Recently China's science and technology development is accelerating, and some technologies have the world's best technology. With the rapid development of science and technology, China has been deeply aware of the importance of science and technology, and many efforts are being made to legislate security regulations to protect their technologies. Korea and other countries are also interested in research security, and research and development cooperation with China is also on the rise. In this paper, we derived some implications by comparing and analyzing China's science and technology security regulation and Korea's national R&D project management regulations. China is also enacting science and technology security regulations as a subordinate to the laws and regulations of science and technology. However, it should be reflected in future legislation that the difference from Korea is composed of separate independent regulations. In particular, the fact that the science and technology security regulations have been enacted separately may be a hint that can be reflected in the nation's future legislation processes. In this paper, major contents of the science and technology security regulations, points to division of knowledge property into scientific and technological cooperation or security tasks, designation of regulations on the characteristics of research security guidelines, and operation of individual national security agencies In addition, in the event that the contents of the related statutes, confidentiality provisions, and import and import control are recorded in this paper, and the results of the joint R&D project are not utilized, or the technology transfer is not carried out.
Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the specialty hospital system by comparing the medical use of inpatients who had artificial joint replacement surgery in specialty hospitals and non-specialty hospitals. Methods: This study utilized 2021-2022 healthcare benefit claims data provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The dependent variable is inpatient medical use which is measured in terms of charges per case and length of stay. The independent variable was whether the hospital was designated as a specialty hospital, and the control variables were patient-level variables (age, gender, insurer type, surgery type, and Charlson comorbidity index) and medical institution-level variables (establishment type, classification, location, number of orthopedic surgeons, and number of nurses). Results: The results of the multiple regression analysis between charges per case and whether a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital showed a statistically significant negative relationship between charges per case and whether a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital. This suggests a significant low in charges per case when a hospital is designated as a specialty hospital compared to a non-specialty hospital, indicating that there is a difference in medical use outcomes between specialty hospitals and non-specialty hospitals inpatients. Conclusion: The practical implications of this study are as follows. First, the criteria for designating specialty hospitals should be alleviated. In our study, the results show that specialty hospitals have significantly lower per-case costs than non-specialty hospitals. Despite the cost-effectiveness of specialty hospitals, the high barriers to be designated for specialty hospitals have gathered the specialty hospitals in metropolitan and major cities. To address the regional imbalance of specialty hospitals, it is believed that ease the criteria for designating specialty hospitals in non-metropolitan areas, such as introducing "semi-specialty hospitals (tentative name)," will lead to a reduction in health disparities between regions and reduce medical costs. Second, it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the size of hospitals' medical staff. The study found that the number of orthopedic surgeons and nurses varied in charges per case. Therefore, it is believed that appropriately allocating hospital medical staff can maximize the cost-effectiveness of medical services and ultimately reduce medical costs.
Since 2000, the employment rate of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has dwindled while the creation of new jobs and the emergence of healthy SMEs have been stagnant. The fundamental reason for these symptoms is that the economic structure is disadvantageous to SMEs. In particular, the greater gap between SMEs and large enterprises has resulted in polarization, and the resulting imbalance has become the largest obstacle to improving SMEs' competitiveness. For example, the total productivity has continued to drop, and the average productivity of SMEs is now merely 30% of that of large enterprises, and the average wage of SMEs' employees is only 53% of that of large enterprises. Along with polarization, rapid industrialization has also caused anti-enterprise consensus, the collapse of the middle class, hostility towards establishments, and other aftereffects. The general consensus is that unless these problems are solved, South Korea will not become an advanced country. Especially, South Korea is now facing issues that need urgent measures, such as the decline of its economic growth, the worsening distribution of profits, and the increased external volatility. Recognizing such negative trends, the MB administration proposed a win-win growth policy and recently introduced a new national value called "ecosystemic development." As the terms in such policy agenda are similar, however, the conceptual differences among such terms must first be fully understood. Therefore, in this study, the concepts of win-win growth policy and ecosystemic development, and the need for them, were surveyed, and their differences from and similarities with other policy concepts like win-win cooperation and symbiotic development were examined. Based on the results of the survey and examination, the study introduced a South Korean model of win-win growth, targeting the promotion of a sound balance between large enterprises and SMEs and an innovative ecosystem, and finally, proposing future policy tasks. Win-win growth is not an academic term but a policy term. Thus, it is less advisable to give a theoretical definition of it than to understand its concept based on its objective and method as a policy. The core of the MB administration's win-win growth policy is the creation of a partnership between key economic subjects such as large enterprises and SMEs based on each subject's differentiated capacity, and such economic subjects' joint promotion of growth opportunities. Its objective is to contribute to the establishment of an advanced capitalistic system by securing the sustainability of the South Korean economy. Such win-win growth policy includes three core concepts. The first concept, ecosystem, is that win-win growth should be understood from the viewpoint of an industrial ecosystem and should be pursued by overcoming the issues of specific enterprises. An enterprise is not an independent entity but a social entity, meaning it exists in relationship