What Is Special About Famous Korean Scientists?

According to research led by education professor Oh Hun-seok of Seoul National University on factors that affect the development of science talent, a person who is born into an academic and bookworm family and meets a famous scientist during their teenage years is more likely to grow into an outstanding scientist. The results are what the research team had found in common among 31 leading scientists in the nation who had been awarded by the government between 1987 and 2007 for their scientific achievements, or recommended by major science organizations

Among them, ten of them are in biology and life sciences, six in mathematics, eight in physics, three in chemistry and four in earth science. 26 of them are teaching at universities, while five others work in research centers.

The research team conducted in-depth interviews on them for the first time in Korea and analyzed common factors in four different stages of their lives: the “exploratory stage,” or elementary, middle and high school years; the “entering stage,” or college years; the “growing stage,” or graduate, doctorate and post-doctorate years; and the “leading stage,” or newly-appointed professor or researcher years.

The team found out that in the exploratory stage, more than half of the scientists showed independent learning habits and strong interests and advantages in many diverse fields. More than 70 percent responded their family members read many books, and 80 percent said they had a special encounter with scientists in their childhoods.

In the entering stage, almost all of them showed independence. Not only did they plan their futures on their own, but they gave more attention to subjects no one else was fond of.

In the growing stage, around 90 percent of the respondents had experiences of immense concentration and focus on their projects. More than 90 percent of them said they decided what they wanted to research for the rest of their lives in this stage.

In the “leading stage,” when their careers began in earnest, the team observed that 60 percent showed the ability to set priorities, 50 percent showed advanced communications skills, and all of them had a sense of responsibility regarding creative research results.

The research team pointed out that creative science education and liberal arts education are essential in fostering high-quality science talent in the future.

Professor Oh said, “We found out that these scientists were interested in science from an early age, and that their creativity and enthusiasm on the subject grew tremendously since middle school years. So we need specialized science education in middle schools.”

He added, “Of course we need to focus on gifted students in science. But, we also need to do something about one-size-for-all science and math education for all middle and high school students. We should at least provide customized science and math education depending on each student’s ability and aptitude.”

He went on to say, “Most of the respondents enjoyed reading literature and arts-related books from their childhood. This experience helped them greatly in studying science. So we need to strengthen reading and writing education.”

The research team also pointed out that science needs to become friendlier to the general public so that more people can fall in love with the subject.

The professor said, “Many of our respondents decided to be scientists after coming across lectures of famous scientists in their middle and high school years. We need to create a culture where students can experience science and scientists on a regular basis, not just by chance or from random lectures.”

To this end, Oh suggested that there is a need to dramatically increase the number of science museums and the like. Currently, there are only 20. He added, “We should also make sure more students can meet scientists.”

Meanwhile, most of the respondents said they received satisfactory amounts of financial support for their research. However, many of them pointed out that the current evaluation system for scientists can act as an impediment to achieving high-quality and creative research. They argued that the system needs to be changed.