Embedding science and technology in Korea’s Constitution

 
Park Kyung-ryul
 
The author is a professor at the KAIST Graduate School of Science and Technology Policy and the director of the Center for Science, Technology and Global Development.
 
 
The Lee Jae Myung administration has placed constitutional reform as its top national policy goal. In Korean politics, constitutional debates have long centered on restructuring the political system, and today’s discussions remain similar. Yet revising the Constitution must go beyond altering power structures. Amending the 1987 Constitution, born nearly four decades ago, should serve as a forward-looking declaration that defines the nation’s governing philosophy for generations. Science and technology deserve to be central in this debate.
 

Lee Han-joo, chairman of the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning, delivers remarks at the commission’s closing ceremony at the annex of the government complex in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Aug. 14. The commission designated constitutional reform as its top policy priority. [YONHAP]

 
The current Constitution addresses science and technology only briefly. Article 127 states: “The State shall strive to develop the national economy by fostering innovation in science and technology, and the development of information and manpower.” This reflects the industrialization mindset of the high-growth era in the 1980s. Today, amid sweeping technological transformation, this provision no longer captures the full reality. Its shortcomings are clear.
 
First, the Constitution subordinates science and technology to economic growth. It treats them merely as tools of industrial development. Second, it neglects the universal values that science and technology represent — values tied to human life, freedom, creativity, rationality and constitutional rights. Third, it lacks a normative basis to guide the social responsibility of science and technology. While technological change accelerates exponentially, institutions and culture evolve more slowly. This creates imbalances between innovation and society, leading to ethical conflicts, human rights disputes and clashes between technology and fundamental rights.
 
For these reasons, a revised Constitution must redesign its treatment of science and technology. Three directions are particularly important.
 
 
The first is to elevate science and technology to the level of fundamental rights and core constitutional values. British scholar Jacob Bronowski, in “The Ascent of Man” (1973), described science as the essence of questioning authority and challenging convention. Science and technology should be recognized not only as instruments of progress, but also as values that all humanity must enjoy, manifestations of creativity itself. A modern Constitution should enshrine science and technology as principles that strengthen human dignity, freedom and creativity in a democratic republic.
 
Second, the Constitution must acknowledge and manage the dual nature of science and technology. Elevating their importance does not mean succumbing to technological determinism or blind faith in innovation. While science and technology drive growth, social development, and improved quality of life, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Artificial intelligence, for instance, exposes societies to new ethical risks. The Constitution should explicitly state the social responsibilities and public nature of science and technology, ensuring that innovation remains aligned with human dignity and fundamental rights.
 
Third, constitutional reform must reflect the interests of future generations. Mark Carney, the current prime minister of Canada and former governor of the Bank of England, spoke of the “tragedy of the horizon,” where long-term risks like climate change are shifted onto those unable to influence present-day decisions. Today’s constitutional framework ties science and technology too narrowly to short-term growth. A revised charter should guide innovation toward sustainability and safeguard the rights of generations yet to come.
 

The Constitution Association of Korea, an organization of former lawmakers, holds a roundtable discussion on constitutional reform with about 10 civic groups and academic societies at its office in Yeouido, western Seoul, on July 24. [CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION OF KOREA]

 
Embedding science and technology in the Constitution would be more than a policy statement. It would be a pledge about the future Korea seeks and the responsibilities it accepts across generations and borders. In an era where humans and nonhumans coexist, such a constitutional vision would affirm Korea’s global responsibility. At its core, science is built on the assumption that “I might be wrong.” Knowledge remains open to testing and refutation, which has driven intellectual progress. Paradigm shifts arise from questioning established systems and recognizing that complex realities cannot be reduced to binary thinking.
 
For these reasons, the more uncertain and polarized the world becomes, the more science and technology must serve as a foundation for public debate and rational thought. They should stand as one of the strongest principles underpinning a democratic republic. Writing these values into the Constitution would not only signal Korea’s maturity as a society but also provide a steady vision amid turbulence. By placing science and technology at the heart of constitutional reform, Korea can build a framework that fosters resilience and innovation for decades to come.

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

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}