Trust

Reflection

Writing this piece encouraged me to think deeply about medical ethics, innovation, and healthcare. I came in with a relatively strong stance: that new therapeutics must balance transparency, due diligence, and stricter oversight with patient outcomes to garner trust in clinical trials.

However, I didn't explicitly make the thesis clear, which led to distracting tangents—like the paragraph on Theranos. I felt I successfully used accessible language and engagingly framed the problem, yet in pursuing a clear narrative, I obscured some critical, nuanced considerations.

For example, when discussing the nocebo effect, I realized my more emphatic framing could be interpreted as advocating for less medical transparency regarding disclosure—which was not the intended argument. Rather, I was exploring how informed consent can be communicated responsibly without unnecessary fear.

Most importantly, I learned to move beyond diagnosing problems. It is insufficient to simply point out that ills exist—there must be some consideration afforded to solutions.

Reflection

This piece discusses the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of communicating science during a time of great change and mistrust. It forced me to confront the uncomfortable reality that science does not exist in a vacuum—it is inextricably tied to policy.

I approached this paper hoping to uncover a magic silver bullet that could have been applied in hindsight to COVID-19, but the truth was much murkier. There was no easy solution. I could only find a few areas where science and policy could have been better integrated in retrospect.

In terms of science communication, I felt the anecdote at the beginning was particularly strong, as it highlighted my own personal relationship with the pandemic and demonstrated how deeply I care about this issue. I also felt I explained "norm cascades" particularly well, as it is a political science concept that I adapted to public health.

However, in tackling such a broad topic, I sometimes lost focus. I covered so many historical cases (South Korea vs. the US, bioterrorism, HIV, etc.) that the transitions were a bit abrupt.

The piece could have been much stronger with a focused, core message. Since this was a recurring theme in my work, I tried to learn from it and emphasize a strong central message in future works.

Reflection

This piece explores the intersection of deepfakes and propaganda in a larger context beyond healthcare, since I view it as a potentially fundamentally destabilizing emerging technology.

In writing this piece, I actually uncovered new information that heightened my concern as I understood just how fast the technology was developing. Since then, AI deepfakes have become much better. My concerns expanded beyond just political manipulation to the potential for individual targeting of privacy and mental health.

I thought the analogy to "unregulated VFX" was particularly strong, as it removed some of the alarmism and black-box nature of the technology. VFX is something everyone recognizes, so understanding deepfakes as democratizing high-level VFX seemed very intuitive.

However, I felt I could have structured the progression and narrative better. I incorporated a section on Positive Applications, which felt like a concession for the sake of arguing the other side rather than furthering my core message. I also provided very high-level technical solutions to deepfakes but didn't detail much reasoning behind how or why they might work.

For future works, I learned to think more deeply about not just naming solutions, but also explaining why they might work.