December 12, 1995

6:00 p.m. Opening Reception Congressional Hall

Remarks: Bohn-Young Koo

Vice Minister of Science and

Technology

Republic of Korea

Jane Wales

Associate Director for National

Security and International Affairs

Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Executive Office of the President

December 13, 1995

7:00 a.m. Registration Ground Floor Level

7:50 a.m. Opening and Welcome Congressional Hall A

Young Woo Kim

President

Science and Technology Policy

Institute

J. Thomas Ratchford

Director

George Mason University Center

for Science, Trade, and

Technology Policy

8:00 a.m. Legislative Keynote Congressional Hall A

Presiding: D. Allan Bromley

Sterling Professor of the Sciences

and Dean of Engineering

Yale University

Speakers: Constance A. Morella

Chairwoman, Technology

Subcommittee

Committee on Science

U.S. House of Representatives

Kyong Shik Kang

Member

National Assembly of Korea

9:15 a.m. Coffee Break Auditorium Pre-Function Area

9:30 a.m. Keynote Session I Auditorium

Presiding: Dewey D.Y. Ryu

President

Korean-American Scientists and

Engineers Association

Speakers: Bohn-Young Koo

Vice Minister of Science and

Technology

Republic of Korea

Hazel O’Leary

Secretary

U.S. Department of Energy

10:30 a.m. Coffee Break Auditorium Pre-Function Area

10:45 a.m. Keynote Session II Auditorium

Remarks: Duk Yong Yoon

President

Korea Advanced Institute of

Science and Technology

Speakers: John P. McTague

Vice President, Technical Affairs

Ford Motor Company

Jin Ku Kang

Chairman

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

NOON Luncheon Congressional Hall A

Remarks: Jinjoo Lee

President

Korea Academy of Industrial

Technology

Mary L. Good

Under Secretary for Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

2:00 p.m. TECHNICAL AND POLICY SESSIONS

I. Advances in Basic Science Meeting Room 12

Presiding: Saeyoung Ahn

Korean-American Scientists and Engineers Association

Speakers: Plasma Physics Research

John Schmidt

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Gyung-Su Lee

Korea Institute of Basic Science

Praveen Chaudhari

IBM Corporation

Robert Laudise

AT&T Bell Laboratories

Panelists: Miklos Porkolab

MIT Plasma Fusion Center

Choong Suk Chang

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Moon Jhong Rhee

University of Maryland

Dale Meade

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

R. Thomas Weimer

Staff Director

Subcommittee on Basic Research

U.S. House of Representatives

Presiding: Frederick Bernthal

Universities Research Association

Speakers: Recent Developments in Environmental Technology

Jorge Vanegas

Georgia Institute of Technology, Center for Sustainable Technology

Hee Jun Eun

Korea Research Institute of Standards and Sciences

Won Hoon Park

Korea Institute of Science and Technology

Lewis P. Reade

U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership

Marten de Vries

Virginia Polytechnic University, Fiber and Electro-Optics Research Center

Panelists: Kil-Choo Moon

Korea Institute of Science and Technology

Kern Shin Yoon

Samsung Engineering and Construction Institute of Technology

Roger Cortesi

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Frank Huband

American Society for Engineering Education

III. Technical Session II Meeting Room 14

Presiding: Seungtaik Yang

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

Speakers: Advances in Information Technology

William A. Wulf

University of Virginia

Seungtaik Yang

Electronics and Telecommunication Research Institute

Rita R. Colwell

University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute

Kwang-Ho Pyun

Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology

Panelists: Kea Won Kang

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Sue-Gu Rhee

National Institutes of Health

Sung-Kyou Park

Daewoo Telecom Ltd.

Kyu Chang Park

Strategic Business of LG Electronics Ltd.

William D. Sawyer

China Medical Board

IV. Policy Session Meeting Room 15

Presiding: Gerald Mossinghoff

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Lawrence Goffney, Jr.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Joon Kook Park

Shin and Kim

Roland Schmitt

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Sung-Nak Cho

Korea Industrial Technology Association

Panelists: Won Young Lee

Science and Technology Policy Institute

Byong-Hun Ahn

Korea Advanced Institute of Science

Chang-Dal Kim

Korea Technology Banking Corporation

Richard Thurston

Texas Instruments

Kenneth Keller

Council on Foreign Relations

4:00 p.m. Coffee Break Auditorium Pre-Function Area

4:15 p.m. Policy Roundtable Auditorium

Presiding: Soonhoon Bae

Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.

J. Thomas Ratchford

George Mason University Center for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy

Session Presiders

Lewis M. Branscomb

Harvard University

Hee-Yol Yu

Ministry of Science and Technology

Jewan Kim

Seoul National University

Edward David

EED, Inc.

6:00 p.m. Reception Congressional Hall A Pre- Function Area

7:00 p.m. Closing Dinner Congressional Hall A

8:00 p.m. Closing Address

Presiding: Peter S. Watson

U.S. International Trade Commission

Remarks: Kent H. Hughes

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am very much honored and pleased to have this opportunity to give welcoming words to such a distinguished group of scientists, engineers, business leaders, and policy makers from the United States and Korea. Let me first of all extend my warmest welcome to all of you here this evening and express my heart-felt gratitude for joining us to celebrate the Third United States-Korea Science and Technology Forum.

The idea of this forum was first conceived in 1992 when the negotiations on the new Korea-United States Agreement on Science and Technology (STA) were in the final stages. The essential premise of the new agreement was that the Korea-United States relationship in science and technology should be transformed into a full-fledged partnership based on reciprocity and mutuality. Even though the negotiations took a rather a long period of time, we were able in the end to conclude the agreement. But the question then was: what should we do to transform our scientific and technological relationship from the past unidirectional technological dependence to a genuine bidirectional cooperation.

This forum was born out of this question. Since we had the inaugural meeting of this forum in 1993, we have had it every year. I am pleased to tell you that this forum has made a great contribution to deepening mutual understanding between our two countries and renewing our commitment to the benefits of scientific and technological cooperation. I have great expectations that through this forum we will be able to confirm our common visions in science and technology, and to identify what we can do to realize the visions we share. I also hope that the scientists and engineers here will be able to make many arrangements for cooperation at this forum.

After all, the most important attribute of scientific and technological cooperation is that it can not only create new markets but expand old markets--thus, certainly, improving the quality of life for everyone. This, and no less, should be the goal of Korea-United States cooperation in science and technology.

In closing, I would like to thank the organizers of this forum, the Science and Technology Policy Institute of Korea and George Mason University, for their organizational efforts and their dedication to the good cause of Korea-U.S. scientific and technological cooperation.

Now, please join me in a toast to the success of the forum. Thank you.

Office of Science and Technology Policy

I would like to thank the organizing committee of this Third U.S.-Korea Science and Technology Forum for inviting me to speak at this reception. Let me congratulate the committee for putting together an ambitious agenda and an impressive gathering of distinguished Koreans and Americans who are committed to the strength and vitality of the science and technology enterprise in both nations.

I would like in particular to acknowledge the role of Tom Ratchford and Dr. Sung Chul Chung in organizing this important event which we will follow with interest as we prepare for the intergovernmental U.S.-Korea S&T Committee meeting.

Let me emphasize the importance that the Administration places on the close partnership we have enjoyed with the Republic of Korea. When most people think of the U.S.-Korean relationship, they think of its security dimension narrowly defined. They think of the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty, of our shared commitment to maintaining a military presence, and of our partnership to combat the threat of weapons proliferation--particularly from the north. We are proud of our collaboration in these arenas, and of our continued commitment to working to together to ensure both regional and ultimately global stability.

But both the United States and the Republic of Korea recognize that in the modern day, security need not be so narrowly defined. Indeed, while averting war may be our most fundamental goal, building and sustaining a stable peace is our shared opportunity.

To prevent the kinds of crises that drain our resources and threaten the lives of our soldiers and our citizens, the Republic of Korea and the United States are working together--both bilaterally and multilaterally--on a broader security agenda, one which advances: sustained economic development, stable economic growth, and free and fair trade, and one which helps us and our neighbors meet their citizens most basic needs.

We know that this broad agenda can be achieved only by expanding economies and broadening participation in those economies--not just our own, but those of our neighbors. And in this conception, we understand that science and technology have central roles to play.

We also know that the problems we face in the region and around the world require the sustained engagement of many nations, rather than sporadic interventions by a few. And that is why we welcome the opportunity to work in multilateral fora, and we are especially appreciative of the leadership role Korea plays in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, known as APEC.

We know that these objectives demand a strategy that has the advancement of knowledge at its very core. And that is what you have gathered to talk about over the next two days. I am struck by your program because it reflects the power of scientific discovery and technological innovation in both our nations. It reminds us not only of what we can do separately, but what we can do together. The promise of plasma physics research, developments in electronic materials, environmental and information technologies, and biotechnology is yet to be fully understood. The importance of cooperation in disaster prevention and mitigation is just one element of our multi-pronged sustainable development agenda.

Underlying these advances is a shared understanding of the importance of sustained investment in research from which innovations arise, often unpredictably. The Republic of Korea has demonstrated its commitment to research and development year after year, and the economic growth it enjoys shows that it has paid off. I understand that R&D investment will go to three or four percent of GNP in 1998, and that you have had a 20 percent increase in the budget of the Ministry of Science and Technology for next year. You will forgive me if I look a bit envious, but you have heard our budget woes. We are also impressed by the commitment of your government to public-private partnerships to advance pre-commercial R&D. The themes selected for the Highly Advanced National Projects (HAN) will undoubtedly advance the frontiers of knowledge in areas of mutual interest. You will hear from Mary Good of our efforts to pursue similar partnerships.

Advances not only require investments in R&D, but also in human resources. And here is where spontaneous collaboration emerges. In the last academic year, more than 31,000 Korean students studied in the United States, and while we do not have as many Americans studying in Korea, we are working together to increase the traffic going that way as well. In this area, I want to express our appreciation to the Korean government for providing support for researcher and information exchange, including the establishment of a Summer Institute Program in Korea for U.S. graduate students. I am told that 35 percent of Korean Ph.D.’s received their doctorate here in the United States. Therefore, it is not surprising that the bonds between our scientific communities are strong and productive. The Republic of Korea may be short on natural resources, but it is long on human resources. Korea's highly educated citizenry and vibrant scientific and technological community have made it a world leader in S&T--and, of course, one of our largest trading partners.

Our broader bilateral agenda includes cooperation in all the areas of science and technology that you will be discussing tomorrow, as well as energy, agriculture, transportation, meteorology, and oceanography.

Multilaterally, we have seen science and technology take center stage in the APEC forum. This year APEC held its first S&T ministerial, and both Minister Chung and our Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. Jack Gibbons, participated. There were 29 proposals for cooperative activities offered by member countries, reflecting the importance of S&T to all the economies of the region. Minister Chung stressed the importance of the open flow of information, and of cooperation on environmental matters--a perspective we very much share. And Minister Chung offered to have Korea host the next APEC S&T Ministerial in 1996, a meeting in which we look forward to participating.

In both our bilateral and multilateral cooperation, it is important to note the central role played by the private sector in promoting S&T cooperation. The participation in this event of representatives of the private sector reflects an appreciation of that fact. Our private sectors have been forming links across borders, sharing capital, people, and markets. The accelerated pace of this activity is made possible by significant trade and investment liberalization which is a trend that benefits both nations. In the United States, for example, we are pleased by recent decisions of Hyundai and Samsung to construct semiconductor plant facilities in Oregon and Texas respectively.

As a result of global strategies for innovation by Korean firms and market liberalization, the amount of investment flowing both ways has dramatically increased in recent years creating the basis for increased economic integration, a central goal both of the Clinton Administration and of the APEC process.

I want to thank you for inviting me to join you as you launch this impressive conference. The value of fora such as these cannot be overstated. I am not at all surprised to see my colleague and OSTP predecessor Tom Ratchford at the center. I know you will have a productive meeting.

OPENING AND WELCOME

Excellencies, distinguished participants, ladies, and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude to all of you here this morning for joining us at the Third Korea-United States Science and Technology Forum. As President of the Science and Technology Policy Institute, I am greatly honored to host this important forum on one of the most vital issues of our time--science and technology cooperation. I am particularly pleased and honored to have such distinguished scientists, engineers, and policy-makers from both countries at this forum. Let me extend my warmest welcome to you all.

We have organized this forum to promote scientific and technological interactions between our two countries, to explore desirable areas for and modes of cooperation, to help scientists and engineers form networks for collaboration, and to deepen mutual understanding of institutions, practices, and policy environments of our two countries. Perhaps, more importantly, we are here to reconfirm the common vision we share, because what motivates and facilitates cooperation is the sharing of a common vision.

Korea and the United States share common visions of security and peace, economic development based on free trade and investment, democracy, and a prosperous Asia-Pacific region. During the Cold-war period, the common vision of peace and security kept us close politically and militarily. The strong economic partnership between our two countries will be maintained and strengthened due to our strong commitment to the mutual benefits of free trade and investment. But as you may agree, we will not be able to fully realize the visions we share without close scientific and technological cooperation based on mutuality and reciprocity.

The current Korea-U.S. relationship in science and technology has yet to mature. The relationship is still unidirectional in many senses. It is quite clear what we have to do in order to transform such a relationship into a mature and complete partnership. Above all, Korea has to equip itself with a technological capability that is strong enough to complement the United States. It is also no less important for us to cooperate with each other to minimize institutional barriers between our two countries. If we can do this, we will be able to form a dynamic scientific and technological partnership. And I also believe that these goals can be better attained through closer Korea-United States cooperation.

I hope this forum will be an opportunity for all of us here to make many cooperative arrangements, to renew old friendships, and to make new friends. Now, I would like to conclude my remarks by thanking you again for your commitment to Korea-United States cooperation in science and technology. Thank you.

GMU Center for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy

On behalf of the George Mason University Center for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy, and of the Forum Organizing Committee, I am honored to welcome each of you this morning. The Center for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy aims to bring together both people and ideas that span diverse fields and disciplines. We are all aware that today’s global economy is both multinational and multidisciplinary. That global economy is also firmly rooted in technology--and is becoming more so every year.

But science and technology are also affected by trade. Trade and technology increasingly shape each other. If we are to understand adequately these interactions, then experts in science and technology--and the policies that affect them--must sit down with those who understand and practice international trade.

A lot of work went into organizing this forum. Much of that work was done by the Forum Organizing Committee, co-chaired by Dr. Sung Chul Chung and myself. Several meetings--here and in Seoul--defined the intellectual content and identified most of the speakers. We are profoundly grateful to the Organizing Committee members, for it was their advice and wisdom that gave us the rich agenda today. You will find all the Organizing Committee members listed in the forum program.

I should also like to acknowledge the distinguished members of the Honorary Advisory Council. They, too, are listed in the program, and several will address you today. I am pleased to acknowledge the Supporting Organizations who brought a wealth of institutional knowledge to the planning process. They are also identified in the program. And last--but certainly not least--I want to pay tribute to the skill and dedication of the GMU and STEPI staff that made all this possible.

We hope that you will enjoy and learn from the forum today. But we also hope you will find it the beginning--not the end--of a continuing effort to bring the U.S. and Korean science and engineering communities together--and to better integrate the concerns and talents of those communities into the fabric of our broader relations in trade and the economy.

Although I began life as a physicist, I strayed many years ago into policy concerns. One interlude of seven years or so was spent on Capitol Hill, with the Committee on Science. It was there I learned an important lesson--it is that in public speaking, brevity is often confused with eloquence.

I shall thus end my remarks and commend to you the Third U.S.-Korea Science and Technology Forum.

LEGISLATIVE KEYNOTE

United States Congress

Thank you for your invitation to address this opening session of the Third U.S.-Korea Science and Technology Forum. I thank Dr. Allan Bromley for his kind introduction this morning. I would also like to add my personal welcome to the United States to my parliamentary colleague from the National Assembly of Korea, His Excellency Kyong Shik Kang, and to all of our Korean visitors here today.

In reviewing the forum’s agenda for today, I noted that you will be having far-ranging discussions covering a mix of scientific, technical, and policy issues, with speakers from the U.S. federal government, industry and academia, along with their Korean counterparts. I am sure that today’s dialogues will provide all participants with continued insights into effective basic and applied scientific activities for both nations.

This forum will also provide an important opportunity for discussions of shared issues of concern, such as intellectual property rights and trade which warrant further attention on the part of both nations.

I felt that I might best contribute to the proceedings today by reporting on the dramatic changes which have occurred in the United States since the last joint forum in May 1994. The 1994 forum reviewed issues of enormous implications for United States science and technology, and for our international collaboration in those areas.

Everyone here is aware, I am sure, of our national debate which the U.S. Congress has led this past year--and which continues even today--on the future role of the federal government in our American society. Just one year ago this past November, the United States voters changed the leadership of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and sent a large number of new representative with what they feel is a clarion call to dramatically reduce the growth in federal spending, balance our federal budget, and downsize the federal government.

This call from the electorate has also been heard by our President, and he too is responding to its directive. Whatever final agreement the Congress and the President work out in the upcoming days and weeks on the future role of the U.S. government and federal spending, it will represent a fundamentally different direction for our federal government and its role in our society.

What are the implications of these actions on the United States’ science and technology enterprise? Simply stated, it will be enormous! For the first time since the end of the Second World War, the aggregate federal contribution in dollars--currently 73 billion dollars--to the U.S. science and technology enterprise will begin diminishing. Some of you, I know, understand that those aggregate contributions have been flat in real dollars for three years already, but now they will begin to decrease under everyone’s proposed scenario--from the Congress, the President, and even in the alternative budget proposals under consideration.

Whether you examine Congress’ budget resolution, or the Administration’s projections released last February and amended as recently as last week, the conclusion you will inevitably arrive at is that the current debate over the discretionary federal spending for science and technology is not downward in everyone’s scenario--but rather over the pace of the federal science and technology funding and its content. In other words, the key issues will be: how much of our scarcer federal dollars will we spend on research versus development? And how much will we spend on defense versus civilian applications?

I am not sharing this rather sobering message with you as an alarmist, but rather as a realist working to assure that the effects of this funding shift can first be understood and then priority decisions can be made to assure a vital U.S. science and technology enterprise. It is necessary to realize that, at least for the present, aggregate federal funding for science and technology is being treated no worse, nor any better, than funding for most other government programs. I believe that reflects the current wishes of the American electorate. If they wish to see higher priority given to federal funding for science, they will need to communicate that to their new representatives. This represents a challenge to the American scientific and technological community to begin educating an electorate and their new representatives on why science is an investment in our future warranting higher priority consideration.

What we are seeing in the United States today is the beginning of the passing of the political baton from an older generation comfortable with the notion of federal funding for science and technology as an investment, to a younger generation more skeptical of the role of government in general and awaiting the presentation of persuasive arguments.

What then are the implications of this new diminished federal role for American science and technology and also for the United States role in international scientific collaboration?

The most immediate impacts, I believe, will be in the evolving relationships between the troika that performs science and technology development in the United States--the universities, industry, and the government, principally through its laboratories. From the United States perspective, I think these inter-relationships are likely to be evolving even faster than before as the mix of public and private research dollars change. I know that the Congress is interested in examining mechanisms other than direct federal funding, such as changes to our tax code, to incentivize new industrial partnerships for conducting research and development.

And let me take a moment while discussing research and development agreements and technology transfer to share my views of the new Congress’ attitudes toward them. Notwithstanding criticisms you may have heard about some government-industry partnerships as being "too close to the marketplace," I believe, that on the whole, this Congress strongly supports appropriate, innovative partnerships between government labs and industrial consortia and individual companies.

Indeed, just yesterday, legislation I drafted called the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 to broaden and strengthen existing technology transfer statutes, was adopted by the full House of Representative. I view the evolving relationships between government labs and industry, as well as the universities, as the area which can and must be pushed to assure that American science and technology continues to perform in the national interest even while the federal dollars in most programmatic areas are flat or declining.

The implications of our new national order on international collaboration in science and technology has not been fully addressed yet by this Congress. It is becoming clear that performing scientific research in experimental disciplines that require new, large, expensive machines--such as elementary particle physics (high energy colliders) and plasma physics (fusion)--will necessarily require international collaboration in construction and operation. The only alternative is to substantially slow down the performance of research in these areas until after our budget is balanced. The challenge to researchers in the American scientific community is not simply to identify and agree on new research opportunities, but then to justify them to their colleagues in other disciplines and nations.

Additionally, it will be a test of American scientific researchers to weigh and choose between more rapid international advancement of their discipline versus "protection" of their national (domestic) enterprise.

Let me stop my report here on the changes which have occurred in the United States since your last forum. I hope that my remarks from the U.S. Congress’ point of view provide some framework for your discussions here today. I appreciate you attention, and if time permits, I would be happy to accept a few questions. Thank you.

The Honorable Constance Morella, Vice Minister Koo, Professor Ratchford, Dr. Young Woo Kim, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen:

On the occasion of the Third Korea-U.S. Science and Technology Forum, I would like to express my gratitude and compliments for the pioneering efforts made by the organizers. I place particular significance on this meeting today because we are here to explore new horizons for Korea-U.S. relations and discuss scientific and technological cooperation between the two countries on the threshold of the 21st century.

Let me also express my gratitude to the organizers of the forum for this rare opportunity to address one of the most vital issues of our time in front of such a distinguished audience.

Needless to say, science and technology are the main source of economic development and, therefore, will be key to the new world economic order and world security. Accordingly, I believe science and technology should be put on the top of the agenda in discussing a new Korea-U.S. relationship.

Changes in Korea-U.S. relations have been the result of jointly accommodating changes in the world situation. During the Cold War era of fierce ideological confrontation, Korea and the United States joined forces in the effort for democracy. The Korean people’s struggle for democracy, which started in 1960, succeeded in making Korea a democratic society because the Korea-U.S. relationship insured peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.

When the world economy was in deep stagnation after the two consecutive oil crises in the 1970's, Korea and the United States worked together toward common prosperity by expanding economic interactions, including cooperation in investment, technology, and shared markets.

Simply speaking, the changes in the Korea-U.S. relationship over the past five decades reflects how the two countries have cooperated in response to the changes in the world situation. By the same logic, it is an extremely natural phenomenon that the two countries are now seeking to shift their relationship toward a partnership based on scientific and technological alliance in the face of the changing technological and economic paradigm. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, science and technology have emerged as a major factor in world economic development, providing a new framework for international relations. This certainly implies that the new Korea-U.S. relationship should be founded on scientific and technological alliance.

I believe that the Korea-U.S. relationship should be more than just a mechanism through which the two countries respond to changes in the world situation. Rather, on the basis of the relationship, the two countries have to lead the changes in world affairs. I think there are three major areas where Korea-U.S. joint leadership is required.

First, Korea and the United States should be leading actors in ushering in the Pacific Era. It is evident that in the 21st century, the center of the world economy will rapidly move to the Pacific region. While the annual average economic growth rate of advanced countries like the United States, the European Union, and Japan is expected to remain at two to three percent, that of China is anticipated to reach the ten percent mark, and the newly industrialized economies, such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, have been project to grow at six to seven percent per annum. The ASEAN countries will also realize seven to nine percent annual economic growth toward the 21st century. In addition, economic growth and industrialization in poor Asian countries like Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos are expected to proceed at remarkable speed.

Such economic dynamism foretells the coming of an Asia-Pacific era. I believe that as relations between the United States and European countries in the 20th century have been based on a common vision of the Atlantic region, the relations between the United States and the Asian countries in the 21st century will have to founded on the common vision of a prosperous Asia-Pacific region.

In Asia, there are three economic communities. They are: the Chinese economic community comprising, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore; the Japanese economic community comprising Japan and Japan’s production bases in Asia; and the Southeast Asian economic community led by the ASEAN countries. Korea pursues close cooperation with all three economic communities, however, basically, Korea is an outsider and so it the United States. Accordingly, the lead role that the United States and Korea have taken in APEC, which harbors all three Asian economic communities, can be understood as an attempt to build a new axis of cooperation in preparation for the upcoming Pacific era.

I think it is extremely important that the United States--a political and military superpower, a scientifically and technologically advanced country, and a country where the spirit of free economy is in full bloom--and Korea--a country which has realized dynamic economic development and is seeking to join the ranks of advanced countries--cooperate with each other to reap the opportunities offered by the upcoming Pacific era. Korea hopes to play the role of bridging advanced and developing countries in the Pacific region, and construct a foundation of the Pacific era toward the 21st century. This we can achieve, if Korea and the United States work together.

Second, Asia is unique in many ways--the Cold War confrontation still remains, and World War II has not been fully cleared. More specifically, military tensions still exist between North and South on the Korean Peninsula; arms expansions are still going on in Japan and China; China is undergoing a great experiment to graft political socialism onto economic capitalism; and Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos are launching another experiment of socio-economic development. And the biased interpretation of the modern history in Asia by Japan still remains a major source of anger and distrust among the Asian people.

The reason I bring up these issues at the Korea-U.S. Science and Technology Forum is because I believe that Korea and the United States should make joint efforts to solve the problems unique to Asia in order to usher in a prosperous Pacific era.

Third, I would like to discuss why science and technology should be a central subject in Korea-U.S. relations from a historical perspective.

The history of human civilization is the history of creation, and science and technology have been at the center of historical evolution. Knowledge based on Newton’s physics opened up the modern industrial society through technological revolutions in machines and energy. And quantum physics is now leading us to a new world of information society. In fact, science and technology and culture cannot develop without creativeness. While science and technology lead the development of material civilization, culture sets orders on our human society. Thus our human society develops through interactions between material civilization and culture.

The current world civilization and culture are undergoing a rapid shift to a new techno-economic paradigm where knowledge, technology, and information are regarded vital. This in turn reminds us what Korea and the United States can accomplish together in the transitional period in history of civilization, and what Korea-U.S. scientific and technological cooperation can do for the common prosperity of both countries and world development.

The Korea-U.S. relationship in science and technology should be based on complementarity. If the United States capability in fundamental technology and Korea’s capability in manufacturing and processing are combined, it will certainly contribute to enhancing the technological competitiveness of the two countries. If Korea and the United States cooperate with each other based on the principles of mutuality and reciprocity, it will also greatly contribute to securing balance and stability in economic and trade relations in the Asia-Pacific region. The fact that enterprises of Korea and the United States recently are engaged actively with each other in the form of strategic alliances to share technology and markets in semiconductors, automobiles, and telecommunications reflects the potential benefits of such cooperation.

Both Korea and the United States also share a strong commitment to promoting the welfare and sustainable development of our human society through scientific and technological cooperation. Korea will do its part to solve world problems such as environment, health, and energy.

In 1995, Korea’s per capita income reached ten thousand U.S. dollars, and exports reached 100 billion U.S. dollars. R&D investment exceeded ten billion U.S. dollars. Korea’s R&D investment still remains at the levels of Germany and Japan; however, it is expected to grow at an annual average growth rate of 25 to 30 percent toward the year 2000. Such a prediction shows that Korea will soon accumulate internal innovative ability capable of providing reciprocal cooperation with advanced countries, and at the same time, that Korea, as a responsible member of international society, should expand its contributions to solving the world problems through science and technology.

I hope that this forum will provide an opportunity for scientists, engineers, and policy-makers from the United States and Korea to expand and deepen mutual understanding in scientific and technological cooperation. I also hope that leaders of the scientific and technological communities from both countries will be able to derive many innovative ideas for cooperation from the discussions at this forum. Let me emphasize again that our efforts here today will not only enable us to shift to a new Korea-U.S. relationship based on science and technology, but also create a foundation for a prosperous Pacific era.

I am sure that this forum will open a new chapter in scientific and technological cooperation between Korea and the United States, and will provide important momentum for our two countries to take a firm step forward together. Thank you.

KEYNOTE SESSION I

Honorable Secretary O'Leary, Professor Ratchford, Dr. Kim, excellencies, distinguished participants, and ladies and gentlemen:

It is indeed my great honor and pleasure to be here today at the Third Korea-U.S. Science and Technology Forum and to address issues of mutual importance. Minister Chung regrets very much that he could not come, and sends his best regards to many of his old friends here.

Before I address the issue of U.S.-Korean science and technology cooperation, let me first welcome all of you, and express my sincere appreciation for your participation in this forum. I also would like to thank all those involved in organizing and preparing this forum for their hard work. Particularly, I would like to thank Professor Ratchford and George Mason University for their role as organizer for the United States.

As a keynote speaker today, I think it is my role to provide background to the substantive discussions to follow, and I will try to do this by elaborating on present U.S.-Korea relations and potential for cooperation in S&T areas.

The overall relations between the United States and Korea now seem to be at a critical juncture. Both economically and politically, Korea is rapidly becoming more independent from the United States, while a new form of cooperation has not yet taken definite shape.

Economically, Korea has grown to be the eleventh largest economy in the world with its trade volume surpassing 200 billion dollars this year. Korea now has a trade deficit, not a trade surplus, problem with the United States, and its influence in the regional and world economy continues to grow. Politically too, as democratic institutions and practices take hold more firmly, Korea is becoming a new model for democracy in East Asia. In a word, Korea rapidly is becoming a responsible member of the industrial, democratic world.

The United States has played a very important and special role in enabling Korea to reach this level of development. It was the United States that provided its vast market for Korea's goods as well as the bulk of the capital and technologies that were essential for Korea's economic development. The establishment of democracy in Korea also owes a great deal to American encouragement and support.

In the field of science and technology too, the role of U.S. assistance has been pivotal. The first science and technology research institute in Korea, the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), was established in 1966 with a complete array of assistance from the United States. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), which is a specialized institute of higher learning for college graduates in the field of science and technology, was established in 1971 with the help of the United States. These two institutions remain pillars of science and technology in Korea--one in the field of research and the other education.

Providing generous scholarships to many young Korean students has had a significant impact on the course of the nation's development and on its relations with the United States. Values of democracy and free-market economy have become the backbone of Korea's development, and relations with the United States dominate our relations with the rest of the world. It was not only teachers and scholars, but also leaders in government and industry, who developed and maintained a solid network of broad personal contacts with their American counterparts, and this has affected the course of our nation's development to no small extent.

It is imperative that we now continue to maintain and develop this special relationship under the newly-changed environment. The first period of bilateral relations can be characterized as "unilateral assistance," and the catchword of the second period is "fair trade." The new third period we are entering now calls for cooperation based on mutual benefit and common interest, and for joint development and alliance rather than simple exchange.

Science and technology is an area that provides many good examples of cooperation in the new era. Some may question whether Korea has developed enough to become a partner with the United States in science and technology, and whether the United States would find such an arrangement useful. My answer to both questions is a definite "yes."

There are several reasons for high hopes and good prospects. First and foremost, many scientists and engineers in both countries talk alike. Of all the Korean scientists and engineers educated abroad, around 70 percent received their degrees from U.S. universities. These U.S.-educated scientists and engineers, some of whom are present at this meeting, have broad personal ties with the science community here.

Second, more than 40 percent of imported technologies in Korea have come from the United States, making it the biggest provider of technology to Korean industry. As such, prospects for technical alliance and joint development are more attractive than with any other country. Since the second biggest provider of technology to Korea is Japan, which is also a fierce competitor in the world market, chances for technical alliance there are limited.

Third, Korea's resources for research and development have grown significantly in recent years. For example, Korea's R&D expenditure exceeded ten billion dollars this year, making it the eighth biggest investor in R&D in the world.

On the part of the United States, continuously shrinking government R&D budgets call for more international cooperation in science and technology. Furthermore, greater cooperation in technology with Korean firms may provide new opportunities for many U.S. industries.

What is even more important than the reasons I have just mentioned, I believe, is the will and willingness to cooperate. Both the Korean government and industry, as well as the research community in Korea, want to expand their cooperative programs with their counterparts in the United States. They all believe they can create mutually-beneficial programs.

Events taking place this week here in Washington reflect such thinking on the part of our science and technology leaders. On Monday and Tuesday, a Korea-U.S. seminar was held on science and technology policy at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). Today, the Third Korea-U.S. Cooperative Forum is being held here under the joint auspices of the Science and Technology Policy Institute of Korea and George Mason University. For Korea, an annual forum of this scale on a bilateral basis takes place only with the United States. Tomorrow, the second meeting of the Korea-U.S. Joint Committee on Science and Technology, which is an intergovernmental forum, will convene. The agenda for that meeting includes a review of what has been discussed here today. I am hopeful that the deliberations tomorrow will benefit from the discussions taking place today.

Another good example of our willingness to create mutually-beneficial programs is the special cooperative program being developed jointly by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. The Korea Science and Engineering Foundation plans to contribute one million dollars annually to develop with the NSF joint exchange and cooperative research programs between scientists of our two countries.

In the past, Korea's industrialization strategy was to mobilize its resources to the fullest extent possible using imported technologies. It was successful in this endeavor and has caught up with advanced countries in many industrial sectors. But this, in turn, has resulted in advanced industrial countries becoming increasingly reluctant to share their technologies with Korea. At the same time, the second tier of newly-industrializing countries have begun to catch up with Korea.

Thus, development of science and technology has become a top priority agenda for Korea. In particular, the development of basic science and creative scientists and engineers is now essential for our continued advancement. The Korean government is expanding and upgrading domestic institutions of higher learning and advanced research, and strengthening financial support to basic science. Securing all of the necessary modern technology is a great undertaking which Korea cannot achieve alone. Korea needs a partner willing to share in the toil and reap the benefits of partnership.

Based on our special historical relationship and clear record of past cooperation, we believe that the United States is the best candidate for cooperation. We would like to increase exchanges of scientists between institutes and universities in both countries. We want more cooperative joint research programs in the basic as well as applied science areas. We want greater participation of American scholars in our rapidly expanding R&D programs. Prospective areas for cooperation include space technology, information technology, biotechnology, health and environmental technology. All of these areas will be covered in the technical sessions being held this afternoon.

Korea plans to join the OECD, perhaps as early as next year. In order to become a responsible member of that community, the Korean government now is in the process of revamping all economic and financial systems. The so-called "globalization policy" is an effort to speed up the process of liberalization and deregulation. The protection of intellectual property rights is being further strengthened in the process, and we are now trying to provide a more favorable environment for creative research.

It is through such a forum as today's that specific opportunities are identified and an atmosphere of cooperation for their implementation nurtured. I hope that this forum will facilitate discussion and cooperation for many participants here today. Thank you.

U.S. Department of Energy

Good Morning. I would like to say to all of our assembled colleagues here today, "Yes, Minister Koo." The United States, principally its science and technology agencies, finds the Republic of Korea a worthy partner for collaboration in our mental endeavors, and, perhaps most importantly in this season of constrained budgets, for financial collaboration as well.

You have well articulated the goals for the building of a powerhouse in science and technology in your country. Those of us that know of our effort in the United States have simply to look at you with envy and certainly look at you in terms of wanting to learn something. We wish here in the United States we could talk about goals as vigorous as yours. Nonetheless, I think in the United States we have a history to bank on, and that history brings us to the table as a worthy partner of yours.

Having had the chance to participate in the Second U.S.-Korea Science and Technology Forum, I am really delighted to be here today. I understand from reviewing your program, that we have gone from a sense of vision of what we want to accomplish to actually accomplishing it. From the U.S.-side, I can tell you that we have brought our best and brightest to the table for collaboration, and I believe that this is the right place to do it.

Last year we talked about an expanded partnership. This year involves rolling up our sleeves and talking about specifics and the necessary policies to make science an energizer to the economies of both of our countries. Another change from last year’s framework for U.S. science and technology policy is that we are under attack in this area. We are having trouble convincing the American public of the benefits of federal spending on science and technology, especially basic sciences. The benefits are often articulated in language that is too precise for the average citizen. The American public does not understand the long-term benefits. One example of this is the fusion program which has fallen victim to the idea that too much has been spent with no clear understanding of benefit. So Minister Koo, for that reason alone, collaboration has got to be the model for the future.

You have mentioned the special relationship between Korea and the United States which goes back to the time of the Korean war. More importantly, today we focus on issues of regional security which bring to the front national security policies in both nations. New dangers remain. The Clinton Administration remains committed to an engagement in Korea and to the Asian region and we stand by our commitment to a long-term partnership in regional security.

It was mentioned earlier, that our relationship as trading partners is strong and sound. Korea is the United States of America’s seventh largest market. South Korea exported over 21 billion dollars to the United States in 1993. The United States has constantly been Korea’s number one or number two largest market. We exported over 13 billion dollars to South Korea in 1993. We know we can expand that figure in the coming years.

In education and culture, our exchanges have traditionally run from the Korean Republic to the United States, but we seek to start that traffic going in a more substantial way both ways.

There exists already a wide variety of cooperation. I want to pause and talk about a few of them that cover areas of my responsibility. Energy cooperation ranges from yearly ministerial-level visits on resources, to plans for joint research on fusion, to small-scale projects on renewable energy and larger-scale projects on power.

In the health field, another area where the Department of Energy joins its sister agencies, U.S. and Korean scientists cooperate on cancer research and other mutual biomedical interests.

Let us talk about prosperity and the role of science and technology. A recently released Council of Economic Advisors report showed that R&D investments have a social rate of return of about 50 percent. That is a good return. Federal R&D investments in the past have had spectacular success fueling the development of entire industries and new fields of science and discovery. Nevertheless, there exists today, areas where even stronger ties can be developed. In your technical sessions, you will be discussing those opportunities and forging ahead to make collaboration even stronger.

Let me talk about a few of those collaborations which we entered into when we signed our Science and Technology Agreement in 1994. The Argonne National Laboratory and the Korean Institute for Energy Research (KIER) are cooperating on energy efficiency and the environment. Because of the consumption of fossil fuel to generate electricity in our two nations, we have need to address those issues. Whether one comes at it from the position of addressing climate change issues, or reducing the cost of providing electricity, or to get to the real derivative--improving the health of the citizens--there are many opportunities here. The United States likes those opportunities because we believe we have technology to sell to you.

Our National Renewable Energy Laboratory also cooperates with KIER on renewable energy technology in which the United States can take some pride in its development, especially in the area of photovoltaic cells, and certainly in wind power, for which there are some applications in Korea.

Our Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center and KIER have worked on clean coal technology. All of these collaborations among our laboratories provide real benefits.

I will remind you, since Dr. Sun Chun is in the room from our technology center, that just a year ago our technicians visited Korea and during that visit they had an opportunity to talk about clean coal technology being delivered out of the United States program on which some seven billion dollars has been spent. Less than three billion dollars of U.S. tax-payers money has been spent on these programs. The rest of it has come basically from the private sector and some from state and county governments.

The result of those exchanges for a country such as Korea that uses coal for 81 percent of its electricity generation, was the building of a mutual trust and confidence in that we share the same problems and understand the value of clean coal technology. I am happy to say, resulting from those exchanges in the area of clean coal technology, just last week on December 4, the Korean Electric Power Corporation awarded contracts for 14 flu-gas desulfurization systems. Ten contracts went to the U.S. firm of Babcock and Wilcox, with the rest going to a competitor.

That amounts to more than 740 million dollars in sales in the United States. The good news for the Korean Republic is that there is no need to reinvent that wheel. We can join hands and try and take the next steps as we look at how to clean and use more efficiently our low-rank soft coal.

I want to talk for just a minute about nuclear energy. Our two nations are about to sign a new agreement on cooperation in nuclear energy. In this area, at a time when we have focused for so long on the critical requirement for establishing more safe regimes for the physical protection of nuclear material, it is good to be certain that we are sharing with one another advances in safety and other physical protections in our commercial reactors. This is an important collaboration and neither of our nations are waiting to sign on the dotted line. We are already busy in the collaborations and this agreement provides another opportunity for our institutions and our private sectors to be working together to get at some of these issues. It focuses on emergency and the very expensive business of decommissioning nuclear power plants, an issues on which we have got to get a much firmer grip.

Now I want to talk about non-proliferation in more detail. The Non-proliferation Treaty has been extended. For that, all of us who understand the danger of not only loose-nukes but loose-material have got to be proud. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty now stands as our major goal. I think no two countries have a greater need for a partnership to build an understanding of the dangers of nuclear proliferation than the United States and Korea. So in this area we pledge our strong participation and we thank the Republic of Korea for its active participation in reducing the nuclear danger, especially as we look across your border.

Environmental technology provides another great area, beyond clean coal technology, to involve the governments, industry and people in each of our nations. In the old days when I had the responsibility for conservation and environment in the old Federal Energy Commission, we talked about the environment as something that simply had to do with the health and safety of people. I think we have gotten too far away from that as we try to focus on the profit benefit to companies as they try to reduce their energy use and improve efficiency. Once again, trying to focus on the things real people can understand, we need to get back to talking about the benefits beyond profits, beyond reducing the government cost, and get back to what this is really all about. It is about health, safety, and clean air. In these areas, as our two industries get more aggressive in looking at new infrastructure, growth, and opportunity, South Korea provides the opportunity and market place for deploying new energy efficient, and therefore environmentally correct, technology. It is a wonderful opportunity for collaboration.

Let me reiterate the benefits. The United States and Korea need clean coal technology as we both consider expanding electric power generation capacity. That is a given. The United States and Korea need fundamental science to answer the questions for the 21st century and to build a globe where expanding numbers of people can live in safety, certainty, prosperity, and security. This requires brain power, and financial muscle. I believe, in this room among all of us representing governments, institutions, and the private sector, we have brought those things together. I commend this forum. I am especially pleased to observe and note its maturity in its third year, and I hope that I will be invited back in its fourth year to observe some of the deliveries on the fruits of our collaborations. This is for me, as the United States Secretary for Energy, a happy collaboration. It is one that makes sense, our goals are in common, and we have a lot to learn from the Republic of Korea. Thank you so much for inviting me.

KEYNOTE SESSION II

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

The educational system in Korea is similar to that in the United States with six years of primary school, three years of junior high school, three years of senior high school, and four years of university. The first western-type university, the Yonsei University, was established by Christian missionaries in 1885. There are presently 23 national universities partially supported by the government, and 60 private universities which offer degrees in natural science and engineering.

The massive industrialization and economic growth in Korea began in the 1960's. At that time, there was no functioning graduate-level program at universities. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) was established in 1971 to provide graduate education with M.S. and Ph.D. programs in science and engineering. With the KAIST program as a model, the existing universities have been expanding their graduate programs in order to meet the growing demand from industry, and in 1995, 647 doctoral degrees were awarded in natural sciences and 1,125 in engineering, as shown in Table I.

Among these, KAIST awarded 56 in natural sciences and 252 in engineering, and Seoul National University (SNU) awarded 119 in natural sciences and 202 in engineering, as shown in Table 2. Thus KAIST and SNU each accounted for about one fifth of the doctorates in engineering. It is estimated that about 700 Korean students received doctoral degrees in science and engineering from U.S. universities each year, and about 100 from Japanese and European universities. About 70 percent of them return to Korea within three years after receiving their degrees. The total annual increase in Korea is therefore, about 2,400.

It is interesting to compare these numbers to those of the United States and Japan, whose populations are about six and three times larger than that of South Korea. In 1995, in the United States and Japan respectively, about 8,800 and 730 doctoral degrees were awarded in natural sciences, and about 6,000 and 1,140 in engineering, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the number of doctoral degrees per capita awarded in the United States in natural sciences and engineering were about twelve and five times larger than those in Korea in 1995. The doctoral degrees per capita awarded to Japan were only slightly larger than those in Korea. If those receiving degrees abroad are taken into account, it appears that the number of doctoral degrees per capita awarded to Koreans exceeds those in Japan and are comparable to those in the United States in engineering. According to one estimate, however, the annual demand for new doctoral degree holders in engineering from the year 2,000 will reach about 3,000, which is two times larger than the current supply. A shortage of doctoral degree holders is thus predicted.

The annual production of doctoral degrees in science and engineering is still rapidly increasing in Korea. The number of doctoral graduates in engineering increased from about 550 in 1990, to 1,125 in 1995. It appears, therefore, that if the natural growth continues, the supply of doctorates will be adequate in the forthcoming years. There is, however, a need to improve the quality of the graduate education and university education as a whole.

The faculty at the leading universities in Korea now consists of doctoral graduates mostly from U.S. universities and some from universities in Europe, Japan, and Korea. At KAIST, which is recognized as the leading university of science and engineering, about 90 percent of the faculty have doctorates from U.S. universities, and currently only those graduating from the top universities in the world, for example: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech, and Cambridge, become viable candidates.

By the total number of publications in the journals listed in Science Citation Index (SCI), Korea ranked 24th in 1994 in the world, behind Taiwan (19), Austria (21), Brazil (21), and ahead of Norway (25), as shown in Table 3. If the population is taken into account, Korea will rank further behind these countries. The number of publications by U.S. and Japanese scientists were respectively, about 70 and 14 times more than that by Korean scientists. It appears, therefore, that while Korea has leading positions in some industrial technologies, the level of basic research is relatively low. The number of publications in the SCI journals by Korean scientists is, however, increasing at an annual rate of about 30 percent, which is the highest in the world.

In 1994, the KAIST faculty published 802 articles (which is about 2.5 publications per faculty member) in SCI journals, the most in Korea. In electrical engineering, the KAIST faculty published 108 articles, compared to 213 by University of Michigan, 156 by MIT, 132 by National University of Taiwan, 110 by Osaka University, and 95 by Stanford University. The annual publication per faculty at KAIST, about five, is close to the highest in the world. But the total number of citations per article published between 1990 and 1994 ranges from about 0.8 to about 1.8 for the Korean authors in general, with about 1.3 for the KAIST faculty. In contrast, the citations for the same period for the articles published by the authors at leading U.S. universities ranged from five to seven. It can therefore, be concluded that the gap in the level of basic research between Korea and the leading countries in the world is much wider than that indicated by the total number of publications. Even if the total number of publications by KAIST is comparable to those of the world-wide leading universities, the quality appears to be far behind. There are only a handful of professors in Korea who are performing at comparable levels to those at the leading universities in the world. Korean scientists are rarely asked to give talks at international academic conferences, in spite of the many publications.

There are many causes for the low level of research in Korea. The first is historical. Unlike the west, where modern science and technology are rooted, Korea does not have such a tradition which survives today. Until recently, no major law of science was discovered and no major technology was invented in any Asian country. There was no one equivalent in Korean history to Newton, Einstein, Edison, or Watt. The rational thinking on which modern science and technology are based was never an inherent part of the Korean culture and, therefore, had to be learned. Driven by economic necessities, science and technology were rapidly imported in recent years, but even for those who studied and worked abroad, the absorption of rational thinking was incomplete. Furthermore, the traditional oriental education was based on repeated copying and memorization of, for example, calligraphy and writing of the masters. Spontaneous creativity or development of new ideas was not fostered. Nevertheless, creativity often has been the foundation of Korean culture. The invention of the writing system, Hangeul, for example, was truly a revolutionary creation. The present educational system which hinges so much on the entrance exams at various levels reinforces the habit of rote memory.

Such a historical and cultural handicap can be alleviated only slowly through education. It appears that we need an educational system which encourages logical and creative thinking from the early years. Currently, there is a movement to change the educational system in that direction, but the implementation is expected to be slow.

The massive industrialization of Korea since the 1970's, was achieved by importing foreign technology, often on a turn-key basis in the early stages. The R&D activities in the past decades have been aimed largely at import substitution by copying the existing technologies. The programs in the so-called frontier areas were essentially mimicking fashions in the advanced countries. Furthermore, during the rapid expansion, many scientists at research institutes, and even professors at universities, assumed managerial positions before accumulating much experience in research. Such a pattern of R&D produced a weak leadership which was insufficient for coping with the emerging need for high-level research. Among researchers and their leaders in particular, even with degrees at the best universities in the world, there is no clear perception of what constitutes meaningful and excellent research. It is difficult, therefore, to decide and agree upon the directions of research and evaluate the plans and results. Such a problem can be solved only if the scientists can continue to develop throughout their career and keep up with the rapid progress of society. Maintaining close contacts with foreign counterparts and institutions will be helpful.

Lack of an adequate peer review system is another stumbling block in establishing a competitive atmosphere in Korea. Interpersonal relationships in Korea are still an extension of the family system, where evaluation of peers is not based on abilities or performances. Therefore, objective evaluation of research plans and performances is extremely difficult. Evaluation of faculty performance is difficult for the same reason, and in practice faculty appointments are for life. It is very rare, and considered to be almost scandalous, if a faculty member is forced to leave because of poor performance. There is very little mobility of faculty, and under such a social context it is impossible for one institution alone to adopt a strict evaluation system for existing members. As a partial solution to this problem, KAIST recently adopted a policy of expending much effort and time for recruiting and evaluating new faculty members.

In addition to these difficulties arising from the history and economic structure in Korea, lack of resources severely limits university research. For example, the annual budget of KAIST, which has about 6,000 students, is about one-eighth of MIT’s, with a student body about 1.8 times larger, as shown in Table 4. The expenditure per student at KAIST is one quarter of MIT’s. This difference results in the student to faculty ratio, which is about four times higher at KAIST (17 to one) than that at MIT (five to one) if all of the teaching staff at MIT are included. The financial resources at other universities in Korea, which often depend heavily on student tuition, are several times lower than those at KAIST.

The inadequate financial support for universities in Korea may appear to be in accord with the economic level of Korea, but the actual expenditure related to university education in Korea is much high than that which is reflected in the university budgets. Families spend enormous amounts of money for private tutors and extra lessons in order to prepare high school students for the highly competitive entrance examinations. If this private expenditure could be channeled directly to the educational system, the university financial picture would improve enormously. The government now has a plan to increase support for education at all levels, but a more concentrated effort to upgrade university education may be required. Endowments at private universities are small, and most private schools heavily depend on student tuition. In recent years, however, private industry has begun selectively to support education and research at universities, realizing that without improved university education, further development within industry will be greatly impaired.

The government support aimed at promoting basic research at universities is channeled through foundations under the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology. The annual budget is about 135.3 million U.S. dollars, which represents about ten percent of the total government R&D budget. The funding system is similar to that of the National Science Foundation in the United States. And five years ago, following the U.S. example, Science Research Centers and Engineering Research Centers were established. Universities began to receive increased support for applied research from other government ministries and private industry. The annual external support for research at KAIST was about 70 million U.S. dollars in 1995, which is the largest in engineering and science among universities. This is much lower than the roughly 400 million dollars at MIT (excluding the Lincoln Lab). The support received by other universities in Korea is still lower, but it is necessary to first reduce the teaching load of the faculty from the present level, which is at least nine hours and as high as 15 hours per week, if the universities are to become research oriented.

A serious problem affecting university research in Korea is the lack of a clear understanding and consensus about the role of university research. As noted earlier, this is largely because the scientists themselves do not clearly understand what significant research is. Most of the research programs aim at copying either existing technologies or the fashionable areas in the advanced countries. Most of research is limited to data production and essentially constitutes graduate students’ laboratory exercises. Students receiving graduate degrees with such a notion of research will pass it on to the next generation. Unless this vicious cycle is broken, it will be difficult to expect the opening of new frontiers from Korean universities. It only can be broken by a deep and open soul searching by researchers in Korea. Keeping in close contacts with advanced countries will certainly be helpful.

KAIST is critical for improving the level of university research and graduate education in Korea. We would like to further develop KAIST as a model institution which will be one of the leading centers of education and research in the world. In the next decade, the number of faculty at KAIST should be doubled, while keeping the number of students at the present level. A campaign for an endowed fund is being launched to support this plan. The research should be directed to the opening of new frontiers.

Next year, KAIST will establish a graduate school of techno-management in order to train managers of technology and managers with modern technical skills. KAIST will establish also the Advanced Institute of Science where a small number of scientists in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology from institutions at home and abroad will work with maximum support and freedom. We expect that this new institute will stimulate the progress of basic science in Korea to the world level. In addition, the life science program will be expanded as a basis for medical science and technology.

The student admissions procedure will become more flexible and the humanities program will be strengthened in order to train not only the leading scientists and engineers, but also the leaders in various sectors of the society.

KAIST and the leading universities in Korea now face the challenge of becoming centers of intellectual activities in the Korean context with a short history of science and technology and limited resources. Combining the wisdom and the strength of both the west and east, it may be possible to form a unique form of institution. Such a goal will be possible if the present generation of scientists has the will and the vision to establish a sound foundation for the coming generations.

Table 1:  Doctoral Degrees

Table 2:  Doctoral Degrees in Korea (1995)

Table 3:  SCI Publications in 1994

Table 4:  KAIST and MIT (1995)

Ford Motor Company

Thank you. The title that I was assigned, "Industrial R&D: What Will The Future Be Like" reminds me of a picture I once saw when I was a brash, young professor at UCLA about 25 years ago. I went to see David Saxon, whom some of you undoubtedly know. He had a picture in his office of the campus. It showed buildings that had been built when the campus was started in 1929, those that were under construction, and those that were going to be constructed as the campus matured over the next ten or fifteen years. The picture was absolutely consistent. Every single building that existed was in the picture, and none of those that were built over the next thirty years were in the picture. So, that tells you something about the reliability of trying to predict the future. I will try to predict the future, but I will do so by describing only some of the buildings that are already under construction, so to speak, in the area of industrial R&D.

The most predominant characteristic controlling what is going on in industry right now is the increase of trade as a fraction of GDP in essentially every prosperous nation around the world. In fact, it almost looks like they are interchangeable. Prosperity and openness to trade in a given country go hand at hand. Why does this occur? One of the reasons is economics--for example, the low cost of transporting goods. Another reason is the opening of investment opportunities in the advanced countries around the world. Countries are opening to investment opportunities, not only internally, but from elsewhere in the world. The result is that things reach equilibrium rather fast. Therefore, what we see now is that the best business practices are global not just national or regional. Globalization has driven the efficient and effective use of capital, for example. On the monetary side of capital, it has forced corporations to think very carefully about the use of capital in plant investment. How do you optimize the use of capital in plant investment? If you see something that is going on in country A or in one of your competitors’ counties, you adapt quickly in your own environment and try to improve on it, or you do not survive.

Likewise, research and development costs now have become absolutely global in character. One of the key efficiencies in product development costs has been shortening the time to market from whenever one starts work on a product to getting it out the door. Decreasing that time has a substantial effect on profits because time literally is money and time enables you to respond much more effectively to what the consumers demands are at the time that the product is available.

Therefore, what is happening in monetary capital, is also happening in intellectual capital. The pressure for efficient investments in research has led, in some cases, to mergers. That can be seen very dramatically in pharmaceutical and biotechnical companies where ability to capture existing ideas has forced mergers. Also, in those industries, the importance of having a predictable pipeline of products has forced mergers. Successful pharmaceutical products tend to have extremely high profit margins, but the success rate on individual research projects is rather small. Therefore, for insurance, companies have to have a very large portfolio of products in the pipeline and rely on the statistics of the hit rate. If you have only one product and the hit rate is one out of ten, chances are 90 percent, you are going to go under. You have to have a large portfolio. Yet, small companies cannot afford large portfolios. Therefore, there is a tendency toward mergers which increases the size of pharmaceutical companies. It is occurring around the world right now at a very dramatic rate.

Another tendency in industry which is occurring fairly dramatically is looking for and investing where the talent is best. Another similar trend is attracting the best talent to you. One of the things that we have seen in the United States, for example, is the continuing increase of immigration of scientists and engineers to the United States. Even though overall immigration has been decreasing over the last three or four years, immigration of scientists and engineers is up around 25 percent. And, interestingly enough, one of the areas where it is up very dramatically is women scientists and engineers. More than one out of five scientists and engineers that immigrates to the United States and gets a permanent resident visa is a woman. We have the opportunity to attract a lot of talent which other countries in the world, as yet, do not have the culture and the infrastructure to utilize optimally.

Figure 1

Investing where the best talent is involves flows of R&D capability across national borders. Figure 1 gives an idea of U.S. R&D investment moving outside of the United States, in various industries. It shows the percentage of R&D of American companies which has been invested outside of the United States over the period 1981 to 1993. Over that period, there has been an increase of about 20 percent, relatively speaking, toward offshore investment in R&D. It varies from industry to industry. The one that has increased the most dramatically percentage-wise is non-manufacturing, in large measure, computer software. There has been a significant movement of investment outside the United States by U.S. companies, yet still the center of gravity is largely in the United States for U.S. companies, with about ten percent of typical R&D budgets for U.S.-based companies invested outside the United States. This percentage of investment abroad has increased at about three times the rate of investment of U.S. corporations inside the United States.

Figure 2:  Reasons that U.S. Industrial Firms set up Overseas R&D

Why are U.S. companies investing increasingly abroad? Figure 2 shows reasons which were given in response to questionnaires. (They are given in priority order). The main reason that American companies invest abroad is to support overseas production facilities. In another words, they move production offshore closer to the market. The second reason is the necessity for U.S. companies to provide technical support for the products that are being produced abroad. That involves both technical support and customizing the products for local market. The third reason is to find out what other companies and research institutions are doing abroad and to capture those ideas to utilize them within the R&D establishment of the company. The fourth is to acquire state-of-art technology. That means setting up a laboratory in another country to utilize the scientists’ and engineers’ capabilities in that country.

Figure 3:  Primary Technology Areas for U.S. Firms Overseas

Figure 3 shows the main areas of investment outside the United States. They are: the chemical industry, machinery, scientific, and electrical equipment, computing, and software and data processing. It is interesting to contrast this with why and how foreign corporations invest in the United States. It is hard to gather this data in a reasonable way, so the two sets of data are not directly comparable.

Figure 4 lists numbers of European and Asian R&D facilities in the United States. There is a substantial number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies from abroad that have R&D facilities in the United States that in some substantial measure have been acquired or developed here. In my own industry, the automotive industry, you see there is a substantial number. Some of those are for local emissions purposes, emissions testing, and for local product customization. One of the things that has occurred in the automotive industry is that most major automotive companies in the world have a styling design studio in California. They want to make sure that they know the future trends. And, if you visit, for example, a Japanese automotive company in Japan, their design studios have a lot of employees with blonde hair. But in these industries, there is dramatic concentration and movement into the United States in R&D facilities.

Figure 4:  U.S. R&D Facilities of Foreign Companies

Figure 5 illustrates why they invest here. Interestingly enough, the main reason is to acquire the state-of-art technology. In other words, to have research facilities here that utilize scientists and engineers that exist in the Untied States for the benefit of the corporations that are apparently elsewhere. And, the least common reason is to support production facilities in the United States. So, there are a different reason why foreign companies invest in the United States, and why U.S. companies invest abroad.

As I mentioned, one of the major corporate area where international alliances are occurring in the United States is in biotechnology. We have all heard about some of the alliances and acquisitions that have been made by foreign pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the United States. Alliances and acquisitions such as Genentech, Chiron, Scripps Research Institute (you may have read about the alliance issue that occurred with respect to intellectual property rights), the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and the corporation called Genetic Therapy (which was the spin-off from National Institutes of Health) by French Anderson. It is basically a research facility that has been acquired by Swiss pharmaceutical corporation, because here is where all the good researches are in the United States. So, going to wherever the talent is one of the forces of efficiency.

Figure 5:  Reasons that Foreign Firms set up R&D Facilities in the United States

There is something else that is also occurring because of industrial best practice, and that has to do with reducing product cycle time. Many corporations are decentralizing research in order to get researchers closer to the product development and even to manufacturing capabilities. Co-location of R&D with product manufacture and marketing is a major trend in U.S. corporations and abroad. In my own industry, in the United States at least, Chrysler has moved farthest in this direction to the point where all of their R&D people are part of what we called "platform teams." Each team actually develops a product. They have essentially no central research capability or any research capability which is not direct toward a specific product. This generates stronger R&D and production interactions, but it tends to crowd out longer-term R&D in favor of improving near-term product programs. The reliance, then, for other ideas comes from outside the company, often from the supply base. If you rely on your supply base for long-term R&D, you are going to have trouble differentiating your product because suppliers tend to supply anybody who will buy. So the risk in decentralizing research is that internally you become very obviously product related. The new ideas must come from outside where everybody else has equal access. Your ability to differentiate your products becomes more and more difficult with this technique.

