The last two letters of our school stand for science and technology, so to say that we not only meet it but also live it is a more accurate description of a typical KAISTian. Indeed, the name KAIST gives many outsiders (that my acquaintances and I have personally come across) the impression that it is densely populated with intellectually gifted people staying up late at night at their labs or offices. How many of the vast majority that we call “the public” are capable of communicating with scientists and engineers? But thinking the other way around, how much of the complex society can we precisely describe with scientific knowledge alone? How many of its demanding problems can be addressed with technological progress only? How many scientists find themselves misunderstood, disregarded, or even unnoticed?

Here is an attempt at explaining the gap between science and the public. As science and technology both progress and the resulting body of knowledge accumulates rapidly, it is becoming harder and harder for one to know much, let alone most, of scientia. Polymaths were not uncommon even in the last century, but, as Edward Carr, The Economist’s foreign editor, describes it, “…now they are an endangered species.” Eventually, the sciences as well as many other disciplines became a place for experts and specialist who further accelerated the accumulation of their relevant bodies of knowledge. Such acceleration brought with it many benefits; listing them would require more than the entire issue of this month’s The KAIST Herald. When science is the only component of the society accelerating and turns a blind eye to the real questions, real problems, and real demands of the rest of the society, it is time that we give the relationship between them some deep thought.

What can happen then? Consider, for example, the latest technology – say, three-dimensional (3D) printing. Because it is new to everyone, it has a different meaning for each person. Defense specialists may view it as a potential threat for its capability to produce weapons; humanitarian activists may see it as an opportunity to help third world countries for its capability to produce food from ink; prospective startups may deem it as a chance to try their prototype products; policymakers may regard it as a complex intertwining matter of legalizing, regulating, auditing, and monitoring. It is only natural and necessary that people formulate strikingly different opinions about the same technology. These difference can oftentimes lead to clashes of interested parties and stakeholders alike.

This time, consider an existing technology that has impacted the public because of some mistake, unjustified belief, or accident – the more recent issues ranging from the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown, mad cow disease, stem cell research, and avian or swine influenza, to the older, but persistent, issues such as alchemy, astrology, scientology, et cetera. This time, I leave it to you to recall whatever misconceptions, misunderstandings, myths, or prejudices that the aforementioned issues created in you or the people around you. In each case you relate to, try to put yourself in the position of a scientist and engineer and then, of the lay public. Can we say this is just “scientists not proactive enough in communicating to the public?” But what about all the public campaigns and television documentary programs? Can we, then, instead say that the problem lies in “the public who are not smart enough to understand science and its implications?” But then what can explain college entrance exams getting more difficult by the year? (refer to Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s entrance exam in the 60s)