Journal of Science and Technology Studies (과학기술학연구)

Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies (한국과학기술학회)
권호 표지

Topography of Post-Genomic Researches in Korea: Governance and Institutional Polymorphism

포스트게놈 시대의 국내 유전체연구 현황: 한국적 거버넌스의 제도적 다형성 연구

  • 이준석 (경희대학교 과학기술사회연구센터)
  • Received : 2015.05.01
  • Accepted : 2015.06.15
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Human Genome Project was a big science done by United States, U.K., France, China, Germany and Japan. But in Korea HGP was not constructed because of lack of governmental funding and failure to attract relevant actors' attention in spite of small voices from early genome researchers and some family members of patients with incurable diseases. This article does not argue that HGP in Korea was an undone science, a concept claimed by Scott Frickel, et al. Instead, it shows the historical fact that HGP was not constructed in Korea in 1990s and analyzes how genomic researches could become possible in Korea in the post-genomic age using the framework of triple-helix. In Korea, researchers have constructed hybrid networks and organizations that intermingles laboratories of university, industry, and government to conduct genomic researches which requires a lot of financial funding. This structure is different from the entrepreneurial university seen in developed countries such as the United States. Using two examples, this article shows that founding a start-up company by university researchers was not an option as in the United States, but a necessity in order to obtain enough funding to conduct genomic researches in Korea. Otherwise, researchers in Korean universities had to form hybrid networks with government to obtain small amount of funds to conduct researches. I argue that this phenomenon shows multifaceted characteristics of institutional structures regarding genomic researches in Korea.

