Researchers at a government-funded science and technology research institute. [Herald DB]
Researchers at a government-funded science and technology research institute. [Herald DB]

Three reappointments in 11 years. A system designed to let high-performing heads of government-funded research institutes stay on has been rendered all but meaningless by political considerations.

Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Jo In-cheol said a bill to abolish the separate reappointment procedure for heads of government-funded science and technology research institutes passed the National Assembly floor vote on Thursday.

The amendment scraps the dedicated reappointment track that had applied to sitting institute heads and instead requires any incumbent who wishes to serve another term to compete in the open recruitment or recommendation process used to select their successor.

The current reappointment system was introduced in 2014 to allow high-performing heads to run their institutes with stability under a long-term vision. Under the system, a head who receives an "excellent" or higher rating in an institutional evaluation can be reappointed with the approval of at least two-thirds of the full board of the National Research Council of Science and Technology (NST), which oversees the institutes. The prevailing view, however, is that the Ministry of Science and ICT and the presidential office wield considerable influence over the outcome.

Since the system was introduced, only three institute heads have actually been reappointed in 11 years: Lee Byung-kwon of the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Kim Jang-seong of the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, and Jang Hae-chun of the World Institute of Kimchi.

Under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, four institute heads who had qualified for reappointment after being appointed by the previous government all failed to secure another term. The pattern has continued under the Lee Jae Myung administration: heads of the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, the Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, and the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology all sought reappointment but were turned down.

Researchers at a government-funded research institute. [Herald DB]
Researchers at a government-funded research institute. [Herald DB]

The contrast with the period before the system was introduced is stark: between 2000 and 2014, 19 institute heads were reappointed through open recruitment. Under the current system, eight cases were rejected despite meeting the reappointment criteria, because they failed to clear the two-thirds board vote. Rather than lowering the bar for reappointment, the system in effect raised it.

A further concern was that starting this year, institutional evaluations shifted from a three-year cycle aligned with the institute head's term to an annual cycle unrelated to tenure — meaning that keeping the current system, which ties reappointment to evaluation results, risked adding to the administrative and assessment burden on research staff.

An official at one of the institutes said that whenever a leadership transition coincided with a change of government, reappointment was in effect impossible regardless of how well the institute performed in its evaluation. "Science and technology should be kept separate from politics," the official said. "Given that, abolishing the reappointment system is the right call."

Lawmaker Jo said the reappointment system was created so that outstanding institute heads could work with stability, but that only three heads being reappointed in 11 years made it hard to say the system had functioned as intended. "We will ensure that incumbent heads are evaluated on their abilities and track record through the same process as other candidates, raising the fairness and credibility of how the institutes are run," Jo said.


nbgkoo@heraldcorp.com