I make this sweeping statement in response to Dr. Hwang's most recent admission – that the bulk of the research results themselves was faked. Even I, as someone who has been suspicious and crying ethical "foul" since the beginning, was stunned. Even the research itself? Dude. Jesus H. Christ.
I even feel a little bad for the kneejerk nationalists who, in a mood completely against the spirit of democratic values or a commitment to basic ethical responsibility, blindly rallied to the side of a scientist who had a responsibilty to cross and dot the ethical t's and i's as more than just a proud Korean. This is research that has implications for the future of the race itself, not just to Koreans worried about their country's "face" in the world. Such is the true test of the "globalized" country Korea fancies itself to be – Korea has proven, through the actions of Dr. Hwang, the government and vast majority of netizens who supported him out of a sense of the wave of blind, seething nationalism that surged even after the first ethical allegations came out, that it is not a global citizen, that concerns about Korea's face (체면) are more important than even the most obvious moral/ethical considerations.
As a worker and researcher doing my doctoral dissertation research here, as well as actively working on some artistic projects related to life in Korea, as someone who teaches history to some of Korea's best and brightest students, and also as someone who has worked with some of the extremely capable doctors and staff at the MizMedi Hospital, which is ground zero for this particular scandal – I have been angered and deeply disappointed, almost beyond expression. Finally, the lack of ethical pause or sense of responsibility for the consequences of breakneck development have come home to roost. And I firmly believe, especially in consideration of the blatantly arrogant and nationalist response of many citizens (including the nixing of the only journalistic show with the moxie to deal with the truth in this matter and the death threats reported to have been levied against those related to the show's production) that "Korea" deserves every bit of its coming comeuppance.
As I write, the 2 PM press conference should be going on. But the writing's on the wall already. In Korea, a place where scantily-clad women are used to peddle toothpaste and toilet paper, a quarter of high school girls in one province have sold their bodies for spending money (as reported in a UNESCO-published paper) in the practice known as wonjokyojae (원조교제), cheating on academic papers at all levels of schooling is the rule, where the story of economic development focuses solely on collective "sacrifice" but doesn't include the factoids of Korea's war crimes in Vietnam, the brutal suppression of unions, or the exploitation of female labor – Dr. Hwang's "cutting of a few corners" should come as no surprise.
What came as a slight surprise was the extent to which most Korean citizens seemed to care more about vain national pride than the importance of ethical protocols in the conduct of this, one of the most potentially liberating yet dangerous technologies mankind will ever know.
Hyperbole, you say? Well, to the extent that Koreans lionized Dr. Hwang as a national hero, surely his research must have been important. Concomitant with his obvious scientific power and then-growing international renown should have been a monumental sense of moral responsibility. But obviously, this was a quality that this man lacked.
But is Dr. Hwang an aberration? Nay, I say – he is typical of the condition that is endemic to the state of Korean modernity itself: progress, for the sake of progress alone, is worth any price. Some people ask me why I think nationalism to be "dangerous" and why a study of Korean nationalism is even important. Many Koreans ask me that without even realizing the implied denigration of their country's own worth as a subject of study: "Why study Korea?" or "Is Korea really so important?" are common questions. I have always replied that the Korean case is unique in the world, if only for the fact that the complex composition of Korean ideology and sense of national pride is the result of colonization from both Western and non-Western powers in the same century – pretty unique in the world.
And as Korea's relative place in the world grows larger, its sense of self, as well as the way it looks at the outside world, becomes all the more important. In my eyes, to the extent that Koreans are said to have "pride" in their country, Korea needs to take this incident as a lesson about the dangers of its own nationalism. This case is the first, biggest case to offer itself as an answer to the question that Koreans always ask me about my dissertation: "How is Korean nationalism dangerous? We've never hurt anybody.
The simple answer to this question is that I don't fear a Nazi-era army of destruction running rampant across
Asia. I don't think Korean cloning technology will be used to build a secret army of cloned stormtroopers. What I do mean is exactly what has happened: Nationalism and the cutting of corners – or obliterating ethical concerns altogether – hampers Korea in the postmodern age more than it helps it. At best, it's just plain embarrassing, at worst, chillingly dangerous. What if the netizens had gotten what they wanted? What if this news hadn't come out? What if this research, the faked stem cell lines, the deception of the rest of the world's biotech research community, which had looked Korea with so much hope in providing them with the raw materials to conduct this most important researach – what if these ethical breaches had not come out? What more egregious crimes against ethics might have been committed? What actual crimes? Who knows? That's what scares me.
But it's obvious that national interests in Korea trump any other committments, whether to ethics or a sense of responsibility as a world citizen. And it is for this reason – mostly related to the actions of the bulk of Korean citizens rather than those of a single man – that I feel Korea is not yet worthy of being trusted with matters larger than those related to its own selfish, national concerns. If Korea wants to be the world leader in Internet speed and accessibility, great. If it has aspirations to become a leader of cinema for the 21st century and ride the "Korean Wave" to its highest possible point, great. But Korea, in my humble estimation, is too concerned with vain and selfish notions of pride to be a trustworthy "global leader" in anything of wider, global import.
What is all to obvious, from the reactions of most Koreans, is that the ends still justify any and all means in this society. On many levels, there is a sense of social morality and pride that I consider higher than many in my own home culture. But in this particular moment, I am deeply, deeply disappointed in Korea's recent display of selfish, stupefying hubris. I wish I could say that Korean society might gain a valuable lesson from this, in the same way that I had hoped that Americans might have been awakened from our privileged slumber after 9/11. But I have the same sinking feeling that I'm in for another disappointment.
AFTERWORD:
Now, before you nationalists start attacking me, do not simply assume that because I am American I believe America to be worthy of such a status in all respects. Note that this criticism, like most of the ones I write about, takes place within as non-comparative a context as possible. I am not comparing to America or the West here as the bulk of my argument, although I could offer examples – just examples – of higher standards of ethical behavior in many fields, such as academic research, journalism, or medical ethics. But take my argument above as it is – as based on assumptions of "universal" morality ostensibly accepted by Koreans (e.g. not lying, killing, stealing, faking data) and in international fields with clearly-defined, more specific standards for all participants, regardless of nationality or local concerns (e.g. definitions of plagiarism, protocols for conducting research on human subjects, not extracting egg cells from research assistants)
