few showersDunedin 25 | 12
Friday, Fri, 4 AprilApr 2025
Subscribe

Letters to the Editor: the Marsden Fund and the hospital

The new hospital site. Photo: Gerard O'Brien
The new hospital site. Photo: Gerard O'Brien
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including the removal of Marsden funding from the humanities and social sciences, and the reality of the new hospital.

 

Ignorant and short- sighted changes

Judith Collins’ peremptory removal of the humanities and social sciences from Marsden research funding is ignorant and shortsighted.

The fund is the only major source of funding for research in these areas. Given other examples of current economic vandalism it may seem minor, but it has huge long-term consequences. The humanities and social sciences constitute a significant part of our lives: health, education, law, Māori and Indigenous studies, housing, sociology, music, languages, literature, gender studies, psychology, the impacts of climate change on communities, and artificial intelligence to name a few. Research in these areas enables research in the sciences to be put to work for the betterment of society — the two are inter-related.

In addition, university teaching is based on and informed by research. Without it there is no basis for critical thinking and long-term planning and eventually, many university departments will struggle to survive, and talented researchers will seek jobs elsewhere. Social science and humanities research informs our knowledge of productivity and the decision-making that should underpin our economy.

The removal of the humanities and the social sciences from Marsden funding is inexplicable. It contradicts the fund’s original intention and reflects a total lack of understanding of the central fabric and wellbeing of our society.

Carol Bond
Sawyers Bay

 

Victory for the taxpayer

New Zealand is struggling to maintain a First World standard of living funded by a Third World economy. The Marsden Fund was intended as one of the strategies to address this, by promoting innovation which might make New Zealand more financially sustainable.

The Marsden Fund was hijacked by a former finance minister who should have known better, and has since been squandering money on humanities projects. Thankfully the present government has stopped this waste of precious tax dollars by returning the Marsden Fund to its original purpose of funding science innovation, so I no longer need be concerned that my tax is being used to fund such projects as "Amplifying Pacific girl game voices" or "Linking the celestial spheres to end of life experiences".

A victory for common sense.

Julian Price
Oamaru

 

The scientific method

The Marsden Fund was/is set up to promote the study of science. With all the letters to the editor, editorial commentary and the criticism from high-profile academics, none addresses the question: what is science?

Science is a specific way that questions arising from observations are studied. Scientists call it "the scientific method". It is a problem-solving method which is a disciplined approach to solving problems and seeking truths that can be tested by experiment.

The scientific method is quite different from other methods used by people to solve problems such as relying on such methods as appealing to a higher authority, relying on common sense or relying on published opinions.

The scientific method asks questions. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is; it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or who his/her name is.

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong — those words provide the simplest summary of what science is all about.

Stan Randle
Alexandra

 

Facing reality over the new Dunedin hospital

Is it really this simple? Faced with the prospect of a cost blowout from an original $1.47 billion in 2021 to a possible $3b for a state-of-the-art health facility in 2024 what were the options left open to the new government? Carry on irrespective of price as the opposition parties and vocal supporters are suggesting or do a review based upon the original assumptions, the reasons for the blowout, a judicious revise of the cost, and a plan for where the money over the original cost estimate is to come from.

As a lifelong southerner I sympathise with those who just want a new hospital at whatever the cost, but that’s simply an unrealistic dream. It conveniently ignores the unprecedented fiscal demands the country is facing.

Most of us are faced with decisions that mean we have to compromise but I see no sign of that from the vocal supporters. Even Chippie has seen a political opportunity and announced a Labour government would build to the original plans irrespective of cost. That says quite a lot about Labour’s fiscal management and provides an insight into why we are in the current financial predicament.

To quote Jack Welsh the ex-CEO of GE: "Face reality as it is, not as it was, or as you would wish it to be".

Howard Fraser
Dunedin

 

Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz