Speech by Mart Saarma at the Inauguration of the President of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 8 January 2025
Dear President of the Republic, ministers and members of the government, members of the Parliament, excellencies, colleagues academics, guests, and friends!
When I began to think about today’s speech, I decided to consult with my PhD thesis supervisor, Richard Villems, who has previously given such a speech as the president of the Academy. Richard's advice was very clear: talk about something interesting in science and your own work, and make some jokes as well!
I will start, however, more seriously and with a focus on academies.
The oldest scientific academy is considered to be the Accademia dei Lincei, founded in Italy. Federico Cesi (1586–1630) was a Roman-Umbrian patrician, a passionate naturalist, and botanist. To further his research, he established a society in 1603 in Rome with three friends, including the Dutchman Giovanni Heckius and two Italians, Francesco Stelluti and Anastasio de Filiis. This society was named Accademia dei Lincei. From 1611 onwards, Galileo Galilei was also a member of the academy. Cesi's intense activities were abruptly interrupted by his death in 1630. Due to Cesi's untimely death, his much-loved academy was dissolved. Thanks to the decisive efforts of Pope Pius IX, the academy founded by Cesi in 1603 was restored in 1847, but under a new name, „Pontificia Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei“.
The Royal Society is home to many of the world’s most distinguished scientists and is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy, founded on 28 November 1660. Christopher Wren and twelve other men of science established the College for the Advancement of Physical and Mathematical Experimental Learning at Gresham College in London. From the very first meeting on 28 November 1660, after a lecture by Gresham College’s Professor of Astronomy, Christopher Wren, the new academy began to engage in—natural philosophy—which we now call science. Wren believed that this should transform knowledge, the economy, health, and the comforts of life. The Royal Society gathered information through correspondence but also emphasized that its members observe nature, conduct experiments, discuss their results, and ultimately publish them. Early members included Robert Boyle, John Evelyn, John Locke, and from 1672, Isaac Newton, whose Principia Mathematica (1687) was published by the Royal Society. The academy selected members from across Europe and the New World, including Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and John Winthrop among the chosen.
The French Academy of Sciences (Académie des sciences) was founded in 1666 by Louis XIV at the suggestion of Jean-Baptiste Colbert to develop and protect the spirit of French scientific research. The French Academy of Sciences was at the forefront of European scientific development in the 17th and 18th centuries and is one of the earliest academies of science.Founded in 1739, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was organized after the Royal Society of London and the French Academy of Sciences, making it the first academy of its kind in the Nordic countries. Its founders included the renowned naturalist Carl von Linnaeus, the mercantilist Jonas Alströmer, mechanical engineer Mårten Triewald, and politician Anders Johan von Höpken, who went on to become the academy's first permanent secretary.
Shortly after the establishment of the Swedish Academy, the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences was founded in 1742, with the goal of enhancing the role of science in Denmark and fostering collaboration across different scientific disciplines.
The Finnish Academy of Sciences, in Swedish, was founded in 1838 as an independent and socially significant institution. A second, broader Finnish Academy of Sciences was established in 1908, bringing together a wide range of scientists with the primary aim of advancing scientific research.
The Estonian Academy of Sciences, founded in 1938, is considerably younger. According to the law governing the Academy, it is tasked with advancing and representing Estonian science. In the first yearbook of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, published in 1940, President Karl Schlossmann remarked: „No nation or state can afford to base its future on myths and dreams, for reality has become a complex mechanism; if missteps are made, it is not only individuals who may suffer, but entire nations and states may crumble“.
The Academy's primary mission, as a community of scholars, is to contribute independently and with high scientific professionalism to the advancement of Estonian science and to addressing the country's social and economic development challenges. The level of fundamental sciences in Estonia has rapidly increased, and the country has earned a strong international reputation in this field. In global comparisons, the University of Tartu ranks first among universities from former socialist countries in Europe, while Tallinn University of Technology is also among the top when compared to other technical universities.
