교원 창업과 이해의 충돌: 학생 및 연구원 보호를 중심으로

This study proceeds from the premise that while the university faculty startup system in South Korea is designed to be "startup-friendly," it lacks sufficient institutional safeguards for protecting students and researchers and for managing conflicts of interest. To this end, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the faculty startup management frameworks established in U.S. research universities following the Bayh-Dole Act against relevant legislation and internal university regulations in South Korea. In particular, the study examines specific policies implemented by top-tier U.S. research universities — such as Stanford, MIT, and Harvard — including limitations on time spent on outside activities, prohibitions on faculty holding executive management positions, the strict separation of laboratory resources and personnel, and preliminary reviews for conflicts of interest. These policies are contrasted with South Korea’s “Special Act for the Promotion of Venture Businesses” and internal policies at major Korean universities. The analysis reveals that South Korean universities exhibit a strong tendency to institutionally encourage startups by allowing significantly longer leaves of absence (up to 7 years) and a broader scope of concurrent positions compared to the U.S., as well as permitting the use of university facilities and research personnel by these startups. However, protective mechanisms for students and researchers — such as restrictions on their participation in faculty startups and rigorous conflict of interest management — were found to be either absent or merely perfunctory. While this institutional structure may boost startup performance metrics in the short term, it poses a risk of weakening educational functions and adversely affecting the cultivation of next-generation scientists in the long term. Consequently, this study argues that the faculty startup system in South Korean universities must aim for institutional balance rather than mere quantitative expansion. Specifically, the study proposes policy improvements such as prohibiting the direct participation of students and researchers in faculty startups or mandating a change of academic advisors; implementing regulations for the automatic separation of laboratory personnel during faculty leave or concurrent employment; establishing internal monitoring and ombudsman systems to prevent undisclosed or proxy startups; and excluding faculty startup performance from university evaluation criteria.