with the society (Drucker, 2011). The second concept, balance, points to the fact that an effort should be made to establish a systemic and social infrastructure for a healthy balance in the industry. The social system and infrastructure should be established in such a way as to create a balance between short- term needs and long-term sustainability, between freedom and responsibility, and between profitability and social obligations. Finally, the third concept is the behavioral change of economic entities. The win-win growth policy is not merely about simple transactional relationships or determining reasonable prices but more about the need for a behavior change on the part of economic entities, without which the objectives of the policy cannot be achieved. Various advanced countries have developed different win-win growth models based on their respective cultures and economic-development stages. Japan, whose culture is characterized by a relatively high level of group-centered trust, has developed a productivity improvement model based on such culture, whereas the U.S., which has a highly developed system of market capitalism, has developed a system that instigates or promotes market-oriented technological innovation. Unlike Japan or the U.S., Europe, a late starter, has not fully developed a trust-based culture or market capitalism and thus often uses a policy-led model based on which the government leads the improvement of productivity and promotes technological innovation. By modeling successful cases from these advanced countries, South Korea can establish its unique win-win growth system. For this, it needs to determine the method and tasks that suit its circumstances by examining the prerequisites for its success as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each advanced country. This paper proposes a South Korean model of win-win growth, whose objective is to upgrade the country's low-trust-level-based industrial structure, in which large enterprises and SMEs depend only on independent survival strategies, to a high-trust-level-based social ecosystem, in which large enterprises and SMEs develop a cooperative relationship as partners. Based on this objective, the model proposes the establishment of a sound balance of systems and infrastructure between large enterprises and SMEs, and to form a crenovative social ecosystem. The South Korean model of win-win growth consists of three axes: utilization of the South Koreans' potential, which creates community-oriented energy; fusion-style improvement of various control and self-regulated systems for establishing a high-trust-level-oriented social infrastructure; and behavioral change on the part of enterprises in terms of putting an end to their unfair business activities and promoting future-oriented cooperative relationships. This system will establish a dynamic industrial ecosystem that will generate creative energy and will thus contribute to the realization of a sustainable economy in the 21st century. The South Korean model of win-win growth should pursue community-based self-regulation, which promotes the power of efficiency and competition that is fundamentally being pursued by capitalism while at the same time seeking the value of society and community. Already existing in Korea's traditional roots, such objectives have become the bases of the Shinbaram culture, characterized by the South Koreans' spontaneity, creativity, and optimism. In the process of a community's gradual improvement of its rules and procedures, the trust among the community members increases, and the "social capital" that guarantees the successful control of shared resources can be established (Ostrom, 2010). This basic ideal can help reduce the gap between large enterprises and SMEs, alleviating the South Koreans' victim mentality in the face of competition and the open-door policy, and creating crenovative corporate competitiveness. The win-win growth policy emerged for the purpose of addressing the polarization and imbalance structure resulting from the evolution of 21st-century capitalism. It simultaneously pursues efficiency and fairness on one hand and economic and community values on the other, and aims to foster efficient interaction between the market and the government. This policy, however, is also evolving. The win-win growth policy can be considered an extension of the win-win cooperation that the past 'Participatory Government' promoted at the enterprise management level to the level of systems and culture. Also, the ecosystemic development agendum that has recently emerged is a further extension that has been presented as a national ideal of "a new development model that promotes the co-advancement of environmental conservation, growth, economic development, social integration, and national and individual development."
Purpose: To analyze the treatment outcomes, complications, prognostic factors after a long-term follow-up of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiation therapy (RT) alone or concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT). Materials and Methods: Between December 1981 and December 2006, 190 eligible patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma were treated at our department with a curative intent. Of these patients, 103 were treated with RT alone and 87 patients received CCRT. The median age was 49 years (range, 8~78 years). The distributions of clinical stage according to the AJCC 6th edition included I: 7 (3.6%), IIA: 8 (4.2%), IIB: 33 (17.4%), III: 82 (43.2%), IVA: 31 (16.3%), IVB: 29 (15.3%). The accumulated radiation doses to the primary tumor ranged from 66.6~87.0 Gy (median, 72 Gy). Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors were retrospectively analyzed. Acute and late toxicities were assessed using the RTOG criteria. Results: A total of 96.8% (184/190) of patients completed the planned treatment. With a mean follow-up of 73 months (range, 2~278 months; median, 52 months), 93 (48.9%) patients had relapses that were local 44 (23.2%), nodal 13 (6.8%), or distant 49 (25.8%). The 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 55.6% and 44.5%, 54.8% and 51.3%, in addition to 65.3% and 57.4%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that CCRT, age, gender, and stage were significant prognostic factors for OS. The CCRT and gender were independent prognostic factors for both DFS and DSS. There was no grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity, but grade 3 mucositis and hematologic toxicity were present in 42 patients (22.1%) and 18 patients (9.5%), respectively. During follow-up, grade 3 hearing loss in 9 patients and trismus in 6 patients were reported. Conclusion: The results of our study were in accordance with findings of previous studies and we confirmed that CCRT, low stage, female gender, and young age were related to improvement in OS. However, there are limitations in the locoregional control that can be achieved by CCRT with 20 conventional radiation therapy. This observation has led to further studies on clarifying the efficacy of concurrent chemotherapy by intensity modulated radiation therapy.
The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.