The world is currently being reshaped around technology. Artificial intelligence is fundamentally transforming industrial structures, and strategic technologies linked to AI—semiconductors, batteries, biotechnology, and quantum technology—are emerging as core assets that determine national security and economic security. The technology hegemony competition between the United States and China is no longer a rivalry within specific industries but has expanded into a competition between national systems. With the spread of economic nationalism, fierce strategic competition among nations is unfolding, connecting supply chains and technology alliances, research and development and industrial policy, and science and technology and security strategy into a single framework.
The science and technology innovation plans recently announced by major advanced nations clearly reveal each country's survival strategy in response to the global technology hegemony competition. Through its 15th Economic and Social Development Plan (2026-2030), China presents a goal of leaping into an advanced manufacturing powerhouse based on technological self-reliance in cutting-edge fields, along with a strong integrated implementation system to realize this vision. Japan, in its 7th Basic Plan for Science and Technology (2026-2030), declares science and technology as the source of national power and emphasizes strengthening strategic autonomy to secure national security and strategic interests.
Korea will soon announce its 6th Basic Plan for Science and Technology. Past basic plans have achieved considerable results in expanding the R&D investment base and fostering strategic technologies to enhance scientific and technological competitiveness. However, the survival competition in the era of technology hegemony is linked to securing supply chains and economic security, and has entered a phase where it cannot be addressed through R&D investment strategies alone. The Basic Plan for Science and Technology must now move beyond a simple R&D investment plan and be approached at the level of redesigning the national innovation system.
First, a roadmap is needed that presents the direction and detailed strategies for Korea's strategic role in the global value chain. The greatest limitation of past basic plans has been the lack of clarity in the direction of the national science and technology innovation strategy. The government has emphasized a First Mover strategy, but true leaders are determined not by the mere speed of securing technology, but by the ability to design how core technologies will serve as "leverage" within national survival and the international order. Without clarity in strategy, the basic plan risks becoming a department-store-style list that merely connects flashy keywords with existing policies.
Second, the mission-oriented innovation policy, which has remained a mere slogan, needs to be redefined. In particular, a clear goal-design direction must be presented to resolve the confusion in policy missions between securing strategic technologies and solving social problems. Given that technology hegemony competition is determined more by market dominance and industrial competitiveness based on technology than by technology itself, the existing technology-acquisition-centered approach must shift to a mission-oriented system focused on innovation outcomes that emphasize creating innovative value in markets and industries. To this end, policy relationships should be established as securing strategic technologies—driving innovative growth—solving social problems, and a mission-oriented innovation system should be built in which the main mission is to achieve related industrial and market goals, not merely to acquire new technologies.
Third, the R&D investment and policy system must be innovated. In response to the surge in fiscal demand in the era of the new industrial revolution, policy system innovation must be pursued alongside expanding R&D investment to enhance investment efficiency. In particular, with R&D investment demand exploding due to the economic and social structural changes brought by the AI revolution and intensifying technology hegemony competition, innovation in the investment system—including diversification of funding sources and investment methods to support this—is needed. In addition, innovation in the policy system to dramatically improve investment efficiency is also important. Specifically, the structure centered on detailed tasks and short-term results must be reorganized, and a shift to "Evidence-based Policy" based on objective data and analysis, rather than relying on intuition or trending keywords, is necessary.
Fourth, the soundness and qualitative advancement of the research ecosystem are important. The current research management system, which forces projects to become mired in safe tasks with high probabilities of success, bureaucratizes the research ecosystem. The research system and culture as a whole must be improved so that High-risk, High-return research—in which failure accumulates as an asset for future research and innovation—becomes genuinely feasible. Furthermore, it is necessary to build a healthy research ecosystem in which various research actors, including government-funded research institutes, achieve harmony and balance among roles and missions, autonomy, and accountability.
Fifth, governance innovation must be continuously pursued. While stability in the governance system is important for the steady implementation of policies, governance reform must be continuously pursued to enhance viability in a rapidly changing innovation environment. The strategic capabilities and functions of higher-level strategic bodies must be reorganized, and substantive policy integration among ministries is needed to link technology policy, industrial policy, and foundational policy. In addition, redundant and inefficient management organizations must be restructured, and cooperation and roles among various research and innovation actors must be coordinated. Through this, the strategic capabilities and executive power of national innovation must be enhanced.
The 6th Basic Plan for Science and Technology must not be a simple R&D plan. It must become a national operating system that integrates the nation's industrial, security, and innovation strategies in the era of technology hegemony. National survival in the technology hegemony era depends on whether an execution system can be built that connects R&D, industry, talent, and markets around national innovation strategic goals. The absence of strategy and the lack of system innovation that have lurked behind flashy slogans until now are challenges that must be resolved in the Basic Plan for Science and Technology going forward.
