Hide table of contents

Summary

  • After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role.
  • This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again.
  • Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025.
  • I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director.


Before the role

When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022. 


During the role

I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to learn, but I’ve had incredible mentors and colleagues to guide me, most notably @Akhil and Abe (the co-founders of Hi-Med), @SarahPomeranz (CEO of Consultants for Impact), Adam Tury (who supported me as a wonderful coach), @Clare_Diane  (who teamed up with me to measure Hi-Med’s impact and refine our theory of change; Hi-Med wouldn't be where it is without her), @erikjentzen (providing constructive criticism and tirelessly supporting Hi-Med) and Max Schons (reviewing funding applications on short notice). I also want to give special thanks to Will Bradshaw, who led our EA university group in Cologne when I was a student and, during a check-in call with me in 2022, challenged and encouraged me to level up the positive impact of my career; and also to @lukasj10🔸, who showed me how incredibly warm the working culture can be at a small impact-driven charity (I briefly volunteered for the CE-incubated charity he co-founded before starting at Hi-Med). There are so many more wonderful people that I’ve had the pleasure to meet in and outside of Hi-Med, who have enriched my journey and from whom I’ve learned so much. To only name a few: Rachit Shah (one of Hi-Med’s kindest and most tirelessly working volunteers), Vyshnavi Desiraju (teaching me pitching techniques and inspiring me with her stamina and humour), @Louisa Rasp (one of Hi-Med’s longest team members), Kujani Wanniarachchi (Hi-Med’s awesome podcast host), Abbos JonClaudia Reichmuth and Victoria Zawadil who took the lead in organising our three conferences and Hunter Lau (who had started Effective Altruism Medicine before joining Hi-Med’s board).
Last but not least, I want to thank Hi-Med’s funders, especially Open Philanthropy, without whose grant recommendations most of Hi-Med's positive impact would not have been possible.  

I am proud of what Hi-Med’s team has accomplished since I started in my role in November 2022. So many of our community members have sent us touching and inspiring case studies (our impact-to-date document is over 100 pages long!) of how their interaction with Hi-Med has changed the course of their careers, and several people have referred to our organisation and team when taking a Giving What We Can pledge. 

I am very grateful for the time I have spent in this role and for everything I have learned from and with my wonderful colleagues. It is also my perception that working full-time at an impact-driven organisation and in the wider charity space has reinforced my values and will protect me from value drift in the future. 


My decision to step down 

After careful consideration and conversations with Hi-Med’s leadership team and governing board over the last couple of weeks, I have decided to step down from my role.

This was, by no means, an easy decision. Still, I have come to the conclusion that, for long-term career resilience, I want to complete my medical residency training (I have already done 2-3 years out of 5) while still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. Working clinically will also enable me to donate more and, hopefully, also help me to inspire more people to take giving pledges again. 

Given our established programmes and Open Philanthropy’s recent grant recommendation, now seems like a good time to hand over my role.


What happens now

Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director. If you know someone who might be a good candidate (or are considering applying yourself), please find the job description and application form in this document. The closing date for applications is 26 January 2025. The start date is as soon as possible, but we would be prepared to extend this by up to a few months for the right candidate. Please note that we are unable to support work visa applications.

Once we have appointed the next Executive Director, I will join High Impact Medicine's governing board and continue to support Hi-Med's mission, while diversifying my aims to do good in this world.  

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you again for your compassionate commitment to helping others, Marie! Thank you for applying your intelligence, genuine kindness, drive, and open-mindedness in the service of inspiring and leading Hi-Med, and thank you for giving your team so much support and autonomy. I'm extremely grateful to have been on your team and learning from and with you all this time. (I know I and others said similar things on Slack, but I think it really can't be emphasised enough!) Wherever you work, they'll be lucky you're on their team!

Thank you so much, Clare! Any team will be lucky to have you as well!

Thank you for your work Marie

Thank you for your appreciation, Henry! And thank you for all your important work as well! 

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe