 지역 또는 영역에서 융합연구에 대한 개념이 어떻게 상정되고 있는지 분석한 연구는 드물다고 할 수 있다 (박기범 & 황정태, 2007; 엄융의 외, 2010; 홍성욱 외, 2012; 오현석 외 2012; 서동인 & 오현석, 2014; 백연정, 2016). 즉 융합연구의 보편적인 개념적 특성은 많은 조명을 받았지만, 한국이라는 나라에서 융합연구 개념이 논의되는 특징적인 양상 및 형태를 조명한 연구는 많지 않았다. 최근 황병상 외 (2016)가 『한국융합정책론: 융합기술과 산업융합』을 통하여, 한국에서 논의되고 있는 융합연구정책을 정책학적 관점에서 분석한 바 있으나, 이미 제도화된 주요 법률 및 국가계획을 위주로 분석함으로써 논의 양상 자체를 조명하는 데는 한계를 보였다.
본 연구는 “학술 연구”를 다양한 지적 상상력이 응집되고, 구체적인 실천의 장이 마련되는 중요한 공간으로 인식하고, 한국의 융합연구정책을 둘러싼 상상이 어떠한 방식으로 드러나는지 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통하여 융합연구에 대한 한국의 “사회기술적 상상”을 진단하고자 하며, “경계사물”이라는 개념을 소개함으로써, 향후 대안적 상상을 논할 시발점을 제시하고자 한다....
International Congress of History of Science and Technology, Brazil, July, 2017
seriously considered such questions as why data is valuable, how it has
become useful, and what historical and philosophical meanings contemporary considerations of data in biology imply. In Data-Centric
Biology, Sabina Leonelli engages historical and philosophical insights in
understanding the intertwined labors and practices hidden in big data
biology. In doing so, she provides a new philosophical framework that
guides readers to follow different routes of ‘‘data journey.’’ By deliberately
using an analogy with a ‘‘journey,’’ Leonelli stresses how data
require a process of preparation for travelling and shows how, in spite
of the preparation, like most journeys, things do not always go as
planned. But, she notes, it is precisely this ‘‘lack of smoothness and
predefined direction [that makes] their travel epistemologically interesting and useful’’ (p. 41). Like the data she investigates, Leonelli herself travels along different lines of literature in different fields, especially those at the intersections of history of science, social studies of science, and philosophy of science, while at the same time interacting with practitioners in biology, bioinformatics, and computer science....(to be continued)
이 책의 목적은 “사회 속의 과학”의 관점에서 한국 기초과학 정책의 역사를 조망하는 것이다. 한국전쟁 이후 국가를 재건할 시기에 기초과학을 위한 정책은 정부의 우선순위에서 밀려나 있었고, 1980년대에 들어서야 대학의 과학교육 및 연구기능 강화를 위한 움직임이 가시적으로 나타나기 시작했다. 유전공학육성법, 기초과학진흥법과 같은 제도적 장치가 마련되었고, 1990년대에 들어서 과학기술한림원, 고등과학원 등 새로운 기관이 설립되었으며, 대학에서 다수의 우수연구센터가 이공계 분야에 신설되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 기초과학에 대한 정책적 관심은 다른 응용개발 분야에 비해 적다는 비판이 상존했는데, 이를 극복하기 위한 노력 끝에 2011년 기초과학연구원(IBS)이 설립되었다. 이 책은 기초과학연구원의 설립배경과 성장과정을 분석하여 개발도상국에서 선진국으로 전환하는 시기의 한국 사회에서 기초과학이 갖는 다층적 의미를 보일 것이다.
이 책에서 우리는 “사회 속의 과학”의 관점을 적극적으로 활용할 것이다. 먼저 기초과학에 대한 담론이 형성되고 선택되며 제도화되는 과정의 사회적 맥락에 주목하고, 기초과학이 전략화·대형화되는 과정 속에서 새로운 기관 설립의 정당성은 어떻게 주장되는지 살펴볼 것이다. 또한 자율성·수월성·개방성·창의성과 같은 과학자 사회의 전통적 가치가 특별히 강조되고 기관 운영철학으로 활용되는 과정을 조사하며, 투명성·공정성·합목적성과 같은 민주주의의 덕목이 사회에서 요구되는 과정을 분석할 것이다. 이와 함께 기관의 정체성이 도시의 정체성과 어떻게 연계되어 진화되는지 논의할 것이다.
This talk presents an overview of my book in progress, mainly focusing on the U.S. It will highlight two moments in the history of neuroscience, when its plural term, neurosciences, was highly used and resonated to address the issue of heterogeneous ideas and practices in brain science. The first moment was when the first neuroscience community was formed at MIT in the 1960s with the launch of the “Neurosciences Research Program.” The second moment was when the “Neurosciences Research Branch” was newly built at the National Institute of Mental Health in the 1980s which led the Human Brain Project in the U.S. By focusing on those two moments, this talk will show the changing meaning of computing technologies, the shaping of interdisciplinarity in neuroscience(s), and the making of big science project during and after the Cold War.
In 1962, the field of neuroscience, known as the modern brain study, was launched in the U.S., with the establishment of the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP). Led by Francis O. Schmitt, a well-known biologist at the MIT, the NRP has been regarded as the symbol of the triumph of molecularization in brain studies in the 20th century. However, this presentation reveals how Schmitt hoped to move beyond molecular approaches to develop a big theory in brain studies akin to quantum theory in physics. By unveiling Schmitt's notes, interactions with cyberneticians including Norbert Wiener, and his writings as a religious person as well as a scientist, it re-examines the beginning of modern brain study in the U.S. and shows why the plural term "neurosciences" was coined instead of use of the singular "neuroscience" in the 1960s.
In addition, this presentation analyzes how the idea of developing a big theory in brain studies gave way to the emphasis on gathering and managing big data from the late 1970s. When the National Institute of Mental Health pushed ahead a new Neurosciences Research Program with the establishment of Neurosciences Research Branch in the 1980s, it had the same name to the NRP, named in the 1960s, but the meaning of 's' in neurosciences was different. Based on the analysis of the formation and evolution of the NRB in the NIMH in the 1980s, this presentation ultimately compares the two different ideas of neurosciences developed in the late 20th century and sheds light on comparative senses of the Cold-War and the post-Cold War research programs in the U.S.