At Ford we have tried something rather different. Instead of decentralizing by getting rid of our central research and advanced capabilities, we have pursued what I call "virtual decentralization." We have tried to keep our central research organization in place, and in fact it is growing substantially both here and in other countries. But, to force interactions between the researchers, and marketing, product development, and manufacturing people we have them work together on what the agenda should be for technology. Then it is split it up as appropriate, but work on specific tasks is done together. Each individual, however, belongs to his or her own base. This creates a matrics management relationship. Almost everybody in the corporation now in effect reports to two people. It seems to work well. The concept to production time has been cut in half. Yet, Ford maintains a long-term vision by having a central strategy for long-term research. We also try to capture whatever is going on in the outside world. We cooperate with our supply base, as these are often parts of the teams. And, we even have substantial pre-competitive research activities with our competitors, GM and Chrysler. We all think we have learned from this.

With this example, I am trying to illustrate that what has happened in the research and development communities is the same thing that has happened in trade. That is that global, not just regional or national, business practices affect each individual company. One of the major driving forces in this is reducing the time from the concept to product. Different companies have responded differently, and what is going to happen in the future is not obvious. The only thing we can be sure of is that we will not go backwards. There will not be decreasing pressure for efficiency in research. The best practices wherever they are in the world are going to set the benchmark for just about everybody, and those are not going to go backwards. They are going to keep increasing and keep moving relentlessly toward more efficiency in utilization of capital, both monetary and intellectual. Thank you.

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

It is an honor to address such an illustrious audience for the third time since 1993. Previously, I expressed my opinions on the importance and necessity of cooperation between Korea and the United States in the field of semiconductor equipment and materials. It is all the more meaningful because ultimately this field is the backbone of the semiconductor industry.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about bilateral cooperation between Korea and United States in the field of capital goods such as machinery, parts, and materials intended for use in producing other goods. Capital goods are often referred to as the barometer of industry-wide technological development in a given nation.

The Korean economy has revealed industrial structural problems in recent years--an increasing trade deficit in spite of continuous high economic growth. This contradiction is caused by the industrial structure of Korea--as exports increase, imports of capital goods also increase. Structural transformation of the Korean economy began in the early 1970's with the promotion of the heavy and chemical industries, however, the demand for capital goods is still highly dependent on imports. This is an outcome of the production system of Korean industries which was developed mainly for assembling finished goods.

Last year, the value of imported capital goods increased 22.1 percent, amounting to 40.6 billion dollars, which is approximately 39.7 percent of total Korean imports. The share of capital goods imports from Japan rose to 40 percent. As a consequence, the trade deficit in capital goods with Japan amounted to 12.6 billion dollars, exceeding Korea’s total trade deficit with Japan, which amounted to 11.9 billion dollars. Needless to say, import of capital goods is a main element of Korea’s continuous trade deficit with Japan. Therefore, enhancement of industrial structure through promotion and development of capital goods is essential to overcome such a structural problem and maintain the healthy growth of the Korean economy.

Until recently, Korean capital goods were relatively less developed in comparison to assembly manufacturing because of the small domestic market size and lack of core technologies. However, the economy of Korea has grown rapidly, and as of 1994, Korea has the eleventh largest GNP in the world. Through continuous efforts to acquire advanced technologies during the past years, Korea has succeeded in developing leading-edge technology in many fields such as semiconductors.

The competitiveness of U.S. capital goods has deteriorated in contrast to Japan’s since the mid-1980's. Comparing shares between the two nations in the world’s capital goods export market, Japan took third place following the United States and Germany in 1980, rose to first place followed by the United States in 1985, and since then, Japan has maintained its status as the world’s largest capital goods exporting nation. This decline in the competitiveness of U.S. capital goods has not only brought about a weakened U.S. manufacturing sector, but is also a major factor in the growing trade deficit in the United States. Presently, the competitiveness of U.S. capital goods is recovering, but the recovery has not been adequate. I believe that it is necessary to clarify the major factors behind the weakening competitive position of U.S. capital goods.

First, the basic technologies of U.S. industry are superior, but there has been a lack of effort to link them to manufacturing technologies.

Second, a specific characteristic of the management style of U.S. companies in which CEOs take the lead, has the tendency of satisfying short-term profit maximizing rather than promoting long-term investment. This has caused the decline of capital goods.

Today there is a new situation in the worldwide capital goods market. On the technology and product side, the typical concept of capital goods is being changed by applying information technologies such as computer, communication, and control technology to capital goods. On the market side, the advanced countries are expanding investment in production automation to keep and enhance their competitiveness, while the demand for capital goods is rapidly increasing because of high economic growth in developing countries such as China and the ASEAN countries.

The price competitiveness of products from Japan, a major exporter of capital goods, is deteriorating due to yen appreciation.

Therefore, it is time for both the United States and Korea to cooperate closely in many fields in order to promote the competitiveness of the capital goods of both nations and to contribute to the balanced development of capital goods worldwide.

As a program for joint cooperation between the United States and Korea, I would like to make the following proposals:

First, the combination of manufacturing technologies of Korean companies accumulated through the years, and the superior basic and design technologies of U.S. companies in capital goods, can be combined to build a good partnership. This partnership can be mutually beneficial to both nations by promoting joint entry into the rapidly growing capital goods market of the Asia-Pacific region.

Especially for small- and medium-size U.S. companies which have difficulties industrializing their strong technological ability through large-scale investment, a joint investment program with Korean companies would be a good opportunity to enhance competitiveness of both countries’ capital goods.

Second, joint R&D programs for the components industry need to be activated and encouraged. Currently only a few companies are proceeding in this direction. Through joint R&D, both nations can reduce risks associated with R&D construction and large-scale investment, and can increase competitiveness of their capital goods in an effective way.

Through joint R&D, U.S. companies will upgrade their competitiveness by utilizing manufacturing technologies and highly educated labor in Korea in order to promote commercialization of newly developed technologies. On the other hand, Korean companies can contribute to reducing the trade deficit, and can acquire high technologies related to capital goods through joint R&D.

There are many areas which can be selected for joint R&D between companies of our two nations. However, it would be natural to start with high technologies areas where development costs are high but potential demand is also expected to be high. The best areas in which to cooperate are those in which the partners have complementary assets and technologies.

In the case of semiconductors, technology advancement requires high R&D costs when going from one generation to another. We can become more competitive by exchanging information and conducting joint R&D between Korean semiconductor chip manufacturing companies and U.S. semiconductor equipment and material producing companies.

Third, it is necessary to focus on development of factory automation technologies. We have to combine the advanced manufacturing technologies of Korean companies and the basic design and control technologies of U.S. companies to make our capital goods more competitive in the world market. I think factory automation technologies are a major element of Japan’s success as the world’s largest capital goods exporting nation.

Fourth, for successful cooperation in the area of capital goods, companies must have a firm intention to cooperate. To achieve successful cooperation and ultimately enhance international competitiveness of a company and nation, strategic alliances at the corporate level have to be promoted. The success of bilateral cooperation depends on how to solve and overcome a wide variety of practical problems, such as joint ownership of profit, evaluation of the capability of partners to cooperate, and flexibility of the cooperation in the event of changes in the external business environment.

At present, Samsung is pursing cooperation in the form of technological tie-ups, joint development, and joint ventures with many U.S. companies and research institutes. We will continuously expand our cooperation with U.S. companies in other areas.

In 1994, Samsung exchanged a letter of intention with a major U.S. capital goods manufacturer to cooperate jointly in developing new technologies and business through a technological alliance. Since then, both companies are actively working together by exchanging technologies in the fields of electronics and materials. We also held an exhibition to introduce the new products of both companies. With another company, General Electric, Samsung is cooperating in the development of leading-edge medical equipment.

This year, Harvard Business School selected Samsung Corning, an affiliate company of Samsung, as one of the three best joint venture companies in the world, and a unique company in Asian joint ventures. Samsung Corning was established in 1973 as a joint venture company between Samsung and Corning, Inc. of the United States, and has grown into one of the world’s three largest glass bulb making companies. Samsung Corning is now recognized as one of the most successful joint venture companies in the world.

The world economy is changing. Economic power is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. The dynamic growth of the region will inevitably bring rapidly growing demand for capital goods. Therefore, the United States and Korea should develop a strong partnership to take the lead in the worldwide capital goods market. This will enhance the industrial competitiveness of both nations and lead to balanced development of the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Thank you for your attention.

LUNCHEON

Distinguished participants, ladies, and gentlemen: it is my honor and pleasure to have this valuable opportunity to share my views with you on the implications and directions of Korean-U.S. science and technology cooperation.

Since I have been a professor for twenty years, I would like to address some of the theoretical aspects of science and technology cooperation. For many years people have puzzled over the rationale for cooperation in science and technology between advanced and developing countries. International cooperation in science and technology is broadly defined as various kinds of cooperation and interactions in science and technology between two countries or among several countries. Specific forms of international cooperation include, among others, technological cooperation, joint R&D, technology transfer, and technical assistance. It is important to distinguish between two-way reciprocal cooperation and one-way dependent cooperation. Two-way cooperative efforts generally take place among advanced countries with similar levels of development. One-way dependent technological cooperation most often occurs between developed and developing countries.

Despite the fact that Under Secretary Mary Good of the Department of Commerce complimented Korea as a first-class nation, it is generally believed that Korea, in the past, was looking for only one-way technology exchange. However, today in high-technology industrial fields, there are some exceptional examples of bilateral cooperation in high technology fields.

Science and technology are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to differentiate between strictly scientific and strictly technological cooperation between two countries. While science relies on theoretical framework, technology follows a more rational approach in applying the principles of science. As a result, the underlying nature of cooperation is different depending on whether they are science projects or technology projects. The differences stem from the three dimensions of science and technology cooperation. These dimensions are: anthropological and cultural, political and strategic, and economic and industrial. They are based on the whole cycle of the innovation process--that is combining the research cycle with the product life cycle. In more specific terms, the beginning stage of the innovation process can be defined as basic research for scientific cooperation. Basic research is principally carried out in academia where it is often easy to cooperate bilaterally.

The second stage of the process consists of the development phase of the research cycle and the introductory stage of the product life cycle. In this stage, bilateral cooperation is more difficult, as many technologies are protected under intellectual property rights. Often times, cooperation at this stage requires strategic economic or political ties.

The last stage of the innovation cycle is primarily for industrial technology cooperation where existing patents have expired and international technology transfer is more prevalent.

To examine science and technology cooperation in more detail, we must look at the cultural dimension which includes studying abroad, exchange of academic information, as well as researchers’ joint R&D. These activities are usually supported by governmental agencies and foundations. Human networks and close communication also play a crucial role.

The political dimension of international cooperation often takes the form of joint industrial research or cooperative research concentrating on public R&D or applied research. The mega-science forum of the OECD, or international cooperative research on environmentally clean technologies are good examples of this. On the strategic level, international cooperation has been prevalent in many high technology areas due to the high risk involved and the requirements for large investments.

In the economic dimension, international technology cooperation frequently takes place in the declining stage of the product life cycle. At this point patents have usually expired causing the core competitiveness granted by distinctive technological strength to disappear. Cooperation at this stage is frequently sought by large enterprises.

Thus, several issues and measures should be kept in mind when participating in or seeking international technology cooperation. First, the influence of government on this enterprise is minimal and indirect, particularly among advanced countries. Second, most Korean enterprise, except a few large corporations, lack the basic technology to make complementary exchanges with leading firms in developed countries. Third, the technological and managerial capability of small- and medium-sized companies often limits the ability of governments to enhance and assist international cooperation for these companies. Fourth, although the protection of intellectual property rights should be strengthened, the pursuit of this right within the spirit of fair trade is critical to enterprises in developing countries. Fifth, the political diversification of standardization frequently antagonizes firms in developing countries which have fewer resources with which to respond.

To address these concerns, the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy in 1996, will launch a new, ambitious five-year plan for the expansion of the Korean industrial technology infrastructure. This new plan, I believe, will dramatically strengthen the weak industrial technological infrastructure in Korea, and replace it with a system compatible with the new World Trade Organization regime. In return, we thank the policy experts who have helped to develop the theoretical framework of technology infrastructure policy. In the future, we hope to cooperate in the area of technology infrastructure policy and programs with special emphasis on small- and medium-sized industries. Thank you.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Good afternoon. I am delighted to be here at the Third Annual US-Korea S&T Forum. I am beginning to feel like an old hand here, having attended last year's forum. Once again, it is a pleasure to see friends and familiar faces and to participate in a gathering devoted to such an important subject--technology cooperation between the United States and Korea.

Besides those of you visiting from Korea, I am glad to see here today so many Korean-Americans participating in this year's forum. The vitality of your firms is one of the principal reasons for the world leadership and economic prosperity we in the United States enjoy, and I would like to personally thank you for it. Those of you who have traveled here from Korea are playing an equally vital role in Korea's emergence as a major economy. Not everyone realizes that Korea is the United States' eighth largest trading partner. As a result, Korean companies are some of the largest customers for American goods and some of our largest suppliers. For all these reasons, Korea occupies a special place in the American economy.

Today, I will share with you my thoughts about the importance of technology cooperation and the role that government can and must play in encouraging technology development. Those of you who know me, know that I bring an interesting perspective to the table having worked the science and technology issues for longer than I care to admit--from outposts in industry, government, and the academic community. I mention this only to indicate that my views are colored by my experiences in basic science, commercial research and development, and science and technology policy.

Before getting into the question of technology cooperation and how government can encourage high technology companies, I would like to begin by saying a few words about the link between technology and economic growth. You in Korea have demonstrated your understanding of the importance of a strong government role in developing technology.

If there is any doubt about the connection between technology and growth, it was dispelled by a recent study conducted by Dr. Michael Boskin, President Bush’s chief economic advisor, who is now out at the Hoover Institute in California. Dr. Boskin examined the U.S. economy over the post-war period in order to produce a paper on technology and growth. Most economists who have studied the issue believe that capital, labor, and technical progress are the three main components of economic growth. They work together. No one can work without the others.

But Dr. Boskin discovered that technical progress is by far the most important of the three. Compared with earlier estimates, he rates technical progress more important than previously thought and more important than either capital or labor. In fact, he argues in his paper that technology is responsible for half of the economic growth of the United States over the last 45 years. Dr. Boskin found that technology works, not by reducing the need for labor, or cutting jobs, but by reducing the need for capital. In other words, it stretches capital, not labor.

This is particularly valuable for countries like the United States and Korea which are in need of capital--the United States because of modest rates of savings and untapped opportunity, and Korea as a newly industrializing country. From the point of view of economic development, technology's ability to make capital go further means that countries that produce and use the most advanced technology will tend to pay higher wages. All over the world today we find governments working hard to encourage high tech endeavors in order to create these high paying jobs.

The government of Korea understands this well. Its 1995 budget for R&D increased 36 percent over the 1994 budget, and I understand, that the 1996 budget will increase again. I wish we could say that R&D expenditures in the United States were going up by a similar amount. The Korean government has also established impressive targets for other R&D measures. The most recent economic plan calls for R&D expenditure to rise to a vigorous five percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by the year 2001 (a percentage higher than here in the United States). While this target may sound ambitious, it is very much in keeping with historical R&D growth which leapt from 0.64 percent in 1981 to 2.02 percent in 1991. In addition, Korea has established the goal of securing 30 scientists and engineers per 10,000 people by the year 2001, almost twice the current ratio.

While Korea's technology is growing, the government recognizes that the need for new technology is growing even faster. Throughout the world, we live in a time when R&D has grown more expensive than ever but where resources are increasingly constrained. The rising cost of R&D combined with shrinking cycle times means that new products must be developed and brought to market ever faster. R&D itself must be done on a faster schedule. These trends are encouraging the formation of technology alliances.

U.S. companies are teaming up with customers and suppliers to share development costs. And an ever higher percentage of R&D is being performed by business units, closer to the market, as opposed to centralized R&D laboratories. We are also seeing more and more trans-national R&D cooperation. It is not surprising, therefore, that on a company level and on a country level, firms and nations are forming partnerships to share costs, speed cycle time, and increase their access to valuable technologies.

Technology cooperation can be a miraculous way to increase knowledge. The reason is that knowledge, economists have discovered, is a unique commodity. Whereas any other commodity you might name disappears when it is shared or consumed, knowledge multiplies itself. In fact, the company or country that cooperates with others will inevitably have more technology available to use. Let me give you an example. Imagine there are only three countries in the world, each with an equal amount of technology. Of these three, two decide to share half of their technology with each other. But the other country, afraid that it will lose its technology to others, chooses to go it alone. A year later, who has more technology? The countries that shared technology each have one and a half times the technology they started with. The country that went it alone has 50 percent less technology than its rivals.

While this example is simplified, it illustrates how countries or companies that cooperate, over the long run, will have far more technology than those who do not. True, cooperating companies or countries will not have the technology exclusively, but they will have access to far more technology, and in today's marketplace the ability to access technologies quickly is worth more than an exclusive on technologies locked in a vault. Companies and countries that cooperate with others, over the long run, will outperform those who do not.

Yet technology cooperation is not always as easy in practice as in theory. Companies certainly know this. Those of you who have tried it know that the key to a long, successful alliance, like the key to a successful marriage, is equity between the partners. Both partners must feel they are getting what they need. In other words, to get something, you must give something back. If one party tries to take advantage of the other, the relationship will break and fall apart.

Korea has been quite successful in sourcing technology from partners, and U.S. firms and Korean firms have been working together fruitfully for many years. However, there has been a recent trend which is the selective divestment in Korea by some U.S. firms. Bucking a trend throughout the Asian region, some U.S. firms are actually dis-investing in Korea. At the very same time that they are clamoring to invest more in China, Viet Nam, and elsewhere, they are withdrawing capital from Korea. Divestment has made it harder for Korean firms to enter into technology agreements with U.S. companies that would benefit both parties. It has also reduced opportunities for U.S. firms.

We must ask ourselves, why this is occurring? The answer, on a basic level, is that U.S. firms do not feel that they are getting a good deal from their investments. They cite the following problems:

What, then, can be done to revitalize technology cooperation between the United States and Korea?

Let us start with intellectual property. Clearly the resolution of intellectual property concerns would promote U.S.-Korea cooperation. And, in fact, the Korean government has made a considerable effort to upgrade intellectual property protection in the areas of enforcement, legislative upgrades, and education. For example, Korea has stated that its intellectual property rights laws will be in compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) and GATT standards by the end of the year. If Korea complies with the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), it will go a long way toward reassuring the U.S. government and U.S. business of an improved outlook toward intellectual property.

But more needs to be done.

A second problem concerns trade barriers. A strong incentive for U.S. firms to cooperate with Korean firms is the opportunity to access the Korean market. When access is blocked by tariffs or other barriers, this discourages U.S. firms from cooperating with Korean firms. Once again, considerable progress has been made, but more work remains to be done. The agreement to increase market access for U.S. and foreign passenger vehicles into Korea is a welcome development. Korea has agreed to liberalize standards, reduce taxes on imported vehicles, and give foreign advertisers equal access to television advertising among other reforms.

Third, major barriers to investment remain. U.S. firms remain restricted from full market access to sectors of the economy such as portions of financial services, advertising, and agriculture. And, even when investment is permitted, it is constrained. Once more, progress is being made. For example, in order to apply for full membership in the OECD, Korea will have to open up the financial sector to foreign investment. But more liberalization of investment laws and practices must take place if our two countries are to cooperate to the extent I believe we can.

In fact, the perception persists among American business people that the orientation of the Korean government remains focused inward on the domestic economy as opposed to outward toward the international economy. This is changing. Korea's emerging role in APEC, application for provisional membership in the OECD, and other international initiatives demonstrate a commitment to multilateral cooperation and the global economy. Large Korean firms such as Lucky Goldstar are investing in the United States as we saw recently with its purchase of a portion of Zenith. And the government is encouraging the formation of academic links between centers of excellence in our two countries.

Once again, however, the test of whether this policy will work is whether cooperative arrangements will be mutually beneficial to all parties involved. In exchange for giving up technology, U.S. companies and academic institutes will want to be sure that they receive equal value in return. In today’s world, the United States must focus in its own competitive position. It is no longer in a position to subjugate its own interests. Therefore, in the future, U.S. companies will expect to be equal partners in any international cooperative ventures, and they will demand a demonstrable return for this willingness to share resources, including technology.

