Session Profile: Margit Sutrop

The politician supports the draft Research and Development Organisation Act, stressing the necessity of ensuring compliance with research ethics and protecting the autonomy of research institutions (especially the Estonian Research Council) from political interference. He is concerned about the stability of funding and financial sustainability, particularly regarding the coverage of infrastructure costs and the lack of clarity in measuring research expenditures. His political framework is strongly policy- and system-based, focusing on reducing regulations and increasing trust in the system.

The politician demonstrates profound expertise in the organization of research and development (R&D) activities, funding schemes (including guarantees for baseline financing, operational grants, and allocation ratios), and the regulatory framework governing research ethics. He employs technical terminology, referencing specific legal sections and the history of previous legislation, highlighting detailed issues (e.g., the fixed amount of 3,000 euros, the necessity of broadening the definition of basic research). He is aware of the difficulties associated with implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in scientific research.

The style is highly formal, analytical, and detailed, focusing on logical arguments and the precise description of legislative procedures. The speaker raises questions and concerns (e.g., regarding autonomy and sustainability) in a measured yet firm tone, avoiding emotional appeals. He/She uses international comparisons (USA, University of Helsinki) to reinforce the arguments and structures the presentation as a comprehensive summary of committee meetings.

The politician is an active member of the Culture Committee, presenting comprehensive reports to the plenary session regarding the committee’s discussions and procedural decisions. He/She references several committee meetings (January 20, February 18) and the recent (yesterday) hearing of the overview provided by the Foresight Centre, demonstrating regular involvement in the legislative process.

The criticism is aimed at potential political interference in the autonomy of science, citing the American experience and one colleague's view that the wrong topics are being funded. The Ministry of Finance is particularly criticized for its inability to develop a system for measuring research expenditures, which prevents an accurate assessment of the 1% research funding agreement. Furthermore, the opposition of various ministries (such as the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, MKM) to the Ministry of Education and Research's (HTM) competence in establishing unified quality and ethical criteria for research projects is highlighted.

The politician stresses the need for consensus within the steering committee when making procedural decisions (e.g., placing a bill on the agenda and concluding the first reading). He sees the necessity of strengthening cooperation between the Ministry of Education and Research and the Data Protection Inspectorate/Ministry of Justice to resolve issues related to data-driven policy making and research. He acknowledges that inter-ministerial conflicts (regarding the management of scientific quality) need to be resolved at the Riigikogu level.

The focus is on the national research and development system and its institutions (ETAG, KBFI, the University of Tartu). International examples (the US, the University of Helsinki) are utilized concerning issues of scientific autonomy and funding, in order to strengthen the arguments regarding the necessity of making the Estonian system bulletproof.

The politician focuses on the financial sustainability of science, supporting stability mechanisms (e.g., the 85% guarantee) and greater financial autonomy for research institutions. He/She is concerned about the impact of inflation on fixed funding allocations and emphasizes the importance of adequately funding basic research to ensure innovation potential and prevent the "flowerbed" from drying up. He/She supports the 1% R&D funding agreement but points out the inadequacy of its measurement.

A significant focus is placed on research ethics (including the establishment and funding of the human research ethics committee) and the support of national sciences (Estonian history, linguistics, etc.), to which at least 5% of the base funding must be allocated. The necessity of data-driven policy in solving social problems (e.g., the supply of new teachers and access to education) is also emphasized, while noting difficulties in data availability.

The primary focus is on the deliberation of the Research and Development Organisation Act (TAIKS), where the politician serves as a representative of the lead committee. He supports the Act but stresses the necessity of resolving issues concerning funding proportions, ensuring autonomy, and inter-ministerial jurisdiction before the second reading. He is involved in advancing the draft bill to the plenary session via a consensus decision.