Geology expert appointed chief of Korea Heritage Service
The announcement was made Sunday as President Lee Jae Myung appointed five vice ministers and seven vice ministerial-level officials, including Huh.
Dubbed 'Dr. Dinosaur,' Huh's work has focused on dinosaur and pterosaur fossils as well as microfossils such as ostracods. He has been involved in various UNESCO projects, including Mudeungsan UNESCO Global Geopark, located in the southern city of Gwangju and the surrounding areas, as co-director and scientific adviser since 2018.
Huh received his bachelor's degree in 1982 at Chonnam National University and received his master's degree in sedimentology from Seoul National University in 1986. In 1991, he earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Korea University. He completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Wales in the UK.
Korea Heritage Service is authorized to designate national heritage — national treasures, treasures, historic sites and others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
4 days ago
- Korea Herald
Ex-Celltrion veteran to head Daewoong's new biosimilar division
Korean traditional medicine powerhouse seeks new growth engine Daewoong Pharmaceutical said Tuesday that it has decided to launch a biosimilar business as the Korean traditional drug maker looks for new growth engines. Daewoong named Hong Seung-suh -- who led biosimilar R&D and global commercialization at Celltrion between 2002 and 2019, and has nearly 20 years of experience in the field -- as the head of its biosimilar business division. 'It's very meaningful that Daewoong Pharmaceutical, which has contributed to improving the health of Koreans over the last 80 years, is entering the biosimilar market,' said Hong. 'Biosimilar is a sector that can play a very important role in creating a medical environment in which anyone can receive treatment. Based on Daewoong Pharmaceutical's sales network and driving force, we will contribute to offering better accessibility to treatment for all patients in the world.' Biosimilar products, which are biologic medicines very similar to already approved reference biologics, are considered more affordable treatment options that can replace pricier drugs. As biosimilar products usually have shorter development periods and higher chances of approval compared to new drugs, they tend to reduce risk while bolstering cost competitiveness. According to global market analysts at IMARC Group, the global biosimilar market reached $26.5 billion last year and is expected to hit $185.1 billion by 2033. For its biosimilar business, Daewoong plans to not only strengthen its own development capabilities but also actively seek strategic partnerships both in Korea and overseas with other biosimilar players and contract development and manufacturing organizations, or CDMOs, as the drug maker aims to expand its product portfolio and enter major markets such as Europe and the United States in the long term to transform into a global bio company. 'As Daewoong Pharmaceutical boasts experience learned from developing a variety of medicines and commercializing them, and thanks to our global partnership capabilities, we will be able to demonstrate our distinctive ability to take action through not only self-development but also co-development in the biosimilar market,' said Park Seong-soo, CEO of Daewoong Pharmaceutical. 'Instead of being satisfied with short-term achievements, we plan to carry out our mid- to long-term strategies step-by-step with the goal of becoming an impactful player in the global market.'