Finally, there is one development that while it may be discouraging some U.S. investment, we should applaud, not condemn. This development is rising labor costs which are an indicator of Korea's progress. If anything, Korea's impressive economic strides argue for greater liberalization of the economy in order to permit consumers to share to a greater degree in the rewards of Korea's remarkable success. Moreover, as low labor costs cease to be a reason to invest, Korea must insure that other reasons to invest replace it.

If there is a central theme, it is economic liberalization. Liberalization is always a challenge. In the United States we are still going through a process of deregulation and liberalization ourselves. As economies liberalize, they change old ways in which companies may have grown comfortable. Inevitably, however, liberalization creates new, larger opportunities. We have found that to be true in the United States, and, I believe, it has been the case throughout the world.

In the years ahead, as Korea continues its economic progress, providing that it makes some hard choices, new opportunities will far exceed the challenges posed by change.

Liberalization in Korea will prove every bit as much of a draw to U.S. investment and cooperation that it has elsewhere in the world. And both Korean and U.S. firms will benefit from increased cooperation. If we can continue to strengthen the bonds between our two nations, we will both emerge stronger.

I have spoken today about the role of government in fostering change, but most of the ties that will bind our countries will occur between companies such as yourselves, American companies on the one hand, Korean companies on the other. Indeed, as the global economy develops we are seeing more and more blurring of those distinctions.

As you go forth and participate in this forum, I wish you good luck in finding partners and in securing the mutual benefits that technology cooperation will bestow. Thank you.

ADVANCES IN BASIC SCIENCE

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This presentation addresses the role of plasma science and technology in the U.S. and Korean economies. Paraphrasing a quote from a recent book on plasma science, "Fusion research, space exploration, and defense applications have been an engine, driving plasma science through its history and has led to very important practical applications in industry." I myself would like to strengthen this somewhat and say that plasma science in its own turn is really an engine already driving the economies of Korea and the United States. I firmly believe that it is going to be an engine with increasing power.

Figure 1

On Figure 1 is plotted the growth and speed of computer chips over the last few decades. The speed has increased three orders of magnitude or more over this period. Plasma science has been a big contributor to this growth through plasma processing. Plasma processing has been the foundation for a large part of the growth in computer chip products. This growth in turn in has led to growth in earnings in high tech industry in both the United States and Korea. In the United States this has been a big factor in the growth of the stock market over the last several years.

Plasma science research has been an important contributor to the growth in computer speed. Plasma processing R&D has lead to great reductions in the size of the electronics on computer chips. In addition, research of a similar nature, and in some cases on the same experimental equipment, has been instrumental in developing an understanding of a phenomenon of a vastly different scale--space craft glow. Figure 2 shows an example of spacecraft glow.

Figure 2

This picture is from the shuttle on the night side of the earth looking back through the bay of the shuttle toward the tail and the engine pods. The glow was observed first visually and then photographed. The initial interest was simple curiosity. However, this glow was recognized as a potential problem for spacecraft for some of the delicate diagnostics and surfaces. NASA has funded a very successful series of studies to understand the physics of space glow.

There are many more examples of industrial use of plasmas. Some will be discussed by other panel members.

I will turn to a discussion of fusion. Figure 1 shows the progress in fusion over the last two decades. The growth of production of fusion power (this is measured in watts) has been phenomenal, from milliwatts to megawatts. As we go along, I will say more about these experiments.

Looking to the future, the international fusion plan is to construct an engineering test reactor International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), where for the first time, the countries of the world will integrate a fusion plasma with real reactor engineering.

Experimental facilities in this country recently constructed include ALCATOR C-MOD at MIT which is becoming very productive. Older experiments are DIII-D at General Atomics, and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at Princeton. It was on the TFTR that the highest power shown in Figure 1 was realized. Figure 3 shows the specific experimental results obtained on TFTR in November 1994. Plotted in the figure is the fusion power in megawatts with plasma heated by 40 megawatts of neutral beam heating. The fusion power exceeds ten megawatts.

Fusion experiments are not only used to generate fusion power, but even more importantly, to generate an understanding of the plasma. Plasma theory has now reached the level of sophistication of being able to predict quite well the kind of instabilities that develop and at what conditions. This leads to a better understanding of plasma behavior and better design of the experiment to minimize the instabilities and increase the plasma pressure, which will lead to increased fusion reactivity.

Figure 3

Now I would like to turn to the specifics of collaboration between the United States and Korea. The Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX) was proposed as the next logical step for the U.S. fusion program. Because of the budget difficulties the United States has had in energy research in general and in fusion in particular, this project was canceled. However, the Korean government in its wisdom is planning to develop an experiment with many of the characteristics of TPX. The TPX was an experiment about the size of TFTR, and its role was to study the advanced physics that will be necessary to create economical fusion power and extend this advance physics to long pulses. To do the advanced physics, TPX was strongly shaped. This machine was designed to run long pulse experiments of 1,000 seconds, even in its first embodiment. TPX was upgradable to essentially steady state without having to change the tokamak hardware. Superconducting coils were to be used to achieve the steady state operation. Superconducting coil development is important for fusion and non-fusion applications.

Since Korea is interested in this kind of experiment, how can the United States help? The United States has developed a range of core competencies: the basic fusion plasma physics, the diagnostics that supports the experiments, and the engineering of a complex tokamak like TPX. We completed the conceptual design for TPX and were well into the preliminary design. The TPX design was executed in a very efficient manner. Therefore, the expenditures, which exceeded 50 million dollars, resulted in important information which can be available to the Koreans. This is critical information if one considers how projects develop. At the beginning of a project a set of design choices are made (e.g., parameters, engineering configuration, materials). As the project proceeds through the design process, we learn the consequences of the initial choices. Having established the connection between initial choices and detailed subsystem designs for TPX, this will be critical information for the Korean program.

To further the Korean program, the United States can host Korean scientists on existing experiments in areas such as diagnostics, so that they can learn and be more productive when the Korean experiment begins operation. We can apply our specific design information to the Korean project. The people who carried out the physics analysis, systems engineering, design analysis, and most importantly, the analysis codes, can support the Korean activity. Last, but certainly not least, we carried out a significant amount of R&D, and that information can be available to the Koreans.

In closing, I believe that Korea and the United States are well positioned to benefit from the advances that are made in plasma science, and we can benefit even more if we establish the kind of collaborations that I have discussed here.

Korea Basic Science Institute

Good Afternoon. Professor Duk-In Choi, who is President of the Korea Basic Science Institute and Vice Chairman of the Korea Physical Society, had planned to be here to talk about plasma science and fusion research cooperation between Korea and the United States. Unfortunately, he is attending an unscheduled meeting related to a fusion project and a nuclear energy research meeting in Korea so he sends his regrets. He asked me to give the talk on his behalf. I have his manuscript, so anyone wishing to read his more precise remarks may do so. He was interested in giving a broad view of plasma science and fusion research, but because I am filling in for him on very short notice, I will concentrate my remarks on fusion research activities in Korea.

Dr. Schmidt discussed the progress of fusion research world-wide, and it is well known in the field that international cooperation is the name of the game in this research activity. International cooperation started in 1958 with declassification for the peaceful use of atomic energy when the United States, European countries, Japan, and Russia all started working together on the development of fusion energy. Dr. Schmidt showed that much progress has been made in the last couple of decades. The big tokamaks (fusion reactors), namely TFTR, JET, and JT-60, are American, European, and Japanese. These systems were started in the latter part of 1970 when the OPEC oil embargo was creating difficulties for those countries. But after the successful initiation of these big machines in the early 1980's, the programs progressed, but the continuation of their development slowed because of the large sums of money necessary to proceed to the next level. The International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor (ITER) is at the engineering design activity phase, but probably will come on line only as early as 2010.

The Korean government looked at this global picture and saw that the big experiments already existing are going to be at the end of their life cycle around the year 2000, and the next machine (ITER) would not take over until the year 2010. So the Korea government saw this as an opportunity to jump into the fusion program. The time window indicated that the Korean fusion program could make a significant impact on an international level if an international machine could be built and operated in early part of the 21st century. That is the main driver for the Korean National Fusion Project.

Before going into international cooperation, I would like to give a brief introduction to the Korean National Fusion Project. Let me explain the project goals. The Korean National Fusion Project calls for the development and construction of a steady-state capable superconducting tokamak. Dr. Schmidt mentioned the American national fusion project that is called the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), which also calls for a steady-state capable superconducting tokamak. The Korean National Fusion Project and TPX share this similar goal which is necessary for the next level of fusion research.

A second project goal is the establishment of the physics and technology base for a superconducting steady-state fusion reactor to support and complement future fusion reactors, including ITER. I think many of the people involved in fusion projects understand what is meant by this statement. We would like to give support and complement a fusion program like ITER to better the performance of a later reactor like Demo.

Given the project goals, the Korean National Fusion Project now defines three different project phases. The first phase is the design and construction phase. It is underway and will end sometime in 2001. Then the second phase is the basic operating phase from 2002 until 2005. Then, it will be upgraded a level in the third phase to the advanced operating regime in 2006 until 2010. 2010 is about the time that ITER will be on line.

The program concept definition is now going on. From the early part of 1996 until sometime in 1998, the conceptual and engineering design activity to define the physics will continue. The machine will be commissioned sometime in the early part of the 21st century.

The Korean National Fusion Project is not just fusion energy development, it is also designed to advance the development of science and technology in Korea. There are three pieces to make this program a driver for advanced science and technology, not just a fusion program. First, there is the requirement that work be done jointly between Korean R&D institutions. The project will have to be implemented as a joint research facility among universities, research institutes, and advanced industrial companies. The Korean Basic Science Institute was chosen as the leading institute to make this joint work successful and as the inter-university joint research institute. The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) represents the higher education and R&D activities. The experience of building large-scale accelerators like the 2GeV syncatron, which was built by Postec, will join to give their experience on the development of big machinery. The Korea Atomic Energy Institute will also be joining.

Second, this project also seeks advanced industrial participation. The program is not going to be just an R&D activity, but also building of hardware, superconductors, and so on. Therefore, the government has asked for participation by heavy industry and the electronics industry in Korea. There are many industrial sectors participating in three major activities. The first is large superconducting magnet development, the second is large-scale, ultra-high vacuum technology, and the third is power systems and control. Samsung Heavy Industry, Hyundai Heavy Industry, Korea Heavy Industry, and many other Korean companies are more than willing to join to work together and pay their own expenses in R&D. Already they have pledged their R&D, not just for fusion research itself, but also because they are interested in upgrading their own technological advancement.

What I have outlined already is not sufficient to make this program successful on an international level because the experience and accumulation of knowledge of Korean universities, government-supported institutes, and industry is insufficient. The third element to advancing science and technology development in Korea and to successful implementation of the Korean National Fusion Project is international cooperation. We are interested in participation by MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center, and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and many other institutions that are working on this kind of device. Because of the system integration aspect, there is another method of superconducting magnet system which is also very challenging. We are interested in working with the Japanese, European Union, and Americans on this.

In conclusion, let me focus on U.S.-Korean fusion research cooperation. Korea is now interested in becoming a major player in fusion science. But international cooperation is pivotal and U.S.-Korean cooperation is the most important part for successful implementation.

What can be done? There are two things. First, United States support for and participation in the Korean project. The Korean fusion research community is setting up a tokamak design team. In order to do that, we need help by the tokamak design team in the United States and access to the physics and model experience of the United States, including the efforts that have gone into designing the TPX and ITER. It will be necessary to invite experienced members of the United States to the international advisors committee so that our program does not go astray. Second, while the collaboration on fusion research will be one-sided, we will open the device to the world fusion community until ITER and other major Tokamaks are operating. This machine is not limited to Korean research consumption. It will be open as a joint research device to the world community for the successful development of fusion energy.

This presentation briefly summarizes what the Korean government is doing to implement the fusion research project and outlines what can be done in U.S.-Korean collaboration in fusion research. Thank you very much.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ELECTRONIC MATERIALS

IBM Corporation

Thank you Dr. Ahn. We have a new chairman and he has been telling us to learn to speak without using view graphs. So I am only going to show you one view graph. It should be quite a challenge trying to explain something technical without using view graphs.

There are two aspects to what I want to talk about. One of course, will be the subject area you have asked me to cover--that is electronic materials--and the other will be some developments that I believe are occurring worldwide that I suspect you ought to be aware of so that you can forge your policies accordingly.

In the development of material sciences, there have been two very strong driving forces. One of these is simply the intellectual force. Over the last decade there have been stunning new discoveries such as high temperature superconductivity, or extraordinary developments such as the evolution of the scanning tunneling microscope, and more recently the use of this in a variety of scanning devices. I shall cover high temperature superconductivity towards the end of my talk. However, I want to mention the progress on scanning microscopes now. It started by allowing us to image different kinds of atoms on a surface, but their use has broadened to include the measurements of atomic forces, tunnel barriers, and to pick up atoms and place them in different locations or to write information on surfaces. Very recently people have begun to use these scanning devices as near-field microscopes or optical microscopes. The latter technique enables them to scan a DNA and map out its sequence. The simple science experiment of a little over a decade ago has now broadened out from physics and materials science to include the biological sciences.

Another area of scientific development is in short light pulses. These have been used extensively in material science, particularly in probing semiconductor materials. These femto-second pulses, i.e. a millionth of a billionth of a second, are used to understand, for example, how electrons relax in semiconductors. They have also been used to study biological objects as they move in a solution. Essentially the short light pulse acts as a flash does in an ordinary camera.

The second driving force in semiconductor materials is money. To get an idea of the magnitude of this economic force, it is easy to come up with an order of magnitude estimate of the dollar amounts involved. If you assume that there are about a billion families on the planet, and I think that is a conservative estimate, and you further assume that each family will own a silicon circuit of some kind worth about one hundred dollars each, you have a 100 billion dollar industry no matter which way you slice it. (I may be off, it may be 200 billion dollars or it may be 75 billion dollars, but it is clearly the right order of magnitude.) This is just in semiconductor chips. If you consider another facet of this industry, the storage industry (recording and storing information), once again you can imagine every family owning a recording device--some kind of disk storage system--and that again would readily add up to a 100 billion dollars. Of course, if you are thinking of a computer, you need a display device, and once again, doing the same kind of arithmetic, you are looking at about another 100 billion dollars. So the total amount of money, just in hardware for this industry in the next ten to twenty to twenty-five years is of the order of half a trillion dollars. And that, I submit, is a powerful driving force to make progress.

What I want to do is take you through these three technologies briefly, then comment on superconductivity, and then finally, on a policy issue.

In hardware, when we talk about dynamic random access memory (DRAMS), the market for four megabit and sixteen megabit semiconductor chips is still strong. The sixteen megabit is increasing its market share and the four megabit is at its peak. However, while we are still selling the four and sixteen megabit chips, we are manufacturing 64 and beginning to manufacture 256 megabit chips in various companies. In fact a Korean company, Samsung, just announced yesterday that they have demonstrated a one gigabit chip. Talking about a one gigabit chip may not impress you very much, unless I translate the feature sizes that need to be fabricated. So let me take the 256 megabit chip, because the numbers are easier to remember. A 256 megabit chips requires lines made by lipography be about a quarter of a micron in width; that is about 2,500 angstroms, or roughly 1,000 atoms wide. A gigabit chip requires lines that are about a factor of the square root of two smaller than this. So the challenges that you have from a materials point of view are extraordinary: how do you fabricate such small features and control their reliability, properties, etc. This is why there is great pressure in research to continue to evolve, not just in semiconductor materials and metallic systems, but also in insulators.

You need insulators for capacitors. The capacitors have to fit into a single cell that is used in storing information. We are talking about a capacitor that has to fit in about a tenth of a micron by a tenth of a micron square, and yet have about 20 femtofarads of charge in it.

Microprocesses will be very pervasive, for example, in household appliances in the future. As in DRAMS, there are similar challenges in the sense of increasing speed and packing density.

The materials issues are fairly important in the storage industry as well. Currently the hard disk for storing information in computers is perhaps two and one half inch, four inch, or five inch, depending on the machine you buy. But we expect these sizes to decrease. At present, information is written in a thin film deposited on disks which spin at fairly high speeds. There is a read/write head that flies at about 1,000 angstroms above the surface of the film. As we go from densities of about one gigabit per square inch, to the future, which is about ten gigabits per square inch, this height has to reduce. There is also the need to develop new sense technologies: the trend is to move from the inductive to the magneto-resist, which is increasingly being used to what is known as a spin valve or giant magneto-resist sensors.

These are a few of the issues we face regarding hard disk. On the other hand, if you need a high density disk which you can remove and put in your pocket and walk away with, then your choice is an optical disk. Here one uses what is known as the Kerr effect--the sense of magnetization, i.e. pointing up or down to represent a zero or one, is sensed by the rotation of the polarization vector of light from a laser. These materials have to evolve and go to higher densities. One requirement for that is shorter wavelength lasers. So this technology also encourages the search for short wavelength lasers (towards the blue end). Thus the optical storage industry drives research in laser technology.

The third storage approach is the compact disk, this is the one you are familiar with now in entertainment. Currently, those disks can store about a gigabit of information, but one would like to have about ten gigabits per square inch there.

The third area of technology I want to touch on is displays. Displays are something we take for granted because the cathode ray tube has been around for many decades. However, with the drive toward flat panels, the materials issues such as those encountered in active matrix liquid crystal flat panel displays, are quite complex. Amorphous silicon is used as the transistor material. However, it does not have the requisite mobility. We must also develop non-contact techniques for aligning the liquid crystals so as to enhance the angle of viewing as well as solve a number of processing problems. The materials issues go on and on. There is also the question of doing away with liquid crystals as we currently know them and going into materials that emit light. This has generated a great deal of excitement, not only because there are materials like gallium nitride which can give light in the blue, but there are also organic materials that emit light.

So we conclude that there is a broad spectrum of activity going on in insulators, in semiconductors, in metals, and in superconductivity, which is the last thing I want to touch on.

High temperature superconductivity was discovered about ten years ago. There has been very steady progress in it. You can now buy superconducting quantum interference devices which can sense the magnetic field generated by a heart. People are quite optimistic that they will be able to use the devices for medical diagnostics by sensing the body’s magnetism. It is potentially a fairly big market. Needless to say these devices can already be used for laboratory applications. At least one company markets them.

The other area in high temperature superconducting materials in which there has been considerable progress is associated with communication technology. In particular, there is a great deal of interest in using these materials for cellular phones--that is at bay stations so that you can eliminate the bulky copper used for filters. There is also a great deal of interest in developing wires for power generators, transmission lines, and for a magnets for NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) spectroscopy.

This brings me to the one view graph that I do have and which I want to show you because I think one ought to consider its applicability:

Figure 1

Whenever we plan on building a product we seek out know-how. A part of this can come from research but the rest comes from searching for it. Much of the knowledge we need already exists. The relevant parameters of interest when building a product is not just research and development, but also research and acquisition. If you plot this ratio, research to search, I conclude that most industries have a fairly characteristic curve as I have shown here. There is a period where there is a high research to search ratio (this is in a country like the United States), followed by a fairly flat region where this stays constant and then drops rapidly and levels off to a lower but steady state level.

Let me explain what goes on here and which industries are where. The best way of looking at that is to go into the past and look at the automobile and electrical industries. Both of these industries are at the lower plateau. The computer industry in the United States, where the R/S ratio is rapidly decreasing, is currently sliding from the top to the lower plateau. Knowledge is so pervasive that no one company or institution has all the knowledge or know-how. Progress is made in different companies at different times. In any given segment of the computer industry, you find that for a company like IBM, there is no reason to have as high a research level as they did before, simply because the knowledge is available.

This is not only true for companies, it is true for countries because once knowledge becomes available outside the United States, you can acquire knowledge there. Therefore, as a country, the research to search ratio decreases in that industry.

This is a typical scenario for the United States. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical and environment industries are currently at the upper plateau.

If you look at a country like Japan, you find that this ratio was very low after World War II; primarily dominated by search, and of course that is not very stable, so you expect a curve where the R/S ratio increases, and you might expect they overshoot, and then it levels back down to a level similar to the United States. And judging from what I have heard today, I suspect you are also going through the same phase in Korea. You started out by acquiring much of that knowledge, and later on you ramp up your research; you will overshoot with the 25 to 30 percent growth you are projecting, and then you will come down and settle at some level that is appropriate for your industry and your country.