인간게놈프로젝트(HGP)는 지난 세기말 미국 영국 프랑스 중국 독일 일본의 컨소시엄이 수행한 거대과학이다. 그러나 한국에서의 HGP는 부족한 재원과 정부의 지원 미비 등으로 인해 일부 전문가 및 소수 난치병 환우들의 주장에도 불구하고 수행되지 못하였다. 이처럼 '90년대-한국의-HGP'는 구성되지 못했지만 포스트게놈 시대에 들어오면서 유전체의학이 활성화될 수 있게 된 사회적 메커니즘을 본 연구는 삼중나선 모델에 기반하여 분석하고자 한다. 포스트게놈 시대의 국내 유전체의학 연구들은 대학-기업-정부의 전통적 삼중나선 분류로는 정확히 설명이 안 되는 하이브리드 조직들을 중심으로 비로소 수행될 수 있었다. 국내 대학의 선도적 유전체연구자들은 기금부족 문제를 해결하기 위해 필수적으로 기업을 설립해야 했고, 이는 상업적 이익을 위해 선택적으로 벤처기업을 설립하는 선진국의 기업가적 대학과는 매우 다른 모습이다. 두 개의 사례연구를 통해 본 논문은 이 조직들이 사실상 뚜렷이 구별되기 어려운 대학과 기업의 연구 중합체(research assemblage)임을 보인다. 비슷한 맥락에서, 기업을 창업하지 않은 대학의 다른 유전체 연구자들도 정부와의 접점에서 구성되는 다양한 조직들을 통하고서야 비로소 유전체 연구를 수행할 수 있었다. 본고에서 '90년대-한국의-HGP'가 수행되지 못한 과학임을 주장하는 것은 결코 아니지만, 수행되지 못한 과학의 개념과 맥락적 유사성을 가졌던 게놈 연구가 활성화되기 위해서는 삼중나선의 변형적 수용이 필요했다는 점을 최종적으로 보이고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace (Princeton Univ. Press) [trans. 데렉 복 저, 김홍덕 외 역, 파우스트의 거래:시장만능 시대의 대학가치 (성균관대학교 출판부, 2005)].
  2. Callon, M. (1986), "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman in St. Brieuc Bay", in K. Knorr-Cetina et al. (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro-Sociologies (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), pp. 196-223.
  3. Campbell, N. (2009), "Reconstructing Science and Technology Studies: Views from Feminist Standpoint Theory", Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 30(1): 1-29.
  4. Cleary, T. (2012), "Undone Science and Blind Spots in Medical Treatment Research", Social Medicine 6(4): 234-239.
  5. Demortain, D. (2008) Institutional Polymorphism: the Designing of the European Food Safety Authority with regard to the European Medicines Agency (Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science).
  6. Dickenson, D. (2008), Body Shopping: The Economy Fuelled by Flesh and Blood (Oneworld Publications).
  7. Dickenson, D. (2013), Me Medicine vs. We Medicine: Reclaiming Biotechnology for the Common Good (Columbia Univ. Press).
  8. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (1997), "Introduction to Special Issue on Science Policy Dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government Relations", Science and Public Policy 24(1): 2-5.
  9. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (1999), "Bridging the Gap: the Evolution of Industry-University Links in the United States", in L. Branscomb et al. (eds.) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States (MIT Press, 1999), pp. 203-233.
  10. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000), "The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations", Research Policy 29(2): 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  11. Frickel, S. et al. (2010), "Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting", ST&HV 35(4): 444-473.
  12. Fuller, S. (1997), "Constructing the High Church-Low Church Distinction in STS Textbooks", Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 17(4): 181-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769701700408
  13. Fuller, S. (1999), The Governance of Science (Open Univ. Press).
  14. Gibbons, M. et al. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage Pub).
  15. Gross, M. (2007), "The Unknown in Process Dynamic Connections of Ignorance, Non-Knowledge and Related Concepts", Current Sociology 55(5): 742-759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928
  16. Harding, S. (1992), "After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and Strong Objectivity", Social Research, 59(3), Science and Politics: 567-587.
  17. Harding, S. (2002), "Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity?" in K. Wray (ed.) Knowledge and Inquiry: Readings in Epistemology (Broadview Press), pp. 352-384.
  18. Hess, D. (2007), Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization (MIT Press).
  19. Hess, D. (2009), "The Potentials and Limitations of Civil Society Research: Getting Undone Science Done", Sociological Inquiry 79(3): 306-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00292.x
  20. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard Univ. Press).
  21. Leydesdorff, L. (2000), "The Triple Helix: An Evolutionary Model of Innovations", Research Policy 29(2): 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00063-3
  22. Leydesdorff, L. (2012), "The triple helix, quadruple helix,..., and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy?", Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1): 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
  23. Leydesdorff, L. and H. Etzkowitz (1998), "The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies", Science and Public Policy 25(3): 195-203.
  24. Louis, K. et al. (1989) "Entrepreneur in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors among Life Scientist" Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110-113. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392988
  25. Lundvall, B. (2010) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (Anthem Press).
  26. Nowotny, H. et al. (2003), "Introduction: 'Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge", Minerva 41(3): 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025505528250
  27. Proctor, R. and L. Schiebinger (2008), Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance (Stanford Univ. Press).
  28. Seo, J-S. et al. (2009), "A Highly Annotated Whole-genome Sequence of a Korean Individual", Nature 460: 1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08211
  29. Seo, J-S. et al. (2010), "Discovery of common Asian copy number variants using integrated high-resolution array CGH and massively parallel DNA sequencing", Nature Genetics 42: 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.555
  30. Seo, J-S. et al. (2011), "Extensive genomic and transcriptional diversity identified through massively parallel DNA and RNA sequencing of eighteen Korean individuals", Nature Genetics 43: 745-752. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.872
  31. Slaughter, S. and L. Leslie (1997), Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press).
  32. Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades (2009), Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press).
  33. Sunder Rajan, K. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life (Duke Univ. Press).
  34. Woodhouse, E. (2007), "Getting More Serious about Symmetry: What Is versus What Could Be", unpublished manuscript recited from Campbell(2009).
  35. Woodhouse, E. et al. (2002), "Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas", SSS 32(2): 297-319.
  36. 공유냐 사유냐/유전자정보 소유방식 싸고 논란, 세계일보(1994.10.20.)
  37. 불 인체 유전자지도 작성/암-에이즈 등 치료 획기적 진전, 조선일보 (1993.12.17.)
  38. 서지도 못하던 아이 걷게하는 '유전자 치료'... 한국은 검사부터 規制, 조선일보(2014.10.22.)
  39. 서정선 서울의대 유전체의학연구소장.(주)마크로젠 회장.한국유전체 의학연구재단 이사와의 인터뷰(2014.9.22.) 자료.
  40. 박O영 질병관리본부 유전체센터 소속 연구원 인터뷰(2015.1.5.) 자료.
  41. 홍O호 (주)유한양행 유전체의학약품사업본부 과장대리 인터뷰(2014.10.19.)자료.
  42. 삼성유전체연구소 국제심포지엄(International Symposium on Genome Medicine 2014: Genome for Precision Oncology- Perspectives and Prospects) 프리젠테이션 영상자료(2014.10.17. 참관).