Session Profile: Tõnis Lukas

The political focus is on Research, Development, and Innovation (RDI) policy, emphasizing its broader cultural and societal role, rather than viewing it solely as an economic engine. There is criticism directed at the current RDI funding model (40:40:20) because it undermines the financing of basic science and negatively impacts the career prospects of young researchers. Furthermore, population and immigration issues are highlighted within the context of security, specifically opposing the creation of an "immigration pump" designed to fill lower-skilled jobs. These positions are strongly rooted in specific policies and values.

Shows profound expertise in the field of science and innovation policy, employing specific terms such as the 40:40:20 funding proportion, base funding, and service agreements. Is well-versed in science funding instruments and quality control mechanisms (ETAG, MKM), and has precise knowledge of prior inter-ministerial agreements. Furthermore, demonstrates understanding of university financing and the systematic application of research funds for teaching activities.

The style is formal, analytical, and detailed, focusing on the technical aspects of policy mechanisms and funding. The tone is concerned and demanding regarding the issues surrounding science funding, yet it offers constructive solutions and recognizes previous positive agreements. The discourse is strongly logic-based, relying on specific funding proportions and draft legislation.

Actively participates in the plenary session, posing questions to the Prime Minister and delivering a lengthy, substantive speech on science policy. Requests additional time for the comprehensive presentation of their views, indicating a desire to submit a detailed and well-argued analysis.

The primary criticism targets the government’s handling of research funding distribution and the slow pace of processing the draft law concerning the organization of R&D. This criticism is policy-driven, stressing that the current funding model (40:40:20) is detrimental to national research institutions and universities, as it channels funds into projects with potentially weaker quality control. Furthermore, the practice of financing service contracts at the expense of core research funding is also under fire.

Acknowledges previous agreements (e.g., with Kristjan Järvan regarding the financing of service contracts) and calls upon the current government to adhere to them. Sees the need to establish international regional scientific cooperation within the European Union, prioritizing collaboration with Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania due to the security situation.

The focus is on Estonia's national science and higher education policy, as well as the issue of population decline. The international dimension is important, particularly the creation of a regional science cluster with Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania, and the struggle to retain European Union funding (3 billion) despite the rise in GDP.

It strongly supports public funding for science and higher education, emphasizing adherence to the 1% of GDP agreement and the necessity of increasing university funding. It is concerned that economic innovation (MKM 40%) may not undergo sufficient quality control, and that science funding should not be viewed too narrowly as merely an engine for economic development.

It focuses on population decline and immigration policy. It opposes the creation of an "immigration pump" for low-skilled jobs, considering this contrary to Estonia's interests. However, it supports bringing talent and foreign researchers here to research institutions and universities.

The primary legislative priority is the swift passage of the draft Act on the Organization of Research, Development, and Innovation. It calls upon the government to expedite the submission of this complex piece of legislation to the Riigikogu, stressing its crucial role in establishing research ethics and defining the division of labor among institutions.