However, it must be acknowledged that in some areas of fundamental research, our level is still insufficient. The overall state of applied sciences and innovation in Estonia is rather poor, with the notable exception of information technology. In IT, significant applied progress has been made, and there have also been achievements in translating research results into practical applications in materials science and biotechnology. The applied scientific contributions of academicians such as Bogdanov, Lopp, Lust, Karelson, Ustav, and Vilo serve as good examples of progress. Unfortunately, we have very few science-based high-tech companies, and even their revenues are modest. A high-tech industry cannot exist without patents, yet we have tens of times fewer patents per capita than Sweden and Finland. The Academy’s role must be to foster the development of applied sciences and innovation, as well as to advise the government on these matters. As the only academy that unites scientists in Estonia, it is worth discussing whether we should involve more engineers and leaders from high-tech companies. This approach is common elsewhere. In Scandinavia, separate academies often exist for engineering and technical sciences, but in Estonia, it would be wiser to consolidate all efforts into a single academy. Should we achieve this through committees or by electing new members? This is something we need to consider carefully. In any case, the Academy must engage in serious collaboration with industrial partners in the fields of applied sciences and innovation.
Estonian society is facing difficult times, with increasing defense spending due to the war in Europe, an aging population, and rising social welfare costs. At the same time, we are confronted with global climate change, the threat of new pandemics, and a rise in age-related diseases. On top of all this, Estonia’s economy is stagnating. This brings me to the conclusion that, in addition to advancing fundamental research, the Academy must play a more prominent role in promoting applied sciences and innovation. However, it is important to note that fostering applied sciences should not come at the expense of fundamental research, as basic research underpins applied research, and vice versa.
Advancing science, promoting scientific thinking, and introducing and explaining scientific achievements and new technologies to the public are undoubtedly core responsibilities of the Academy. We must safeguard the future of national science. The Academy should fulfill this mission in close collaboration with universities, research institutions, and science-driven companies. The success of a small country depends on quality, and this holds true for science as well. We should not focus on trivialities, particularly trivial applied research. One of the Academy's essential tasks is to clarify scientific achievements, facts, and new technologies to the people of Estonia. Simultaneously, the Academy must inform and advise the government, Parliament, and Estonia’s representatives in the European Parliament on scientific advancements and their practical applications. Naturally, this raises questions about the definition of science and the most effective way to convey scientific and innovation-related advice to the government and Parliament. Throughout history, various perspectives have been offered on the nature and purpose of science.
In his work Metaphysics, Aristotle classified all science into three types: practical, poetic, and theoretical. According to him, practical science includes ethics and politics; poetic science involves the study of the fine arts, such as poetry; and theoretical science encompasses fields like physics, mathematics, and metaphysics.
Galileo Galilei, a devout Catholic, never intended for his discoveries to challenge the authority of the Church. He believed that by uncovering and explaining the true nature of the universe, he was simply revealing God's creation. Galilei famously stated that „the language of God is mathematics,“ believing that the universe could be most profoundly understood through mathematics.
The renowned nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford believed that all science is, at its core, physics, with other fields merely representing s collecting stamps.. When he referred to the absence of theories driven by heuristic power, he was at least partially correct, particularly in the fields of biology and biomedicine.
Richard Feynman, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work in elementary particle physics and quantum electrodynamics, was also known for his intellectual wit. He famously compared physics to sex, saying, „Of course, it can lead to practical outcomes, but that's not why we engage in it“.
Albert Einstein, reflecting on the role of scientists, believed that science is simply the enhancement of everyday thinking. He argued that imagination is more important than knowledge, as knowledge has its limits, while imagination is the most crucial attribute of a scientist.
Nobel laureate Sidney Brenner once stated, „Scientists are often reminded of their social responsibility. However, I believe society itself should also bear scientific responsibility.“ The relationship between power and intellect is not always straightforward, and we, too, have our own shortcomings in this area.
Looking at our Academy, we should strive to be far more proactive and visible in shaping and implementing the nation's science and technology policy. The Academy must establish a regular dialogue with the government, the members of Parliament, and Estonia's representatives in the European Parliament. Increasingly, important political decisions need to be grounded in scientific knowledge, with a solid understanding of emerging technologies. Key areas include climate change, energy policy, infectious diseases, and agriculture, particularly in relation to modern GMOs. It’s also worth noting a study conducted in the UK a few years ago, which found that 85% of people trusted science and believed that scientists were truthful. In comparison, only 26% trusted journalists, and just 19% trusted politicians. A similar study by the Pew Research Center in the US reported comparable findings: „Public trust in the scientific community as a whole has remained stable for decades.“ So, how is it that people trust science and scientists, yet pseudoscience is still thriving? We often overlook the fact that social media is a rapidly evolving phenomenon.
