Happy new year, First Opinion fans!
Over the past couple of weeks, as I probably should have expected, I received a great deal of submissions from people who are eager to make predictions about 2024, and I wanted to explain why you didn't see any of them on First Opinion. After spending more than a decade as an editor focused on "the future," I have become extremely wary of predictions.
It's very tempting to publish those pieces, to be clear: Every editor wants a bunch of solid articles they can get ready ahead of time to publish during and just after the holidays. They are often written by big names. But I am not sure there's much utility in them for readers.
Canadian journalist Dan Gardner's book "Future Babble" explains why expert predictions are so often wrong. One problem, of course, is that experts are often coming from entrenched, self-interested perspectives. But there's another huge issue: We seem far more likely to remember accurate predictions than failed ones. Very rarely do the publications that publish "what will happen this year" pieces in January published "what went wrong with those predictions" articles in December. Experts who end up being right, whether through true foresight or luck, often take victory laps, rarely bothering to mention where they went wrong.
Now, to be clear, I am very much in support of the STAT "3 to watch" framing, in which reporters highlighted dynamics that readers should keep an eye on in CRISPR, health tech, global health, and more. But those are very different than a biotech exec explaining "what will happen in 2024" in a way that just so happens to align with what his company is working on.
Going to JPM? I'm hoping to publish at least one or two articles related to what goes on there, both at the conference and around it. If something strikes you, send me an idea. And if you're a STAT+ subscriber, be sure to join us on Connect, our members-only platform, where STAT reporters will be posting their takeaways and much more.
This week on First Opinion: Have you ever tried to find a psychiatrist who accepts your insurance, only to end up seeing someone who you have to pay out of pocket? Andrew Popper explains why he stopped taking insurance at his practice. Speaking of insurance: Craig Idlebrook chronicles the year-long journey he had to go on to get his son's ADHD medication covered. Catherine Ames, a twentysomething who writes as "Chronically Catherine," shares about how difficult it is to find information about how treatments for her chronic health conditions could affect her future fertility. Though health care providers now have more freedom to prescribe buprenorphine for people with opioid use disorder, many are reluctant because they fear the medication may be diverted. But epidemiologist Joëlla W. Adams explains that when buprenorphine gets into the hands of people without a prescription, it's actually a good thing. And gastroenterologist Sameer Berry explains why at-home microbiome tests are not worth it.
Recommendation of the week: I'm not the first person to suggest you watch "The Holdovers," the movie about a teacher (Paul Giamatti) forced to watch a group of boarding school students over the holidays, but really: You should watch it. It's funny and heartbreaking and incisive about a range of issues you might not expect. I highly recommend pairing it with one of my favorite mostly forgotten '90s comedies, "Outside Providence," if you're open to a bittersweet-'70s-boarding-school double feature (and I hope you are).
Post Comment
No comments