![[Lim Woong] A reform idea for math education](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F07%2F21%2Fnews-p.v1.20250721.a5d07a54a1244bd2b75be50080dd33b3_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Korea Herald
4 days ago
- Korea Herald
[Lim Woong] A reform idea for math education
In the age of artificial intelligence, reforming math education in Korea isn't just a good idea — it's long overdue. AI runs on mathematics. Not just any math, but the kind that quietly powers how machines 'think,' recognize patterns, and make decisions. One of AI's core ideas is similarity — figuring out how close or far apart things are. To quantify this, early machine learning models leaned on fundamental mathematical concepts: spatial relationships, distances, and proximity. Optimization lies at the heart of it all. Gradient descent, for instance, is essentially calculus on autopilot — repeatedly adjusting parameters to improve predictions. Vectors and matrices are the unsung heroes, managing high-dimensional complexity and enabling clever shortcuts like the kernel trick, which produces results without computing every transformation directly. Strip away the code and jargon, and you'll find what I often argue: AI is really just mathematics in disguise, running the show behind the scenes. Recognizing this connection, Korean educators made a bold move by introducing a new high school subject: 'AI Mathematics.' It got people talking. My international peers (mostly professors) began requesting copies of the textbook. Even more surprising, adults who had once sworn off math started returning to evening math classes and AI boot camps. Their reflections are strikingly consistent: The math they learned in school — crammed, rushed, and painfully test-driven — didn't prepare them for solving real-world problems. Now, approaching it from a fresh angle, they realize math is unavoidable — and that they need to rebuild from the ground up. This renewed reckoning with mathematics stands in sharp contrast to the rigidity of Korea's current education system. Recent curriculum reforms, driven by well-meaning liberal politics, removed essential topics like vectors and matrices from the high school syllabus, labeling them 'too difficult.' But let's be honest: When students are expected to solve challenging problems in under five minutes, everything becomes hard. The issue isn't difficulty — it's how we teach and test. We've turned math into a speed contest instead of a chance to think deeply and learn with intention. Students focus on memorizing shortcuts, not understanding ideas or applying them flexibly. So when they reach college and face new material — challenging or not — they panic, hunt for answer keys, and often get lost. Some even drop out. The truth is, our formal system keeps dropping the ball. High school math remains a test-prep machine. And in college, there's little distinction between math that serves general learners or applied fields, and math intended for future mathematicians. We have non-majors wrestling with abstract algebra designed for graduate-level coursework. Even within math departments, many students aren't aiming to become researchers. Some plan to teach at hagwons; others are planning an exit. Whatever the case, we've lost the soul of mathematical practice: reading and writing math, thinking aloud with peers, engaging with its history and culture, and exploring real, open-ended problems. So what now? We need a few major changes. First, college entrance exams should reflect the kinds of mathematics actually used in different academic and professional fields. No more one-size-fits-all nightmare tests. Second, we should offer full national scholarships to students who demonstrate not only talent, but also genuine intellectual curiosity in math and in other foundational disciplines — like history and philosophy — that may not promise high salaries but enrich the moral and intellectual fabric of civilization. Third, we need to overhaul how we certify math teachers. Current exams are heavy on abstract theory and formal analysis, and light on what truly matters — fieldwork, real-world applications, and teaching practices that bridge college-level math with school mathematics. We also need to give our math teachers more support. The curriculum itself isn't bad — it actually covers a lot of important ground. The real problem is the intense focus on getting into top colleges. That pressure often hijacks how math is taught and learned. One persistent challenge is the lack of curricular coherence across elementary, middle, and high school, which makes it hard to build consistent learning progressions. While some advocate for incorporating modern applications like AI and real-world problem solving, most programs still revolve around traditional topics like calculus and analysis. The bigger issue is that people can't agree on what math is for — mathematics as a test-taking skill, a language for science, math for its own sake, or a form of cultural literacy. That confusion puts a lot of pressure on teachers and makes it harder to focus on real learning. So, teacher education programs should aim to help future educators not only build strong instructional skills but also reflect critically on the broader role of mathematics in society. This is just the beginning. But if we start here, we might finally turn math into what it ought to be — not a source of stress, fear, or a shortcut to top college admissions, but a source of wonder. A discipline that drives and deepens science. A deeply human way to understand and shape the world — especially now, in a time when AI touches nearly everything we do.
