By Plenary Sessions: Heljo Pikhof

The criticism targets the potential flaws of the draft bill, specifically excessive state intervention, which could restrict academic freedom and transform funding into a tool for political influence. The speaker challenges the Minister’s assurances that there are no funding risks, citing the fears expressed by research institutions. The opposition is policy-driven and focused on mitigating those risks.

The direct opposition is primarily aimed at the implementation of overly strict or prohibitive regulations, which are deemed ineffective. Criticism (e.g., by Liina Kersna and Margit Sutrop) emphasizes that instead of banning and mandating, the focus should be on improving awareness, changing attitudes, and setting an example.