Value of research can’t always be measured on a balance sheet

The hardest questions we face are about people—this is where the humanities and social sciences shine, offering the perspectives and tools needed to understand human experience, motivation, and resilience, writes Vice-Chancellor Professor Nic Smith.

Close up of microscope
Photo: Pexels

Comment: Recent discussions on proposals to exclude humanities and social sciences from future Marsden Fund grants have raised widespread concern. Yet this controversy has also sparked an overdue conversation about the value of the humanities and social sciences.

These discussions pose fundamental questions.

Can the importance of research outcomes always be measured in dollar terms? Societal cohesion, health, and education are just a few areas where such metrics often fall short.

More critically, to what extent should we prioritise investing in the development and application of increasingly powerful scientific tools, assuming they will deliver the greatest benefit to society?

And perhaps the most profound question: is technology helping us create a better future, or is it merely accelerating our journey to wherever we are already heading?

Having spent my career applying mathematics, physics, and computer science to understand and treat heart disease, I feel well placed to offer a perspective on this issue.

Years ago, while conducting research in London, I worked on a project using computer modelling to optimise pacemaker placement in patients with heart disease. At the time, about 30 percent of patients who received pacemakers saw no clinical benefit. Our goal was to reduce that percentage by creating 3D images of patients’ hearts, testing various scenarios, and identifying the most effective placement.

Initially, the results seemed promising. Patients were showing better outcomes, and we began collaborating with medical device companies and exploring patents. But soon, we noticed an inconsistency: while some patients improved significantly, others did not.

The breakthrough came unexpectedly. Another research project was underway involving some of the same patients, focusing on their emotions and experiences—from their feelings about being hospitalised to their outlook on upcoming procedures. As it often is in research, the connection between the two projects was serendipitous: a student on my team was dating someone working on the psychosocial study. This other researcher had been showing patients the 3D models on our student’s laptop, explaining the intervention and its potential impact in a way that resonated with the patients.

The surprising result? Patients who took part in the psychosocial study showed markedly better outcomes. At the risk of understating the impact, these patients seemed to better understand how the procedure would improve their health and took more ownership of their post-op care. For those who only experienced the technology-based research, the technology itself made little difference.

The lesson was clear: the psychosocial approach—addressing the human dimension—was the most significant driver of improved outcomes. Technology served as a helpful tool, but the human response was critical.

This experience underscores a vital point. Solving complex societal problems isn’t just about the methods we use; it’s about the outcomes we seek. Addressing today’s most pressing challenges—from environmental crises to health inequities to education reform—requires the collaboration of multiple disciplines. Each field brings unique insights, and together they help us navigate the complexities of these issues.

Ultimately, the hardest questions we face are about people. This is where the humanities and social sciences shine, offering the perspectives and tools needed to understand human experience, motivation, and resilience.

Research exists for many reasons. Some projects lend themselves to commercialisation, but the value of research isn’t always measurable on a balance sheet. Societal benefit is no less real because it takes time to manifest.

We face immense challenges, but with them come tremendous opportunities. To achieve the outcomes we need, we must begin with the end in mind and embrace the rich diversity of approaches that different disciplines offer. Only then can we ensure that the tools we use—technological or otherwise—help us build a better, more inclusive future.

This article was originally published on Newsroom.

Professor Nic Smith is the Vice-Chancellor of Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington.


Opinion