![[Lee Byung-jong] Time for Korea's brain gain](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F07%2F17%2Fnews-p.v1.20250717.a8050bbc61a64e1d9d7de93ad98b4acc_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Korea Herald
17-07-2025
- Korea Herald
[Lee Byung-jong] Time for Korea's brain gain
There was a time when South Korean scientists and engineers left their country in droves, seeking better research environments and more rewarding careers abroad —especially in the United States. For decades, this outflow of talent, often referred to as brain drain, was seen as a symptom of Korea's limited scientific infrastructure and rigid institutional culture. But today, the situation is changing. South Korea has emerged as a serious player in research and development, and its universities and companies are becoming increasingly competitive. Now, many of those once-lost talents are coming home — and more could follow. This trend could accelerate in light of policy shifts in the United States. The Trump administration has cut research funding and accused academic institutions of being "liberal strongholds,' pushing many scholars to consider opportunities abroad. As a result, countries around the world have begun courting scientists and academics disillusioned with the American system, offering them better support, autonomy and respect for their work. Canada, for example, has positioned itself as a haven for displaced US-based academics, offering generous funding and robust institutional support. The University of Toronto has successfully recruited several leading researchers from American universities in recent years. Similar efforts are underway in Europe. Aix-Marseille University in France recently offered 15 positions specifically aimed at US-based scholars. Across the continent, institutions in the UK, Germany and elsewhere are actively attracting American talent, especially as diplomatic and trade tensions with the US continue to rise. China is another key player in this new global race for talent. Armed with extensive government funding, a vast research infrastructure, and a clear national strategy, China has been aggressively courting global experts. Many China-born scientists and engineers, educated and employed in the US, are returning home, driven partly by growing anti-China sentiment in the US. However, China's ambitions face a critical limitation: a lack of academic freedom. For many international scholars, concerns about censorship and political interference make China a less appealing destination. Hong Kong once offered an alternative, but increasing control from Beijing has narrowed that window as well. In this global context, South Korea stands out as a country with both the motivation and the means to benefit from the US brain drain. Although it is still an emerging power in basic sciences, Korea has made impressive strides. Its universities may not yet be counted among the global elite, but their quality has improved dramatically. World-class research institutions like KAIST, Postech and the Institute for Basic Science are helping close the gap. Historically, most researchers returning to Korea have been Korean nationals who studied or worked abroad. Foreign scholars remain a rarity in Korean academia, largely due to systemic challenges: relatively low compensation, a rigid academic culture, hierarchical management in companies and significant language barriers. Many universities and research institutions still prioritize Korean-language communication and maintain promotion systems that can be opaque or overly rigid, discouraging interdisciplinary and creative work. Despite these challenges, Korea has the potential to become a global R&D hub. It invests over 4 percent of its gross domestic product in R&D — among the highest rates in the world — and the government has long recognized science and technology as essential to national development. Major conglomerates such as Samsung, SK, Hyundai, LG and Posco pour enormous sums into their research centers and also support affiliated institutions like Postech. The government-run Institute for Basic Science, launched in 2011, collaborates with these players in key fields including biotechnology, AI, semiconductors, physics, robotics and battery research. These investments are already producing results. The IBS has recruited world-class talent such as Kim Ki-moon, an expert in supramolecular chemistry, and Noh Do-young, a leader in advanced X-ray science — both of whom returned from prestigious US laboratories. At KAIST, Cho Kwang-hyun, a systems biology expert trained in the US, is leading cutting-edge research. Foreign talent, while still rare, is also starting to arrive. One standout is Rodney S. Ruoff, an American chemist renowned for his work in carbon materials, who joined IBS to lead nanomaterials research. He praised IBS for offering 'unprecedented freedom' compared to US institutions. Institutions across Korea are making efforts to attract more of this kind of talent. The Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, for example, is actively recruiting global doctoral-level researchers in AI as part of a joint initiative with the Ministry of Science and ICT. Its postdoctoral fellowship program offers highly attractive compensation — up to 90 million won ($ 64,700) annually — along with research funding and opportunities for industry collaboration. These moves are designed not only to build domestic expertise but also to internationalize Korea's research environment. Ultimately, all these efforts toward brain gain aim to strengthen Korea's global standing in R&D, which still lags behind its industrial and manufacturing dominance. While Samsung and other Korean brands are global market leaders, their long-term success depends on innovation rooted in foundational science and technology. However, one major domestic challenge remains: attracting young Korean talent to scientific fields. An increasing number of top students are opting for medical school over careers in engineering or science, seeking greater job stability and social prestige. For a country still waiting for its first Nobel Prize in science (it has only won in peace and literature), this trend is troubling. Yet, the momentum behind Korea's brain gain strategy may help reverse this. By showcasing world-class research, international partnerships, and success stories of returnees and foreign scholars, Korea can inspire the next generation of homegrown scientists — and attract the best minds from around the world.