Countries like India or China that have a tradition of research have another problem. Research is not in industry, it is primarily in national laboratories or universities. This ratio stays more or less invisible and sometime in the future, as the industrial laboratories start their R&D activity, it will ramp up. The message is that you have to couple your research to your industrial development. If this gap persists, it does not help you to have the research infrastructure. Therefore, if I were a policy maker in Korea, I would be well aware of where each industry stands, because from a multinational company point of view you seek knowledge wherever it is. There are no national preferences. The fastest way to bring out a product is to find the know-how, acquire it, put it in a product, and then bring it out to make money.

As you design your programs and potential coupling to multinationals, please keep in mind it is much better to be very good in something than to be average in a lot of different things. Thank you very much.

AT&T Bell

Thank you Dr. Ahn. My premise for this talk is that there is a natural synergism between the strengths of Korea and the strengths of the United States in materials science and engineering. I see great strengths and have great admiration for the efficiency, the speediness, and sophistication of Korean factories and production--ranging all the way from the traditional commodity industries like cement and steel, on through the higher-tech industries like ceramics and electronic chip fabrication. I believe these strengths are based upon a great devotion to processing--to processing as a respected activity for scientists and engineers.

In the United States, I see great strengths in materials science and engineering, connecting bonding structure and properties, finding new materials, and doing the earlier stages of discovery, but often not with the kind of devotion to (or realization of the importance of) development, especially processing.

If we accept those as possible truths, it suggests a lot of interesting things we could do together to our mutual benefit. I sat down and thought about where things were going in materials science and engineering, what I thought was going to be important in the next century, and what is fun to do. I am going to overlay on that what I think are our mutual possibilities, based upon, if you buy it, our complimentary strengths. I am going to try in the time available to talk about four areas:

Now, let us go back to materials and processes. The question here is how do you get beyond the regulation of effluents? How do you achieve sustainable development? From the United States’ point of the view, the problem in some sense is the number of environmental laws that American industry has had to cope with. Command and control is not really the way to solve the environmental problems. Many have begun to realize this. The economic pie will have to grow through further development, and it must grow by getting beyond the waste pipe, the smoke stack, and the landfill. There is a rather old paradigm, arrived at by my good friend Morris Cohen at MIT, which has a great amount of validity. This model for materials use--the "materials cycle"--has increasing validity in the environmental sense. It tells us that everything comes out of the earth and there are unfortunate things that happen when we extract ores and make things. We create pollutants along the way and further pollutants when things get used. Not only do we have to worry about the environmental impact during product use, but also when products finally get junked. This materials cycle is in many ways the key to how lots of things in our society, in our economy, in our world-wide economy work and can be managed. Most policy makers do not have a glimmer of what a rosetta stone for solving problems this view could be.

For example, if we knew how to make better decisions about initial materials choices, we probably never would have put heavy metals into the environment. We would have searched for other ways of performing their functions. With intrinsically cleaner processes and better informed materials choices, we would not need to worry about the pipe and the effluent pipe and the smoke stack. Consequently, we must think more about problems before they arise and from the start agree to "do it right the first time" around. If we did that, then we could have the economic growth we need in a world that is going to grow beyond the four billion mark before we know it.

I believe we need a worldwide commitment to clean materials. We need understanding of material flow and lots of other related things--epidemiology, toxicology, scale effects, and reversibility strategies. There are the important oncoming environmental problems, ones that are worldwide in scale and likely to be very difficult to reverse. We have got to worry about them. Ozone was a triumph in terms of the world thinking about it and agreement to measures. Is global warming that kind of a problem and how do we had start working on it now if it is?

Changes in regulating, accounting, policy, management, cost benefit, and risk analysis are things we need to begin doing. We need to develop a new body of green knowledge on which designers and engineers can draw. For example, most of organic chemistry as was put together in the early part of this century, took little into account about whether it produced bad by-products on the way to desired materials. We have to do the research to develop a green body of knowledge that folks can draw on when they sit down to make useful things.

Some successes: I think ozone is a success. In my own region of the United States, the shad have return to the Delaware River. If you like shad, you can eat it. When I was a child you would not dare go in the lower Delaware. Many good things have happened in the United States and elsewhere, but many things remain to be done, for example, addressing heavy metals, global warming, sequestering nuclear waste, benign organics, etc. These are wonderful opportunities, wonderful challenges, wonderful ways that materials science and engineering can play a roll. Hardly anybody knows this. We have all got to tell our bosses and policy makers how this is really important, and how much could be done if only we would address it.

Nanophase Materials

We are all familiar with the Moore Plot, and we get into arguments about when it will die. Si current element’s are going to get smaller and finally we will come to quantum limits. The materials people will push processing to the limit. The end probably will not be limited by processing. It may, however, be limited by the fact that few organizations have the 500 million dollars plus that you have to have to build a new chip factory, but consortia will probably solve that. However, unless we do something different by 2005 or 2010, we are going to stop making more cost effective chips. Physics will probably stop us. I would remind you that in the United States, and I believe everywhere else, about half of the increase in productivity is due to the Moore Plot. Because we get more functions per chip we get more data processing and communication per dollar spent. If that stops, that particular part of the economic pie will not grow. Electronics will have all the joy and importance of steam railroading. I do not know the answer to the dilemma, but I would suggest that folks that are working on small things in a variety of different ways are somehow generating the science from which we can draw the solution when the time comes. And industrial America will not know this is a problem until it is less than five years away. So it requires a broader social commitment by countries. A commitment of great interest to the future economies of both Korea and the United States.

It is worth remembering ourselves why small is beautiful?

I think there are some successes already.

Scientific success poses important new challenges. For example, researchers need to make crude prototypes of some kinds of devices that accomplish things that can not be done any other way. Even if the prototype is very crude, it will get the interest of the people with the money--the technologists and industrial decision makers. If it can be shown that nanophase materials is more than an intellectual concept and an exciting research finding, it will develop into a real technology.

Optical Materials

From a communication person’s point of view in optical materials there is still a lot of science and technology to be done. The pace is even accelerating and is largely set by III-V’s. I would point out that for optical materials there are also several metrics like a Moore Plot. For instance, bandwidth and repeater spacing where we are still orders of magnitude from ultimate limits. There are many opportunities indeed. You have to understand some really deep physics and complex materials issues if you want to push to the limits. Needs abound. There are needs for better optical storage. Maybe active organics are the way to do some things that are needed for displays, maybe gallium nitride is a key. There are lots of open issues.

Processing Science

In processing science I think the model is the relationship between chemistry and chemical engineering. We need to build a relationship between materials science and materials processing engineering--a field that really does not exist. We need process science because we want to improve yield, we want to reduce the amount of energy, we want to make things more green, and we in the United States want to couple people to good factories. We can provide some help from the United States’ experiences with chemical engineering. There is an imbalance in the materials field. The previous emphasis was physical science: bonding, structure, and properties. We have got to build a stronger intellectual infrastructure on the processing side. We need to connect heat mass transfer, thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, etc. to practical materials manufacture. We need a body of knowledge and professionals, and we need new ways of training. We need new educational modules. These are approaches where Korea has excelled. A master’s degree is a wonderful place to leave your formal training and go out in the real world and perform. That happens more often than not in Korea. In our society, everybody wants to write Phys-Rev letters, or so it sometimes seems. Again this is an opportunity to leverage one anothers’ strengths.

Conclusion

I will try to summarize in a very succinct manner. Materials science and engineering is the keystone to industrial progress. The connections between science and technology, particularly with an emphasis on the technology, will drive progress. I will argue that green, small, optical, and processing are four inevitable trends, and in different ways, we can help one another. As I said I was going to be descriptive, I did not mean to be prescriptive. I cannot really tell us what to do, but I can point to some areas we might want to talk about. Thank you.

TECHNICAL SESSION I

Georgia Institute of Technology

It is a pleasure to be addressing such a distinguished audience. Given the brevity of the time, I am going to jump into the topic immediately.

The title of my presentation "Recent Developments in Environmental Technologies," may give an impression that I am going to discuss a check-list of technologies that are being developed under the general category of environmental technologies. But in reality, an environmental technology on its own really does not mean much, that is, until it is framed within a very specific context. Thus, I would like to share with you a general framework, not only of theory but also of action, for the research, development, pilot testing, validation, implementation and deployment of environmental technologies as part of the larger context of sustainable development and technology, which we are currently developing at Georgia Tech.

The initial point of departure for this framework is an understanding of the context of environmental technologies. Let us begin by listing some issues that are contributing to some of the current problems facing the world today, and which in turn, become the drivers for the development of these technologies: a renewed interest and focus on the global perspective for industries and businesses; inequitable, unstable, asymmetric and unsustainable demographic and economic growth; increased awareness of and sensitivity to environmental concerns; increased dependence on technology, both for development and rehabilitation; lack of understanding of the multiple dimensions and the complex context of technology; and the consequences of a linear approach to development, with mixed views, perceptions and results of the role of technology within this process.

The last issue can be explained better with a simple model of the linear approach to development that humans have been, and are still following, that sets the stage for the need for environmental technologies.

Figure 1:  A Model of a Linear Approach to Development (after D. V. Roberts)

In this model, developed by Don V. Roberts, current President of the World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development (WEPSD) and shown in Figure 1, several systems are linked in a linear process that begins with both renewable and non-renewable natural resources such as air, water, soil, mineral or biological resources, as inputs to the exploitation and use of primary natural resources for a given industry. The outputs of this system become the principal inputs for two other systems: the production and use of energy, whose output is a critical input to all the systems in the linear process; and resource processing and manufacturing, whose output is a set of industry-specific products or services that are then transported and commercialized. The linear process ends with the use and consumption of the products or services across all segments of society.

Within this model of linear development, we find that technology plays a role not only in enabling the connection between the different systems, but also within each one of them, as shown in Figure 2. That is what technology is really doing. Technology is what allows that exploitation of resources--whether it is fishing, or agriculture, or mining, or collecting energy from the sun, processing and adding, transportation and commerce, and use and consumption.

Figure 2:  Role of Technology in a Linear Approach to Development

This linear process is fueled by continuous increases in demand, use, and consumption of products and services, creating the need and pressures for further exploitation of natural resources, continuous expansion of energy production, and processing and manufacturing capabilities. This unrelenting growth has created three serious problems, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3:  Consequences of a Linear Approach to Development

First, there are problems of natural resource degradation and depletion. It is not only that resources disappear, but that we damage what is left. Some parts of the world are seeing the consequences of their lack of control. Second, if we add what happens at each one of these systems, we have the additional issue of post-industrial and consumer waste which generates and accumulates, and creates problems and dark visions of things that may happen in the future. In particular, I recall the barge that came out of New York and aimlessly floated around the ocean full of trash with no place to go. Finally, if we further add the issue of impact and degradation to the environment, we can easily understand what has fueled the renewed interest in sustainability, sustainable development, and environmental technologies. Together these three problems are extremely powerful indicators that we may not be going down the best path for us or for future generations. We have heard many of the speakers address the idea that we need to develop a stronger concern for ensuring that future generations can meet their own needs.

Finally, and from another point of view, any discussion of technology needs to address three dimensions, as shown in Figure 4. This perspective is borrowed from the World Bank.

Figure 4:  The Dimensions of Technology (after the World Bank)

One of these dimensions is the economic one, where the focus is maximizing income or maintaining the stock of capital assets. Here we are talking about human, natural, and manufactured capital. The second dimension is social, in which the focus is on maintaining the stability of social and cultural systems. The interaction between these two dimensions creates issues of intra-generational equity. Finally, the third dimension is environmental, with the focus on maintaining the stability of biological and physical systems. Adding this dimension creates a triangle with two additional sets of issues: the first issue is inter-generational equity; the second issue is valuation in a global context. Within these very rich dimensions, technology plays an important role, because technology becomes a means to achieve economic, environmental, and social goals. If we understand this concept as a starting point, then we can put the whole issue of environmental technologies into the right perspective.

Sustainable development and technologies are a direct response to the challenges and problems posed by the linear process described above, and offer a mechanism to overcome them gradually. Although there is no agreement regarding the precise meaning of the terms-- beyond respect for the quality of life for future generations--most interpretations and definitions of the term "sustainable" refer to the viability of natural resources and ecosystems over time, and to the maintenance of human living standards and economic growth.

First, instead of being a linear process, the framework for a sustainable system, as shown in Figure 5, portrays a closed system. The total integrated system incorporates the same five systems described for the linear process of development, and in addition, it incorporates four new ones, each a response to a specific challenge. Natural resource management addresses the need to manage the exploitation of renewable natural resources in a way that ensures that the supply will always exceed the demand, and at the same time, monitor and control the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources to prevent their total depletion. Resource recovery addresses the need to recycle selected resources and products from waste. These recovered resources would become inputs to the five basic subsystems in the system. They also would assist in reducing the amount of waste that requires disposal. Waste disposal recognizes that a certain amount of waste is inevitable and thus, will require disposal in ways that are not detrimental to the environment. Finally, environmental technologies address the need to incorporate proactively, at every subsystem within the system, strategies and mechanisms that mitigate environmental impacts at the root--before the impact happens, either through the application of preservation, pollution prevention, avoidance, monitoring, assessment and control strategies and mechanisms. This subsystem also recognizes that some damage already has or may have been done to the environment and that corrective actions, such as remediation or restoration, are necessary.

Figure 5:  A Sustainable System

An important characteristic of a sustainable system is that change does not occur quickly. Rather, analogous to the way natural ecosystems operate, a sustainable system gradually adjusts to the changes occurring within, until it reaches a desired level or state of sustainability. To achieve this goal, a sustainable system needs to recognize, acknowledge, and respond to the fundamental linkages, relationships, and interdependencies among its subsystems, and their corresponding inputs and outputs. This is why sometimes optimizing individual parts of the system has little or no effect on the system as a whole.

Within this system, there are several sustainability goals. We are trying to maintain human standards of living. These goals need to be customized to all the different aspects of societies around the world. We are definitely trying to maintain economic well-being. We are not sacrificing economic status. We are trying to contribute to economic well-being through effective management and use of resources--here we are talking about resources in a complete, ample spectrum. We are also trying to minimize or eliminate waste and environmental impact, as well as to protect the long-term viability of environmental ecosystems.

Now within this context, which is obviously tremendously complicated, what technologies are we really talking about? Sustainable technologies, or environmental technologies as defined by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), encompass all technologies, i.e., hardware, software, systems and services, that contribute, support or advance sustainable development by reducing risk, enhancing cost effectiveness, improving process efficiency, and creating processes, products or services that are environmentally beneficial or benign. These technologies can be grouped into five major categories. The first is avoidance, which involves technologies that avoid the production of environmentally hazardous substances, or which alter the way human activities are performed so that they do not harm the environment. This category goes beyond just pollution prevention activities. It also includes avoidance of any form of environmental degradation, product substitution, or redesign of production processes. The second is monitoring and assessment, which includes technologies used to establish and monitor environmental conditions, including the release of pollutants and other harmful materials. The third is control, which includes technologies that render hazardous materials or substances harmless before they are released into the environment. The fourth is remediation, which includes technologies that render hazardous materials or substances harmless after they are released into the environment. The final one is restoration, which includes technologies used to improve ecosystems that have declined or have been damaged as a result of natural or anthropogenic causes.

If we look at environmental technologies from the perspective of technologies that allow us to try to promote and achieve principles of sustainability, we see the following types of characteristics emerging. First, these are technologies that promote development under this new paradigm, allowing us to provide practical solutions for economic growth in harmony with the environment. These technologies are also sensitive to local and regional cultural needs and resources, i.e., they are not transplanted from one context into another, but rather acknowledge that each has to come from its own context. We must critically re-examine (and perhaps reinvent) how we design and operate physical systems--whether for a little artifact, or a very large building, or a whole freeway. A different way of looking at these processes is required.

In general, technologies for sustainability:

At another level of analysis, one can look at sustainable processes. In essence, it is a deceivingly simple approach: minimize the number of non-renewable resources that we feed into processes, maximize the number of renewable resources that we can manage, try to incorporate a link that brings back post-consumer waste, separate what is pollution from waste, and create products. At the same time, some of these outputs feed other processes to create linkages among different types of industries. This is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6:  Sustainable Processes (after INTERFACE, Inc.)

There are two main categories of environmental technologies which can support sustainability goals. The first category is composed of technologies that can bring incremental improvement to the status quo as one step in the right direction within each of the five systems in the linear development process, and there is a whole inventory of those available. These technologies can be either new or enhancements to existing ones. The role that these environmental technologies play has the initial focus of control and end-of-pipe remediation and restoration, and they have a common denominator: they are all trying to solve problems that are integral to the processes they are trying to control. In a way they are helping to solve the problems, but at the same time they are not making a dent in the big picture.

For example, within the exploitation and use of primary resources, such as in the pulp and paper industry, sustainable forests have been the response. We have examples in fishing and agriculture where farms are being managed in much more effective ways. When looking at technologies for energy production and use, we are talking about alternative technologies--using the wind, the air, waves from the ocean--all different alternative sources, not only those that burn and pollute the environment. At the same time, individual industries are making tremendous progress in examining their own processes and eliminating those processes that produce by-products or are toxic in favor of those that tend to be more benign. Industries are looking at processes as simple as those of designed disassembly. If we want to increase the closed-loop mentality, whatever we do, we need to feed back into our system. So let us not create something that then needs to be destroyed or eliminated in some way, let us do it in a way that we can dismantle and then reuse. There are new alternative ways of transporting and commercializing products. With the advent of the electronic world, telecommuting is an alternative to actually getting in a car and going somewhere. There is a reduction in the use of paper with more things being done electronically. There are a lot implications of technologies within this system. However, in many cases, we are not going to make any difference or impact unless we change patterns of consumption. That is another area where some sustainable technologies play a role. They offer consumers alternatives that lead them toward a more sustainable perspective. Environmental technologies, therefore, can span the complete spectrum of linear development.

A second category of technologies, in a much more proactive and aggressive role, supports sustainability by preventing or overcoming the problems that this linear process creates. These technologies cross boundaries within and across systems. They really require a paradigm shift in the development process, from a fragmented linear approach, to a holistic systems approach. Here, environmental technologies shift completely towards pollution prevention and avoidance and long-term monitoring and assessment of the integrity of the system at which they are supposed to be looking.

Therefore, these are technologies to manage resources, both primary and natural resources, and secondary resources. Another category is technologies for resource recovery. These are basic chemical separation processes and other developments at a fundamental material level. We are seeing technologies that look at disposable waste in very creative and innovative ways. There is an example of the use of plasma towards technology as a way of eliminating some of this waste.

In conclusion, environmental technologies play a role in everything, as shown in Figure 7. If we are able to change the paradigm--how we do business and how we affect industries as a whole--then we are going to move toward a really sustainable system for each one of these boxes. Each box becomes a proactive, environmentally friendly, totally integrated, and holistic system. The key element here is gradual change. You can not do it overnight, you can not mandate it--it must come from within.

Figure 7:  Scope of Environmental Technologies

Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science

The topic I am going to discuss today is not entirely related to high technology. While there are some aspects of my presentation that require a certain degree of technical expertise, much of it does not, and in some cases is not even directly related to R&D. The topic is "Structural Failure."

Structural failure is a time-honored human concern worldwide. Ancient Romans lamented the shoddy construction of their buildings and monuments. More recently, Korea, after decades of rapid and sometimes hasty development, is awakening to the reality that maintaining existing structures may be more important than building new ones. It is with this knowledge that the Korean government has recently established the Failure Prevention Research Center at the Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science.

According to Webster dictionaries, the word "failure" means, among many things, "collapsing, fracturing, or giving way under stress." A more general meaning is summarized as "the inability of a material or structure to fulfill an intended purpose." Thus, a bridge collapsing is an extreme case of failure. However, when a bridge undergoes a degradation, thereby lowering its sustainable load limit, the more general meaning of failure may be applied. Distinguishing between these two cases is not important because the latter (degradation) could eventually result in the former (collapsing). Still, the level of technology required for the two cases is distinguishable. Generally speaking, it requires a higher level of technology to detect and evaluate the subtle degradation of a structure. On the other hand, the more immediate impinging danger of a structural failure, such as a fracture or even collapse, can be detected with a relatively low level of technology, sometimes even with the naked eye. For this case, it is more a matter of utilizing existing technology and consolidating various field experiences, than of developing new technology. However, detection of the progressive failure within a structure (degradation) may require new R&D efforts even in the United States. It is with these considerations that we have proposed a cooperative Korean-U.S. effort in failure prevention.

Specifically, the proposal calls for collaboration between the Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The two institutes will act as coordinators for their respective countries in mobilizing proper expertise and providing necessary information. Before examining the specifics of the possible collaboration between KRISS and NIST, I would like to review briefly the present status of the related technologies and their real world use, as well as the future needs and trends in R&D activities, in the following order:

Scope of the Technology

The concept of the safety maintenance of a structure is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Schematic Diagram of Safety Maintenance

The whole process depicted in Figure 1 requires interdisciplinary efforts among the specialists in many different areas such as sensor/measurement, electronics, structural analysis/evaluation, and construction engineering, etc. However, the present proposal covers mainly the activities indicated in the grey boxes in Figure 1, namely monitoring and diagnosis. The specific technologies related with these activities may be further categorized as in Figure 2.

Figure 2:  Technology Tree for Safety Maintenance

Many of these technologies depicted in Figure 2 are already available with varying degrees, and it is this availability of technology that makes the lower-end safety maintenance works possible in Korea today. It is our desire to acquire or jointly develop new technologies that are deemed to be necessary for performing the higher-end safety maintenance works in Korea. In this regard, the current status of the related technologies and their use will be reviewed briefly.

Current Status of the Technologies and Their Use Worldwide and in Korea

Western advanced countries which went through social developments much earlier and for a longer period than Korea have also experienced various structural failure problems during the development process. These failures provoked numerous R&D efforts which have resulted in vast amounts of data. This data can be used in the whole process of designing, constructing, and safely maintaining a structure. For example, although mainly aimed at industrial facilities such as machinery and power turbines, scientists and engineers from the then National Bureau of Standards, collaborated with other specialists from various academic and industrial institutions in the United States to develop failure prevention technologies. The activities of this loosely organized group lasted throughout the 1970's and into the early 1980's and has provided numerous valuable scientific and engineering results which have been comprehensively compiled in its annual proceedings.

In the past, the safety maintenance of a structure was performed only by experts who had enough field experiences even in the West. More recently, however, various non-destructive testing methods based on ultrasounds and radioactive materials etc. have been developed, and this, together with the ready availability of computers for complicated structural analysis, has made safety maintenance a non-expert job requiring limited background education. Various guidelines have been established for this purpose. For example, AASHTO of the United States established safety maintenance guidelines for bridges in 1983, based on various research results and field experiences up to that time. Europe, where the history of railroads, both conventional and highspeed, is long, is more concerned with the safety of railroad bridges and tunnels and has a well-documented safety guide for such structures. Earthquake-prone Japan has a set of rigorous standards for designing, constructing, and maintaining structures in order to minimize earthquake damage.

Table 1:  Examples of In-situ Monitoring of Bridges

The recent development of sensors and communications technologies has opened a new dimension for safety maintenance by allowing continuous in-situ monitoring of structures. Various sensors are implanted in the structure semi-permanently to measure critical quantities such as stress, vibration, sinking, and tilting of the structure. The measured signals are sent to a central station via dedicated telephone lines or radio transmissions for processing and diagnosing. This rather expensive method is used mainly in critical structures such as suspension bridges. Some application examples are shown in Table 1.

Korea has gone through rapid industrial and social development during the past 30 years. During that period, both the public and private sectors invested heavily to reach a level of social infrastructure equivalent to that which was accomplished over a hundred or more years by advanced countries. Understandably, the biggest emphasis in Korea was given to efficiency, aiming at realizing a fast return on investments. Inevitably, this resulted in shoddy construction in some structures--as evidenced in several recent tragic accidents. Facing such a dire social problem which is potentially catastrophic, the Korea government, in addition to establishing the Failure Prevention Research Center at the Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science, has established the following rules for safety maintenance of structures:

These rules are mandatory, and local governments appear to be abiding by them rather well so far. A recent month-long evaluation of high-rise apartment buildings in the Seoul metropolitan area, has revealed that the situation is not as bad as initially feared.

Still, there are some impediments that hamper efficient implementation of the above mandatory rules. First, the lack of proper manpower. The number of professional engineers who are qualified to perform the safety inspections is about 200, and only about 50 of them have registered for the profession. The remainder are staying with various academic and industrial institutions. The second problem is that the instruments they use do not appear to have been well maintained and calibrated, thus raising questions as to the validity of data used in evaluating structures. Another factor hampering reliable inspection is the lack of comprehensive standards for the evaluation procedures.

There are now about twenty registered institutions that are qualified to perform safety inspection of structures in Korea. In addition to these, there are more than 50 unregistered institutions. Because of the various factors hampering reliable inspections, the major task of these institutions at the moment, appears to be short-term safety evaluations. Longer-term evaluations hardly can be expected. Thus, the basic problems inherited from Korea's rapid development will be persisting unless comprehensive measures are taken urgently. It is with this urgency in mind, that the present collaboration scheme between Korea and the United States has been formulated and presented in this forum.

Trend and Perspective in Related R&D Activities

The R&D efforts in safety maintenance of structures have a long history, and many nations around the world already have a sufficient level of technology and accumulated knowledge. Nevertheless, the efforts still continue to enhance the reliability both by upgrading the existing technology and by diversifying the methods. Some major activities are classified as follows:

One distinguishable trend today is to develop expert systems that can not only detect the failure, but also provide the necessary repair prescriptions. This requires a huge amount of data for the relevant materials properties as well as the analytical results for the previous failure examples. Today's computers are becoming ever faster, therefore, we might hope that someday in the near future the miraculous expert system could replace human toils.

In the foregoing sections, we have reviewed the scope of the technologies we intend to deal with for the specific purpose of failure prevention, as well as their current status worldwide. The scope ranges widely from, among many other areas, sensor-measurement technology to structure dynamics and analysis. These wide-ranging technologies should be consolidated to yield reliable methods for monitoring and diagnosing the structures. From these considerations, we identified the critical areas for which outside help might be sought. We then discussed the matter with the Structure Division of NIST for promoting cooperative efforts in the following areas:

The effort will include R&D in each institute and inviting U. S. experts to Korea to oversee some ongoing safety checking activities. NIST will coordinate for the U.S.-side, and if necessary, will accept Korean scientists and technicians to stay there to perform relevant research. Table 2 summarizes the detailed plan for the cooperation.

In conclusion, it is hoped that our mutual effort will greatly augment the Korean effort to suitably maintain its various social infrastructures, and eventually will help similar effort in the United States as well.

Table 2:  Plan for Cooperation

I. Introduction

At the Second U.S.-Korea Science and Technology Forum on May 25, 1994, a brief overview of environmental issues in Korea, Korean environmental industry and market prospects, and the Korean environmental R&D program was presented.

In Korea, 1990 was named the "First Year of the Environment," since the cabinet-level Ministry of Environment (MOE) was established in that year. Though national environmental R&D programs began in 1985 in the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), independent and lump-sum fund allocations were launched in 1990 to help solve imperative pollution problems such as quality control of the drinking water supply. Aroused public interest led to an expanded environmental R&D program of HAN (Highly Advanced National) projects in 1992, with inter-ministerial cooperation and coordination. The HAN project extends to the year 2001 and it now constitutes 20 projects with a total budget of about 30 billion Korean won per year.

Korean environmental industries consist mainly of end-of-pipe (EOP) control equipment (92%), and other services (8%) which include some cleaner technologies. Compared to OECD countries where the EOP portion of the industry is on average 76 percent, Korea environmental technology is still in the developing stage and is very dependent upon the importation of technology.

In November, 1987, the First Korea-U.S. Environmental Cooperation Symposium was held in Seoul and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Korea Environmental Administration (EA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the umbrella of the Agreement Relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation between the two nations. Also, a specific agreement was reached to initiate cooperative activities in the following seven areas of mutual interest:

United States-Asia Environmental Partnership

Timothy R. Titus

A gathering of such distinguished scientists will, I trust, find it appropriate to discuss an interesting experiment. An experiment, moreover, that survived its trial-and-error period to become a viable model for institutional innovations in the future.

The experiment is called the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP). It began life, as do all experiments, as a rather simple idea--to bring American expertise to bear on Asia’s environmental problems.

As you have already heard in the remarks by Dr. Won-Hon Park of KIST, the US-AEP program has never suffered from a lack of ambition. From the beginning, we have experimented with a broad array of tools--from professional and business exchanges funneled through the Institute for International Education (IIE) and its predecessors, to incentive grants administered by the National Association of State Development Agencies (NASDA) to encourage U.S. companies interested in exploring Asian markets for environmental technologies.

In all cases, we have searched for the right match of demand and supply, of need and expertise, of problem and solution. Dr. Park has already provided you with a broad survey of our various programs and a long list of our success stories. I think it is now safe to proclaim that the experimental stage has been successfully completed. And US-AEP has now emerged from a period of wide-ranging exchanges and partnerships with a redesigned program, one that will efficiently target its resources to help bring about a "clean revolution" in Asia.

A Focus on CTEM

What is at the core of our new strategy? A sharpened focus on clean technologies and environmental management, or "CTEM" for short. This strategy became compelling as we realized the eight percent real growth recently achieved by the 34 nations and territories in our region will continue for 15 years and--according to the best estimates--that 85 percent of the industrial base that will exist in 2010 has not yet been designed or built.

In other words, we will have our greatest impact in making certain the new industrial base and its supporting infrastructure are clean from the outset. If we are successful, we will have contributed to nothing less than a "clean revolution."

The CTEM Ladder

Indeed, it is possible to conceptualize a "ladder" of increasingly sophisticated techniques that leads to this "clean revolution." Here are the seven steps, starting at the bottom:

Reorganization

To help Asian companies climb the ladder, US-AEP reorganized itself around a new CTEM component, which incorporates our previous Technology Cooperation function and our ASEAN Environmental Improvement Project, along with several additional activities. We have framed our new focus by concentrating on three complementary areas of concern: first, the array of incentives that persuade private companies to climb the ladder of environmental management; second, the capacity of businesses to respond fully to positive incentives; and, finally, the transfer of technologies and techniques that effectively exploit the full range of business incentives and capacities in a given country.

In Korea, as most of you already know, we have generally been moving in this direction from the very beginning of the US-AEP program. For those of you who would like to have more information, Dr. Park’s paper provides a descriptive review of all of our activities in Korea--not just those accomplished in cooperation with KIST. I have also had our technical staff prepare comprehensive summaries of our Korean achievements. Those are also available here.

As you can see, the Korean experience was an important inspiration for the new strategy that will guide the entire program. Thus, under our new CTEM strategy, and within its Incentives and Capacity-Building Areas, we have grouped a set of closely related initiatives.

The Environmental and Industrial Policy initiative, for example, focuses on public policies that directly affect the industrial regime. It seeks to incorporate environmental concerns into industrial policy by devising market-based instruments and promoting environmental priorities. In countries where the environmental regime needs strengthening, this initiative could include regulatory or enforcement vehicles.

Another initiative--this one dealing with Voluntary Business Standards--includes national accreditation authorities, the Valdez Principles, voluntary industry standards, such as the Chemical Manufacturers Association’s Responsible Care, and, of course, ISO standards, especially the new 14000 series on environmental management. As you probably know, we believe in the value of ISO 14000 as a means of encouraging companies to climb the ladder toward TQM. We are, therefore, deeply engaged in disseminating information about how it will work and what it will mean.

Our International Institute of Education, or IIE, has selected a group of American firms with expertise in environmental management to lead an ISO 14000 "roadshow" early next year. These firms, tempered by a history of working within a tough environmental regime, will give Asians a veteran’s perspective on environmental management. One of the roadshow’s first stops will be Korea.

Yet another initiative--Buyer-Seller Relationships--encourages corporations to take responsibility for supplier-chain, customer-relations, and labor programs for the purpose of ratcheting up environmental practices throughout the commercial and industrial sectors. Similarly, the Financial Institutions initiative seeks to inject environmental considerations into the eligibility criteria for investments by financial institutions and insurance companies.

We will also place new emphasis on Partnerships between Asian and American Industry and Management Associations. With this initiative, we hope to exchange information, improve skills, expand constituencies, and build influence within influential sectors on both sides of the Pacific. On a parallel track, IIE will exert greater management control over Professional Training, Education, and Exchanges in order to expand the reach of environmental management into the curricula of engineering and business schools and into the exchange programs and courses that offer continuing education for professionals.

And, finally, it is important to know that our new CTEM strategy reflects our particular interest in fostering technology transfers at the high end of the ladder. Thus, it collects the following initiatives under the rubric of Technology Transfer:

Speaking here today, I can say with confidence that the experimental stage of the US-AEP program is complete. And that the experiment was an unqualified success, for it allowed us to discover new ways to leverage limited public funds to achieve larger public goals. In our success, I believe, lies a new model for creative partnerships between government and industry.

Thank you Dr. Yang. Fifteen minutes is a very short presentation. I will try to adhere to that time. Out of necessity I am going to have to limit what I talk about, and so you are going to get a brief summary of my view of some interesting developments.

I have to start out with the obligatory observation that information technology, particularly the hardware aspect of information technology, has been on this incredible curve in which it improves by a factor of two every 18 to 24 months, and has been on that curve for roughly forty years. When I talk to policy makers they do not intuitively understand what that means, so I have been using an analogy from a story that I was told as a child. It is about a young man that agrees to work for another individual and do absolutely anything that he is told to do for one month. Moreover, he agrees to start out for a salary of just a penny a day, so long as (and this is the only proviso) his salary is doubled every day. If he does that, he will make 21 million dollars in a 31-day month. And he makes half of it on the last day!

We have been on a doubling curve, not quite every day, and not even quite every year, but every 18 to 24 months, for almost 40 years. Thus, the amount of computing power every 18 months nearly exceeds all that has been delivered throughout the entrepreneur history. So, when you think about computing and information technology, it is very important to understand that the way things are now, are only half as good as they are going to be 18 months from now, and only a thousandth of what they will be in ten years. Any planning for the future must presume the computing and communications, and the way they will be used, that will exist in that future

Let me consider some implications of this growth. In today’s technology, we produce and deliver memories which have roughly speaking about four to 16 million bits of storage per chip. In a decade, we will be delivering chips that have four to 16 billion bits per chip--one thousand times more than today. This is several times more in the primary memory than you probably have on the hard disc in your personal computer. We will have 20 to 50 million transistors and central processing unit (CPU) chips, and that probably means that we will build several processors on each chip, and they too will be about a thousand times more powerful than today’s.

We will do more than just add processor speed and memory size, however. Today we tend to build analog devices like amplifiers for audio signals in one set of circuitry, and digital equipment, computers and such, in another. Shortly we will be combining them. Thus, for example, we will put communications devices on the same silicon substrate as computers and memory in order to build tiny mobile computing systems. Very tiny mobile systems--Dick Tracey’s wristwatch radio could in fact be a complete computing system in constant communication with the Internet.

Going beyond analog electronics, one of the most exciting new areas is something that here in the United States we call MEMS--that stands for "micro-electro mechanical systems." MEMS uses the same base technology that is used for building computer chips to build tiny mechanical components--tiny springs, tiny motors, tiny gears. I think you are going to see, if not in ten years, fairly shortly thereafter, integrated systems that combine sensors, computational power (reasoning ability, if you will), communications devises (radios, infrared lasers), and actuators all on a single chip.

The combination of computation (intelligence), sensors, actuators, and communications on nonometer scale devices opens incredible opportunities to place instruments, for example, in places that were inaccessible before. Moreover, these need not be merely passive, but can interact with their environment, communicate with similar instruments in that environment, and operate at least semi-autonomously.

Hardware always gets the headlines because it is the easiest thing to talk about. It is easy to talk about how many bits per memory chip, or how many transistors per CPU chip. In fact, however, it is software that makes it all work, and there are some very interesting developments in the software arena. Everybody is talking about the Internet, for example, and the Internet is software! The fiber may carry the bits, but the routers, the e-mail systems, the web browsers, and all the other things that make it useful are software.

The use of the Internet is something we do not understand in any deep sense yet. Developments like Netscape browsers and Sun Microsystems Java, are getting a lot of press at the moment. I think they are precursors to much more profound things in the future.

The second thing I would like to mention in the software domain is modeling and simulation. We are now getting to the point where computers are capable of reproducing aspects of the physical world with great fidelity. Thus, we are going to use computer simulated environments for training, for design explorations, for premanufacturing explorations, and so on. Just as "computational science" has become recognized as a third modality of scientific exploration, computational modeling and simulation is going to become an accepted modality for engineering design.

There is a particularly exciting simulation development which is called multi-disciplinary optimization. The idea is to combine optimizations from different disciplines to produce a globally optimal product--to take, for example, work that has been done on structures, work that has been done on fluid flow, work that has been done on failure analysis, materials work, control theory, etc., and combine these to optimize the design of, let us say, an aircraft wing.

Currently we use fluid dynamics to design the shape of the wing. Then, as a completely separate step, we use structural modeling for its mechanical structure. Again, separately we model materials that might be used to realize that structure. Similarly, failure analysis is done as a separate step, and so on. We know this separation of analyses results in a suboptimal overall design, but it was our only option. Now more powerful computers, combined with advanced software, are making the separation unnecessary.

Telemedicine is one of the things that I think is extraordinarily exciting. It is the idea that we can deliver medical services at remote distances. We do not necessarily have to have a doctor on the scene of a crash, but we can electronically insert the doctor into the scene with a degree of fidelity, with a degree of quality, that makes it almost immaterial whether he is physically present or not.

There is a tendency to think that we will use this technology to do the same things we have done in the past, but do them better. In fact, the history of information technology has proven that we do things in different ways, or do things that we did not do at all before.

It is impossible to predict what the information entrepreneurs are going to do or how they are going to use this technology. In particular, I have a very checkered history of predicting the consequences of technology. I could tell you in 1970 exactly what the bit density of chips was going to be today, but I did not foresee the PC. I feel dumb, but the technology is moving so fast that it is difficult to judge what the information entrepreneurs are going to do. We pundits generally have been too conservative.

It may be hard to predict specifics, but in broad terms, if we "do it right" the convergence of computing and communication is going to unleash an enormous economic force. By "doing it right" I mean getting the policy issues right--the issue of intellectual property, for example. These are not just U.S.-Korean issues. Indeed, intellectual property is one that is being very hotly debated within the United States as well. Another issue is jurisdiction--if someone is using a computer in Germany that is connected through the Caiman islands and is steeling money from a bank in New York, who has jurisdiction? Whose laws are applicable? Where is information in this cyberspace anyway?

I have exhausted my fifteen minutes, so I will stop here. I hope I have raised some issues that will provoke discussion. Thank you for your attention.

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

I. Introduction

The United States has greatly contributed to the improvement of worldwide human welfare by leading technological development in all aspects of society. Presently, Korea is also playing a role in the advancement of human welfare after accomplishing remarkable economic development in a short period of time. The United States as an advanced country, and Korea as a leading country among Newly Industrialized Economies (NIEs), continuously try to promote human welfare, and thus draw the attention of other countries around the world.

Following the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit meeting recently held in Osaka, Japan, the United States is expected to play a leading role in promoting the welfare of APEC members through technology cooperation. Korea is also trying to increase overall cooperation among APEC members. Thus, both countries are bound by a mutually inseparable responsibility, not only for human welfare improvement, but also for economic cooperation within the APEC region. As core nations, both Korea and the United States hold very important positions in promoting human welfare through technological development, and find themselves standing at the point where mutual cooperation is crucial for the achievement of their goals.

II. Current Status of Korea-US Cooperation

(1) Fundamental Differences between Korea and the United States

In the past, the United States clearly distinguished between the private and public sector in terms of technological development. However, in recent years, the distinction has blurred as the government has increased its efforts to improve technology by supporting the private sector. The Clinton Administration, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), is taking steps to improve the competitiveness of industrial technology, according to a report released at the end of September.

Meanwhile, Korea is seeking ways to move from government-led to private sector-led technological development. The government has been trying to adopt privatization in the field of information communication, but with difficulty.