Just over a decade ago, only 7% of the US population used social media. Today, that figure has surged to around 70%. We are still in the process of learning how to navigate and harness this complex system. The evolution of social norms and laws has been slow to keep pace. I believe that most people do not fully understand how science operates, what it can achieve, and its limitations. Our society has faced significant challenges in adapting to major technological advancements, such as genetic engineering, information technology, and robotics. At the same time, new shifts are already on the horizon, including the digital revolution, artificial intelligence, and precision medicine. Many people have come to believe that science is all-powerful. This misconception is likely fueled by past scientific and technological breakthroughs, which have brought about significant and positive changes in society. The continuous flow of discoveries and new technologies has led to the false assumption that such breakthroughs are easily achieved and readily predictable. A common, misguided belief is that „if we invest enough money, the problem will be solved.“ As scientists, we are partly responsible for this misconception, having sometimes made overly optimistic promises: curing cancer (as suggested by Richard Nixon), solving most health problems through the human genome project (as promised by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair), or using stem cells to treat degenerative diseases. Unfortunately, the reality has been much more complex, and progress has taken much longer than expected. That said, in recent years, there have been remarkable advances, particularly in cancer treatment.
It is fitting to quote the esteemed physicist Enrico Fermi: „The history of science and technology has consistently shown us that breakthroughs in fundamental research inevitably lead to technical and industrial innovations that transform the way we live“.
What should our academy's role be in this regard?
The academy should adopt an ambitious strategy for science and innovation and ensure regular, direct communication with the Prime Minister, government officials, and Parliament. In Finland, the Parliament hosts regular "evening sessions" (iltakoulu) every two months, where representatives from science, industry, and other sectors present new ideas and approaches. These sessions are a popular and well-established tradition. I propose we introduce similar evening sessions in the Estonian Parliament, held 5-6 times a year, focused on central national issues. These sessions would invite experts from science, industry, culture, and other relevant fields to share innovative solutions and concepts.
Consistent and predictable funding for research and development is crucial for Estonia's future growth. With the rising defense costs and increasing social expenditures due to an ageing population, it is unlikely that government support for research and development will significantly increase. A potential solution would be to explore new, alternative funding sources. I see three such options, which I strongly recommend for further discussion.
Firstly, investments in research and development typically generate an average return of 14% per year. With this in mind, Finland has taken on national debt to invest an additional 260 million euros annually in research and development, with the goal of increasing the country's budget spending on research from 2 billion to 4 billion euros over the next decade (while Finland's current national debt stands at 75% of GDP). Of this new investment, 70% is directed towards applied research for companies and the development of strategically important scientific infrastructure. Around 30% of the investment is allocated to fundamental sciences and researcher training. The expectation is that industry will also increase its investments, and that innovative industries will quickly recoup the invested funds. Estonia could follow a similar approach, borrowing funds to invest an additional 50 million euros in research and development each year. Over the next decade, this could result in the doubling of Estonia's national research and development funding. According to former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, the European Union requires around 750-800 billion euros in new investments each year, which should be financed through national loans.
Secondly, it is crucial to invest in the establishment of funds that support research and development. In Finland, funding through such funds was around 50 million euros in 1990, but by 2024, it had grown to nearly 1 billion euros—nearly matching the annual state investment in basic research. In Denmark and Sweden, research and development funding through these types of funds is even greater. This presents an opportune moment to create similar funds for research and development in Estonia. I believe these funds should not only support fundamental sciences but also research and development activities in start-ups. This approach would likely boost industry interest in contributing to these funds. However, I anticipate that successful implementation may require legal adjustments.
Thirdly, both globally and in our neighboring countries, there are international funds that Estonian researchers and companies can apply for research grants from. The Academy should take the initiative in this regard, collaborating with Estonian Research Council to support researchers in securing funding from these sources. Personally, I have substantial experience in this area, having successfully obtained research grants from funds in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia.
I would also like to emphasize that collaboration across scientific disciplines is on the rise, the use of infrastructure is becoming more international, and we are increasingly reliant on global funding. Natural scientists and engineers can no longer succeed without collaborating with experts from the humanities and social sciences, and vice versa. The Academy, by its nature, is interdisciplinary and should actively foster cross-disciplinary cooperation in Estonia. Our strengths lie in our high level of education, our adaptability, and our ability to collaborate effectively.
