[Reporter's View] 'National Core Tech' status for Botox

Discussion on delisting remains stagnant...requiring action from the gov't

The discussion regarding delisting botulinum toxin as a National Core Technology continues to yield no results.

 

Despite increasing demands from the industry, regulatory reform has not improved.

 

The arguments for and against lifting the listing continue, and the discussion has not advanced.

 

In a National Assembly forum on September 29, the industry and civil society groups advocating for delisting spoke unanimously.

 

"Overlapping regulations cause delays in research and development and hindering investment attraction." Key concerns raised at the forum included the lack of transparency in the criteria for designation and delisting, as well as the unpredictable timeframes involved.

 

Critics also pointed out that the process, which requires review by multiple government ministries, increases the burden on companies, leading to wasted time and cost.

 

Ultimately, critics argued that classifying an already commercialized technology as a National Core Technology undermines global competitiveness.

 

Indeed, a survey presented at the forum showed that 82% of responding companies favored delisting.

 

This suggests that the call to lift the designation is more a consensus across the industry rather than a simple demand.

 

This situation even led to the sharp term 'regulatory capture' being used during the discussion, reflecting a mistrust that the purpose of the regulation has morphed from industry protection into maintenance.

 

However, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, which was present at the meeting, expressed caution, stating that while they agree on the need for improvement, they "must hear opposing opinions as well as those in favor." Questions remain about whether the government, which is the only neutral party that can maintain balance between conflicting opinions, is actively fostering the discussion.

 

It appears the situation requires the government to go beyond merely "listening to opinions" and actively planning and coordinating the debate.

 

Without an active control tower, the discussion is not advancing.

 

The solution is clear: The designation and delisting procedures must be standardized and the time required for the process must be disclosed transparently.

 

A permanent consultative body involving industry, academia, and government must establish rational criteria, and if necessary, consider a phased or differentiated management approach.

 

In this process, the government must act as the accountable facilitator, balancing the views of both sides and connecting them to an actionable roadmap.

 

The longer the discussion drags on, the greater the anxiety for the industry and the higher the risk of falling behind in global competition.

 

To halt this cycle of stagnation, the government must take action.

 

What's needed now is not a reconfirmation of the pros and cons of delisting, but the government's decision and leadership.