(2) Attempts at Technology Cooperation between Korea and the United States

Since 1993, the Telecommunications Industry Association in Korea, as a private organization, has been maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in the United States, which includes the U.S. telecommunications equipment manufacturers in its membership. However, there has not been much to show as a result of cooperative efforts so far, even in the mutual acknowledgment of type approval for telecommunication equipment. Technology cooperation between the two countries has been attempted primarily in the private sector. There are many examples of this, but let me give you one.

Recently, EMCORE, a small U.S. company, and APEX, a small Korean company, signed a contract for cooperation to jointly develop next generation semiconductor equipment. However, due to differences in technology, the Korean company ended up paying license fees to the American company for technology transfer instead of the two companies really cooperating with each other.

There has been technical cooperation between U.S. companies and Korean government research institutes. A good example of this is the industry-government joint consortium that is made up of a U.S. company, Qualcom, and a Korean government-supported research institute, the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). Furthermore, Korea's ETRI and a U.S. company, SRI International, have been conducting joint research since 1994 to develop BAGnet and its application services as the first step to the construction of the Asia-Pacific Information Infrastructure (APII).

(3) Future Direction

Technological cooperation between private parties of the two countries should be governed by the right to contract. On the other hand, I recommend that concerted coordination should be sought to maximize technology cooperation between the two countries. I am suggesting this idea because private organizations such as the Korean Telecommunications Industry Association, the Electronic Industries Association of Korea, and TIA in the United States have attempted cooperation, but actual cooperative achievement has been minimal. Another example of sporadic efforts to mediate technology cooperation can be seen from the BRIE group, at the University of California at Berkeley, which works individually for joint technology cooperation between U.S. and Korean companies.

What I mean by technology cooperation through concerted coordination is to strive for research and development employing full-scale industrial coordination after extracting technologies economically advantageous to both countries, rather than attempting separate and sporadic cooperation. The concerted coordination will help enhance human welfare by removing inefficiency in resource utilization between both countries. An example of concerted coordination for the future could be Korean companies participating in U.S. consortiums (SEMATEC, MCC, etc.) and likewise, U.S. companies taking part in Korean government-industry cooperative programs, for example: the HAN project of next generation semiconductor technology development, B-ISDN technology development, and others.

If such full-scale cooperation can be realized, it will be a great benefit to both countries. Korean research institutes can amicably participate in the efforts to strengthen U.S. industrial competitiveness through improving overall technological strength of the country. U.S. private companies can likewise participate in the efforts to strengthen Korean industrial competitiveness through improving its overall technological strength. As a result, practical technology cooperation between the two countries will be reinforced and the interests of both countries will be better served.

To initiate the concerted coordination of technology cooperation between the two countries, the establishment of the "Organization of Technology Cooperation" in both countries must be considered. In addition, the functions of existing organizations, such as the Telecommunications Industry Association in Korea and the Federation of Korean Information Industries, and the TIA in the United States, must be strengthened also.

To achieve of broader cooperation in the private sector between the two countries, institutional support from both governments will be necessary. For example, both governments can help promote mutual technology exchange by providing incentives, such as tax breaks or low interest loans, as well as assisting in the joint entry into third countries through the Organization of Technology Cooperation. Joint efforts by government research institutes in both countries will also be needed to promote technology cooperation and to strengthen technologies.

Lastly, the U.S. government's research and development efforts reach as far as the applied technology level, but effort is mainly put in the area of pre-competitive technology development, such as basic or energy technology. The Korean government has primarily pushed for the development of commercialized technology, but now it intends to gradually move towards developing pre-competitive technology. However, such pre-competitive technologies usually require long-term development, involve high risks due to uncertainty of the results, and call for relatively high expenditures. Considering the uncertainty of the pre-competitive technology, cooperation between both countries' government research institutes will help increase understanding between the two countries in conducting research and development in this area.

III. Suggestions for Future Technology Cooperation

The United States, as a leading advanced country, and Korea, as a leading nation among the NIEs, are drawing attention from around the world. Technology cooperation between both countries will increase the efficiency of worldwide resource utilization, which in turn will help enhance human welfare. Considering the important role of both countries in the world economy and the importance of technology cooperation between the two countries, I would like to make the following suggestions for the promotion of technology cooperation:

Finally, I would like to mention that this type of technology cooperation is already partly under way, but there are still difficulties due to lack of understanding between both countries. In order to overcome these difficulties, I hope that this forum serves as an opportunity for setting up a practical means of developing and sharing technology. Thank you.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute

The task assigned to me was to discuss briefly some recent advances in biotechnology. By so doing, I hope to convince you that this new technology is, indeed, similar in many ways to the microchip industry and related advances in computer and information technology. Biotechnology, like these, is a technology that will change global partnerships, industry, and international social systems, as we know them. Many changes will be taking place arising from the discoveries in molecular biology and biotechnology. Several illustrations are offered here to support this position.

Firstly, we are in a new era. An appropriate analogy is that we are participating in a technological change that is like that accompanying the inventions of the printing press, the steam engine, the computer, and the splitting of the atom. However, the fundamental roots of biotechnology are not new, tracing back 5000 years in time to the leavening of bread and fermenting of hops and grapes to produce beer and wine, the art of which was practiced in Egypt and China. However, the development of biotechnology covers a very short span of time, relatively speaking. It was only 30 years ago that the early, key discoveries in molecular biology were made. In 1953, the alpha helix of DNA was determined by Watson and Crick, followed by the cracking of the genetic code in the early 1960’s by Nierenberg, the cloning of genetic material in 1970, and the significant cloning of the human insulin gene in 1977, from which spawned a major biotechnology company--a time span of ca. 25 years. During this time, i.e., since 1970, in the United States alone, more than 1000 companies were formed, the largest number located in California, followed (in number of companies) by New England (Massachusetts), and the Mid-Atlantic, including Maryland. This growth has been extraordinary. Sales this past year were approximately six billion dollars in the United States. The projections for the market in the United States for gross sales by the year 2015 ranges from 75 to 100 billion dollars.

Cetus company was founded in 1971 and Genentech in 1976. Genentech is less than 20 years old, and it is already a major biotechnology company. By 1988, various products had been developed. The first human gene therapy was accomplished barely five years ago. A recent article in the Washington Post opined that gene therapy was a long way away, a very conservative viewpoint. In fact, a half-dozen gene therapy experiments have already been reported and many more are on the way. The power of this technology can be described, somewhat simplistically, as follows. A diabetic born at the turn of the century might have lived to early adulthood, at best, without a very good quality of life. By the 1930’s, Banting and Best, scientists working in Toronto, Canada, had prepared crude extracts of insulin from animals. Further progress was achieved in preparation of purified, injectable insulin. In 1977, the human insulin gene was cloned from DNA extracted from pancreas of human cells into bacteria, and a genetically-engineered product was developed. The next breakthrough may come with the preparation of cells of a child born with diabetes taken by biopsy and grown in the laboratory. By genetic engineering, i.e., insertion of correctly-functioning gene(s) and reintroducing the "re-engineered" cells into the child, the in-born error of metabolism will be corrected. The child will then need no insulin; it will be produced by the "corrected" cells. That is one form of gene therapy that may not be far down the road.

Another example that can be offered are those products derived from hybridoma cells. More than 20 years ago, an Englishman and an Argentinean produced the first monoclonal antibody, by taking spleen cells of an immunized mouse producing antibodies targeted against an antigen. By fusing spleen cells with an endlessly dividing tumor cell line, the fused cell generates a pure, single cell line producing a very pure antibody. What has developed, subsequently, as a result, is a whole industry based on hybridoma technology and antibody-linking technology, valuable in chemotherapy and other applications. This technology, by 1995, was generating products with 1.5 billion dollars in sales and projected, by 1998, to reach ca. 4 billion dollars in sales.

Examples from the little known field of marine biotechnology are equally interesting. Marine biotechnology is the confluence of marine biology, genetic engineering, and molecular biology. It provides us with tools to utilize the germ plasm of the marine environment. Why would we want to do that? The answer is that there are fine chemicals, adhesives, new pharmaceuticals, and new enzymes to be found in those organisms whose habitat is in the sea. Enzymes in marine bacteria, for example, collected from the deep ocean where submarine volcanic eruptions occur are potentially of great economic value because of their unique properties. When the submarine volcanic eruptions occur, bacteria located at these sites grow at temperatures above boiling and under the hydrostatic pressure of the deep ocean. These bacteria produce novel enzymes, e.g., polymerases and proteinases functioning at high temperatures and elevated pressure. Some of these enzymes are now being used in selected industrial processes.

A very important example, especially for the U.S. and Korea cooperation in biotechnology, is aquaculture. The world oceans sustainably can yield 100 million metric tons of fish. Until about five years ago, world harvests were approximately 90 million metric tons. This has decreased, due to pollution and overfishing, to ca. 80 million metric tons. The Economist, in 1995, published an article on the "tragedy of the oceans" and other articles have appeared in other magazines, e.g., Newsweek, on the cover of which was illustrated the problem, "Fished Out." The fact is that there is not enough fish in the oceans to sustain the increased world population expected by 2025. Newsweek illustrated its article with a map showing areas of the world oceans where fish species were depleted. On the Grand Banks off Nova Scotia, cod and haddock officially have been declared "commercially extinct." Last year, fishing vessels off Canada and Spain exchanged gunfire in the Grand Banks over the rights to fish there. In the United States, importation of fish products is a major contributor, among agricultural products, to the import-export imbalance of the United States. For many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and countries of Latin America, e.g., Ecuador, mariculture (ranching) has become very important. For example, in Ecuador, annual production of shrimp for export is ca. 600 million dollars per year. The last few years have been problematic, with disease problems arising from crowding of pens and tanks in the push to increase production. The result has been severe losses, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with accompanying loss of jobs in that country. Taiwan has had similar problems. In Japan, concentrated aquaculture is done in bays and estuaries, but environmental problems arise from such intensive open mariculture. The bays become eutrophic, causing further disease problems and environmental pollution. Thus, the path to the future is through biotechnology: totally closed, land-based systems computer operated and controlled.

In Baltimore, at the Center of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, we have constructed a modern aquaculture center located at Fells Point. It is a closed system where hundreds of thousands of fish can be reared, employing computer control of salinity, temperature, amount of food introduced, and removal of excess nutrient. The system can be modularized, and will provide a means of providing fish protein in the next decade, an area of research and development where Korea and the United States can work together.

Control of egg production and spawning of commercially-important species of fish is now possible. By locating the site where hormone failure occurs, induction treatment has been developed, allowing rearing of fish in captivity. This has been done by Dr. Yonathan Zohar and his team at the Center of Marine Biotechnology, who have clone genes involved in production of hormones controlling production and release of sperm and eggs. One of the major problems in rearing cod, haddock, flounder, and other commercially-important fish in captivity is to induce spawning to produce eggs and sperm to complete the cycle totally in captivity. Breakthroughs have been made, notably a synthetic hormone has been produced, a very short polypeptide that can be produced for injection as a "super active" analog for the hormone. It is resistant to degradation in water systems and has a very high affinity for its receptor. Dr. Zohar, the scientist responsible for much of this excellent work that has been done in collaboration with his colleagues in Israel and Chile, has developed an implant that can be placed under the skin of the fish. It is possible to insert a "bar coding chip" so that each individual fish can be monitored without removal from the water. One can determine exactly which fish and what treatment is being monitored. Thus, discovery moves very quickly in this field! The sustained release implants have worked well in salmon, grouper, sea breen, and sea bass.

The growth hormone gene has been cloned and the DNA micro-injected into other species of fish, resulting in incorporation of the gene into the chromosomal structure, from trout into carp. The result is a faster growing, bigger carp. By confirming that the trout growth gene has been incorporated into the chromosome of the carp, the transgenic nature of this manipulation was confirmed.

Disease is a serious problem in aquaculture. Ca. 98 percent of shrimp is lost during culture to disease. Taiwan fishermen have struggled to increase their multimillion dollar annual crops of exported shrimp, but crowded ponds resulted in collapse of shrimp production because of disease. Fortunately, vaccines are being developed to protect shellfish and fish. A benefit is that, with vaccines, need for antibiotics is markedly reduced, an important corollary since tons of antibiotics are used in fish culture, thereby, entering the environment. If mixing with sewage occurs, pathogens that are drug resistant result, creating a very dangerous problem globally for humans, as well as animals.

There is an enormous diversity in the world oceans. Many species of fish are edible, that can be used for human consumption, and are available to meet the need for food if we can bring them into captivity. We can maintain the genetic resources of the oceans and, at the same time, grow in modularized tanks the protein needed to feed the burgeoning world populations. Six billion people now inhabit the globe, with ca. ten billion expected within the next ten or 15 years. By application of genetic engineering and biotechnology to the production of fish certainly is a possible solution.

Another area of potential collaboration between Korea and the United States is in marine pharmaceuticals and natural products. Some marine invertebrates already have yielded new, effective antibiotics, as well as anti-tumor agents.

One of the predictions for biotechnology is in the area of bioelectronics. By the year 2025, it is predicted this will be a major component of biotechnology gross product sales.

In comparing the biotechnology industry with the computer industry, the semiconductor industry, and the software industry, it can be noted that the biotechnology industry is young, only ca. 20-25 years old. The computer industry is maturing, and the semiconductor industry is "middle-aged," as is the software industry. All of these industries are technology intense. Only the biotechnology industry is heavily regulated, over regulated, in fact. Also, it is capital intensive, as is the semiconductor industry. The software industry is not. The global market opportunities are strong. In a very short time, biotechnology sales have risen to 49 billion dollars total (globally), the computer industry, which is maturing, is 20 billion dollars, the semiconductor industry is 45 billion dollars total sales, and the software industry is about 97 billion dollars. The biotechnology industry has grown to encompass more than 100,000 employees in the United States alone. It is expected to grow to ca. one million employees in the United States by the year 2010 or 2015.

I would like to close by describing the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI). It is a good model from which we can work together with our Korean colleagues. The University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute is a unique combination of federal laboratories (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), university, and industry, all working together in four research centers.

The Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology is located in Montgomery County and is focused on structural biology, including mass spectrometry and x-ray crystallography for rational drug design and protein engineering. One of the recently developed products is an improved protease, developed in collaboration with Proctor and Gamble.

The Medical Biotechnology Center (MBC) is located in Baltimore in a new facility which will house Dr. Robert Gallo and his team from NIH, who have joined UMBI. The focus will be on AIDS vaccines and human virology.

A Center for Agricultural Biotechnology (CAB) is located in College Park in a building to open in August, 1996. One development to date based on the work of two scientists, Drs. Vakharia and Snyder is a vaccine effective in preventing chicken bursal virus disease. On the Eastern shore of Maryland alone, every year one billion chickens are raised for sale. In the United States, the number of chickens is multibillions. This vaccine brings in royalties each year.

The Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) is located near the National Aquarium, on the Inner Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland. It comprises a 200,000 sq. ft. facility with 160,000 sq. ft. dedicated to COMB laboratories. It has a very unique design, with an exhibition area for the public, illustrating the uses of biotechnology discoveries. By familiarizing school children and their parents by means of illustrative exhibits in molecular biology biotechnology, a greater public awareness and science literary can be accomplished.

The University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute has multinational collaborations. A monthly lecture series with Norway, Sweden, and North Carolina is in progress, utilizing interactive video-teleconferencing and joint interactions among the faculty and students of the three countries. The lecture series will be expanded to include students and scientists in Singapore, Israel, Mexico, Iceland, and France. Every month, a lecture by scientists at one of the four sites on marine resources and biotechnology, focused on reversing the decline in ocean resources is presented. A research channel for communication amongst scientists and students by video-teleconferencing, to achieve interaction among scientists worldwide, in real time, on a daily basis will be established. The future is exciting, and the potential of biotechnology is a future we can share together. The possibilities for collaboration and partnership with colleagues in Korea are nearly limitless and require only the desire and commitment to fulfill this potential.

I. Introduction

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kwang Ho Pyun. I am President of the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB). It is indeed an honor and a pleasure for me to give a presentation at this Third Korea-U.S. Forum on Science and Technology Cooperation.

It is nice to be back in the United States. I first came here in 1975 as a new medical school graduate. I worked and studied at several hospitals in Texas, New York, and Washington state. A Korean proverb says my case is "Inyon," which means that even before my birth I was destined to live in both Korea and the United States. It is my destiny to be a messenger in promoting cooperation between Korea and the United States. Accordingly, I believe, I am here to give a presentation on biotechnology cooperation between Korea and the United States.

Even though the title of my presentation is "U.S.-Korean Cooperation in Biotechnology," I would like to narrow it down to biomedical research cooperation between KRIBB in Korea and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States. I feel comfortable doing so because a more general discussion of the promotion of biotechnology cooperation was included in last year’s Second Korea-U.S. Forum on Science and Technology Cooperation.

To begin with, I will briefly explain KRIBB. KRIBB was established in 1985 under a different name, the Genetic Engineering Center (GEC). The name has changed twice since then, but our mission has remained the same. We are a wholly-government funded institute and have eight research groups.

II. Biomedical Research Cooperation between KRIBB and NIH

NIH is one of the most famous research organizations in the world. It has excellent manpower and has achieved prominence in research. The collaborative research between KRIBB and NIH was first initiated in 1985. Dr. Moon Hi Han in KRIBB (then called Genetic Engineering Center) and Dr. J. Oppenheim at NIH agreed to carry out collaborative research to develop new technologies for the production of biologically active substances.

In 1986, a letter of intent to promote cooperative activities between KRIBB and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of NIH was exchanged. From 1986 to 1988, Dr. Kyung Soo Hahn at KRIBB, and Dr. J. Talmadge and Dr. E. Stadtman at NIH carried out a joint research project on developing technologies for application of genetic engineering work and biosafety. Collaborative activities continued, but with a long hiatus between 1988 and 1994. In early 1995, Dr. Moon-Ho Chang, from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea, and Dr. Byung-Kook Lee at NIH agreed on reinitiating the collaborative research between the two institutes. They suggested that KRIBB and NIH establish a program to pursue collaborative research by exchanging researchers in the field of biomedical research. KRIBB is ready to cooperate.

III. "Biotech 2000" in Korea

The National Biotechnology Development Program, the so called "Biotech 2000 Program," is an ambitious 14-year program suggested by the Korean government which aims to level the scientific and technological base of biotechnology in Korea. This program also emphasizes the promotion of international cooperation in biotechnology which also contributes to the progress of the world's life science, human health care, and to global environmental protection through the development of environmentally sound and sustainable technology.

IV. Recommendations

At a summit meeting in July 1995, Korean President Y.S. Kim and U.S. President Bill Clinton agreed to promote collaboration in science and technology. Under the umbrella agreement, a special joint program to do biomedical research between KRIBB and NIH was proposed. As a first step to establish the program in the near future, KRIBB and NIH may start a researcher exchange program beginning in 1996. To implement the exchange program, KRIBB and NIH will organize a joint committee which selects the fields of collaborative research work and persons to be exchanged. The tentatively recommended areas of collaborative work are: structural biology, drug design, gene therapy, glycobiology, and neurobiology. Through the process of the exchange program, it is expected KRIBB will actively participate in international programs with NIH.

POLICY SESSION

Foreign Trademark Reference Book: KIPO has published the "Foreign Trademark Reference Book" for use by its trademark examiners. The book, with its list of well-known foreign trademarks, provides examiners with the necessary knowledge about foreign marks to better safeguard them. The book is continually updated.

KIPO has been also publishing the "News Brief on Pending Trademark Applications" in order to give registered trademark owners increased opportunity to file an opposition.

IV. Education

KIPO has conducted educational campaigns in order to eradicate counterfeit goods. KIPO's efforts have dramatically multiplied since the start of their efforts in 1992. Training seminars for businessmen which were conducted only six times with 514 participants in 1992 jumped to 140 times since, with 24,858 participants as of September 1995. In addition, while 20,700 posters and pamphlets were distributed in 1992, 426,092 posters and pamphlets were distributed as of September 1995. Campaigns on television, radio and newspapers were conducted 49 times in 1992, but nearly ten times that at 458 times in 1994.

Table 2:  Government Education Campaigns Against Counterfeiting