A key responsibility of the Academy is to monitor the latest developments in science and technology and to keep scientists, society, and the government informed. As a nation, we must not miss out on major technological breakthroughs that could be crucial for our future development. Our guiding principle should be: "What has brought us success so far may not guarantee it in the future." I believe this is especially true for our country. In the near future, key areas of science and innovation will include new medicines and medical technologies, green technologies, artificial intelligence, new agriculture and food sources, new materials, new energy sources, and more.
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to a set of technologies that allow computers to perform a wide range of advanced functions, including the ability to see, understand, and translate both speech and written language, analyze data, make recommendations, and much more. AI involves simulating human intellectual processes through machines, particularly computer systems. It spans nearly every field of endeavor, and its impact on science and the economy will be immense. The most significant effect of AI is likely to be its ability to accelerate and enhance scientific progress. AI can help solve problems and achieve major accomplishments more quickly – whether it's alleviating diseases, combating climate change, or assisting astronomers in discovering new worlds. The development of AI has been driven by the collaboration between computer scientists and neuroscientists, with a pivotal contribution from Francis Crick. Crick is perhaps the scientist who made the greatest contribution to scientific advancement in the 20th century. Together with Jim Watson, he discovered the double helix structure of DNA, and when they arrived at Eagle Pub in Cambridge in February 1953, Crick famously announced loudly from the door, "We have discovered and solved the secret of life."
In fact, an even more groundbreaking discovery followed – the formulation of the principles of the genetic code and predicting tRNA, which was soon experimentally validated. Crick later worked at the Salk Institute in the United States, where he played a pivotal role in fostering collaboration between computer scientists and neurobiologists to advance the field of artificial intelligence. I had the privilege of meeting his student, Terry Sejnowski, during my time on the European Brain Programme Council. Several decades ago, Sejnowski founded a lab at the Salk Institute that helped lay the groundwork for the current advancements in artificial intelligence. His pioneering research in neural networks and computational neuroscience has been critical to the development of the AI systems we engage with today. In recognition of his exceptional contributions, Sejnowski was awarded the prestigious Brain Prize in 2024.
Research in artificial intelligence (AI) is thriving in Estonia. Scientists from the University of Tartu and Tallinn University of Technology have come together to establish a leading AI centre of excellence. Given the rapid growth of IT companies in Estonia, it is reasonable to expect that their AI innovations will quickly be put into practice, with resulting products and services reaching global markets. The adoption of AI by Estonian companies could be the catalyst for the long-awaited technological transformation. All indications point to the fact that we must now commit to advancing AI development in Estonia. This should be done in a way that ensures fundamental research findings are swiftly applied. Achieving this requires close collaboration between universities and businesses, as well as, in my opinion, the establishment of a dedicated national program. AI is one of the most significant innovations of our time, and we cannot afford to miss out on it. Given the rapid increase in the global patenting of AI-related inventions, we must also pay careful attention to intellectual property concerns. Furthermore, the successful execution of international agreements will require professionalism and skilled individuals with the proper training.
In the development of artificial intelligence (AI), much of the inspiration comes from the way neurons form connections and how neural networks function. The main role of nerve cells, or neurons, is to receive, process, store, and transmit information. This happens through neural networks, which are created by synaptic contacts between neurons. A synapse is a specialized cellular structure where one neuron "kisses" another, transferring and receiving information in the process. The human brain contains about 1011 neurons, forming 1014 synaptic contacts—roughly 1,000 times the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Indeed, our brain is truly remarkable.
The modern view of the brain as the center for memory, cognition, and control of bodily functions is relatively recent. In ancient Greece, Homer believed that the organ responsible for thought was the diaphragm, while Diogenes argued that perception depended on the air we inhale. Democritus came closer to a contemporary understanding, asserting that the brain governs intellect, the heart governs courage, the liver governs emotions, and thought is the movement of atoms. Plato posited that the soul consisted of three parts: the brain, the heart, and the liver. Aristotle shared this view, claiming that the heart was the organ of both thought and perception. A significant breakthrough came from Hippocrates, who recognized the brain as the seat of thinking, reasoning, understanding, and emotions, and that the ability to think is inspired by the air we breathe. The air reaches the brain first, providing it with the best of what it contains, including our capacity for thought and understanding. A key moment in the study of the brain came in 1543 with the publication of Andreas Vesalius' „De Humani Corporis Fabrica“, which is considered the foundation of modern anatomy. Vesalius carefully examined the structure of the brain and nervous system, although the function of the brain itself remained largely unexplained.
In 1838, German scientists Theodor Schwann and Matthias Jakob Schleiden introduced the cell theory, which postulated that all plants and animals are made up of cells. This breakthrough had profound conceptual significance in medicine and biology, shifting focus to the processes occurring within cells. Notably, in 1863, Schleiden accepted an invitation to Tartu University, where he served as a professor of plant chemistry (plant physiology). However, due to conflicts with the church, he was forced to return to Dresden in 1864. A pivotal advancement came from German scientist Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902), who, in 1856, published Die Cellularpathologie. His most important discovery was that human tissues are composed of cells.
The modern understanding of the brain’s structure and function arose from the rivalry between two great scientists. Italian researcher Camillo Golgi (1843–1926) developed the reticular theory between 1873 and 1882, which proposed that the entire nervous system formed a continuous network of cells, with no gaps or synapses. In contrast, Spanish scientist Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852–1934) formulated the neuron doctrine in 1887, which argued that the nervous system consists of discrete cellular units, neurons, that are connected by synapses. The Nobel Committee made the right choice in awarding the 1906 Nobel Prize to both Golgi and Cajal for their groundbreaking work in elucidating the structure of the nervous system.
Ramón y Cajal also made another crucial observation – he proposed that neurons do not form connections randomly; instead, there is an embryonic developmental program, a pattern, that governs this process. Today, we know that neurons have the capacity to modify their synaptic connections throughout life, influenced by both external information and internal signals from the organism itself. The structure of these synaptic contacts, as well as changes in their function and remodelling, underpin memory and cognition. Consider that our brain contains 1014 synaptic connections, which evolve both over time and across space. This offers a framework that artificial intelligence researchers can draw upon.
The human brain is an incredible and fascinating organ, weighing on average 1.5 kg, while a chimpanzee's brain is about half the size. On the other hand, a whale's brain weighs 4 kg, and a dolphin's brain weighs 1.5 kg, but a rat's and mouse's brains only weigh a few grams. While great apes have three times fewer nerve cells in the cerebral cortex and 100 times fewer synaptic connections than humans, the human brain is characterized by its high energy consumption. Despite representing only 2% of body weight, the brain uses 20% of the body’s total energy. This high energy demand is required to maintain the networks of nerve cells, which involves transporting RNA and proteins along nerve cell extensions to sustain synapses. Some of these extensions are over a meter long in humans, and even longer in giraffes. Additionally, a key feature of neurons is that, unlike most other body cells, they do not divide. They are as old as we are. Maintaining neurons is an expensive task – we’ve seen the energy costs, but there’s also a significant biochemical cost. The brain must support a series of biochemical processes that are not found in other cells.
I strongly believe that the president of the academy should be an active scientist, not a former one. My research focuses on understanding the mechanisms that keep nerve cells alive. Equally important is investigating why and how nerve cells die, as well as how neural networks form and disappear. Together with my colleagues—two of whom, Professor Tõnis Timmusk and Dr. Urmas Arumäe, are present here today—I have discovered a new protein factor that helps keep neurons alive. We have also identified the receptors for several nerve growth factors. In this work, I have had the privilege of collaborating closely with Academician Mart Ustav. I proposed that these factors, which protect and maintain neurons in our bodies, might be useful for treating certain neurological diseases and injuries. In Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, neurons degenerate and ultimately die. On a side note, both Alois Alzheimer and Friedrich Lewy, who discovered the Lewy bodies associated with Parkinson’s disease and were students of Emil Kraepelin, the founder of psychopharmacology, who lived and worked in Tartu. We have successfully tested our new factor in clinical trials with Parkinson’s patients. More recently, in collaboration with Academician Mati Karelson, we have been developing chemical molecules that mimic these protein factors. These molecules offer improved properties as drugs and are significantly more affordable, with one of them soon to enter clinical trials. I am deeply committed to finding a treatment that can slow the degeneration and death of nerve cells.
Thank you! Vivat Academia, Vivant Professores!