Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
High Impact Medicine13
0
0

Thanks Luke and great question- we are collaborating and working with EA Medicine wherever possible. The main differences as far as we see them are:

  1. High-Impact Medicine is looking to specifically reach out to and engage medics who aren't EAs or haven't heard of EA even
  2. Hi-Med has a local group model (setting up small groups in London, Oxford and Cambridge), whilst EA Med has a global focus. We hope through building individual local communities we can foster deeper engagement (from fewer people) from medics and further our aim of exploring how medics can contribute to addressing the world's most pressing problems effectively.
Reply
See in context
by High Impact Medicine
1 min read 7

71

Career choiceCommunityGlobal health & developmentHigh Impact Medicine (group)Medicine
Frontpage

High Impact Medicine, Hi-Med, is a new movement supported by CEA aiming to bring together medical students and  doctors into local groups to learn more about the ways medics can help as many people as possible in their careers, and engage with opportunities to have a wide-reaching positive impact within medicine. 

We believe medical students and doctors have the potential to effectively tackle some of the world’s leading problems alongside, and learning from, clinical practice. Medics are a demographic of individuals who are a natural fit for EA ideas and it is a career which grants flexibility and capital to contribute meaningfully to various areas. 

Our goal is to explore the core opportunities and challenges facing the world today, using an effective altruism framework, and use this as a springboard for discussion about the unique and potentially highly impactful role that medical students and doctors might play in this.

This year we are setting up local groups in Cambridge, London and Oxford (UK) to foster communities of like-minded students and doctors and explore high impact opportunities. We are planning to host several speakers and socials, both in person and online, as well as organise a fellowship in the first quarter of 2022.

We are collaborating with EA Medicine, who currently facilitate an incredible global network for EA-aligned medics to connect and network with one another and further their knowledge. We primarily hope to foster local, engaged communities of medical students and doctors who may not be as familiar with EA, or who are not currently EA aligned. 

If you’re a medic interested in finding out about how you can work to effectively address the world’s most pressing problems, whether you’re based in Cambridge/ London/ Oxford or not,  stay involved via social media: Facebook and Instagram.

If you’re interested in getting more involved in HI-Med, whether starting a community where you are or helping organise the new, growing movement in Cambridge, London or Oxford,  fill out this form! 

bit.ly/HI-Med-GetInvolved

If you have any questions or comments, please get in touch with us at highimpactmedicine@gmail.com

71

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Henry Howard🔸11
0
0

This is great. I'm a doctor in Aus. I've been giving 50% of my income to effective charities all year. I think one of the most valuable things a doctor can do is give part of their income to charity. It both a) normalises the idea for other doctors and b) restore some faith in the medical profession by  proving that they're not just in it for money.

Reply
High Impact Medicine9
0
0

Hey Henry this is absolutely great; I just had a look at your website and videos, and think that they are fantastic. Completely agree with the points you made!

Reply
Luke Freeman 🔸11
0
0

What a great initiative 😀. Out of interest, what's the main differentiators between this and EA Medicine and are there plans to collaborate/cross promote?

Reply
High Impact Medicine13
0
0

Thanks Luke and great question- we are collaborating and working with EA Medicine wherever possible. The main differences as far as we see them are:

  1. High-Impact Medicine is looking to specifically reach out to and engage medics who aren't EAs or haven't heard of EA even
  2. Hi-Med has a local group model (setting up small groups in London, Oxford and Cambridge), whilst EA Med has a global focus. We hope through building individual local communities we can foster deeper engagement (from fewer people) from medics and further our aim of exploring how medics can contribute to addressing the world's most pressing problems effectively.
Reply
Luke Freeman 🔸3
0
0

Thanks for sharing 😀 

Reply
Alex Barnes 5
0
0

Does High Impact Medicine also include folks working as Nurses, Pharmacists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, OT/PT, Medical Engineering, IT and Hospital Logistics?

Reply
Ben_Harack3
0
0

People interested in High Impact Medicine may also be interested in the Human Diagnosis Project (see http://humandx.org and the "Human Dx" app on the main app stores).  The Project intends to solve the problem of medical diagnosis for all of humanity. Currently it allows physicians to train their skills and collaborate on answering thorny medical questions. Eventually it will hopefully provide significant diagnostic help (via both collaboration and decision support) for both medical workers everywhere as well as the broader public. The Project would benefit greatly from additional engaged physicians who are interested in helping people.

Personal context: I work on the Engineering team at the Human Diagnosis Project.

Reply
More from High Impact Medicine
31
Announcing the 2024 spring cohort of Hi-Med's Career Fellowship
High Impact Medicine
· · 1m read
0
0
38
High Impact Medicine - Impact Survey Results and Marginal Funding
High Impact Medicine
· · 4m read
1
1
62
Careers in medicine - a new path profile from Probably Good and High Impact Medicine
2 authors
· · 12m read
5
5
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Career choice
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more