Hello, beloved First Opinion readers! After five months of maternity leave — incredibly luxurious by American standards, horrifyingly short to my European friends — I am back at STAT and First Opinion. I have missed you. Of course, I have to thank the incomparable Pat Skerrett for returning in my absence to keep First Opinion humming — sometimes shouting — along. Pat, enjoy your return to retirement, including your important volunteer work.
Now that I am back, I wanted to ask for your help. As I mentioned in a previous newsletter, I'm eager to host debates on First Opinion between knowledgeable experts. Now, I want to make that a reality. It's a format I am borrowing from an earlier, perhaps more earnest time of the internet: a back and forth dialogue. I edited a bunch of them when I was an editor at Slate back in the late aughts and early teens. (Here's a fun one on A.J. Jacobs' book "The Year of Living Biblically" — start at the bottom.) I don't know why the format went away, but I am eager to revive it.
While I hope to experiment, I think the format looks a little like this: two experts tackle a knotty issue in health policy, the life sciences industry, the practice of medicine, etc. Both should be passionate about their position but open to engaging with good-faith critique. Ideally, one writer would start, introducing the readers to the conversation at hand and asking questions of their discussion partner. The second writer would respond, answering those questions and raising their own. Each writer might write two or three times, at fairly short length, say 800 words or so.
The point of this is to address a weakness in the traditional op-ed format: The author does not have to respond to those who disagree with their opinion. Yes, we have letters to the editor, but there's something different about two people directly challenging each other from a place of mutual respect. Ideally, this approach will allow for a more nuanced conversation than is typical online today.
I want to hear from all of you to make this happen. Please email me if:
- You want to engage in a debate yourself (bonus points if you have a conversation partner you disagree with but respect online)
- There's a topic you think we should host a debate on
- You have a suggestion for a potential debater, or even a pair of debaters
Will this work editorially? With our content management system? Who can say! But I am eager to experiment. Email me: torie.bosch@statnews.com
Recommendation of the week: I couldn't choose, so I'm going to share two podcast picks today. First is "Hysterical," which is about the outbreak of Tourette's-like symptoms in a group of (mostly) teenage girls in Leroy, New York, in 2011. The second is "Dr. Miracle," the newest season of "Chameleon." "Dr. Miracle" follows a naturopathic doctor who claims his alkaline diet can treat, even cure ailments like cancer. Both are great listens.
***
This week on First Opinion: Private equity is health care's vampire. Those "mugshots" of mpox patients in Africa are stigmatizing. New mask bans threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans with disabilities. Why was the DNC Joe Biden so different from the debate Joe Biden? A geriatric psychiatrist has one idea. How to improve the FDA-EMA parallel scientific advice program to advance complex generics. Cancer screening alone cannot reduce Black-white health disparities. Diversity in drug development must include preclinical research. Here's a harm-reduction approach to eating out that can improve public health without depriving people of their fettucine alfredo. And maybe you don't need a yearly checkup.
Can you tell which pieces Pat edited and which I did?
No comments