First Opinion Podcast

Torie speaks with Carmel Shachar, an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Law and health policy expert, about how the second Trump term might differ from the first, how the health policy world is preparing, and her work on reproductive health, telehealth, and vaccines.

No matter who wins the 2024 presidential race, one thing is clear: Political anxiety and division will remain high for the foreseeable future. So just before Election Day, Torie spoke with Kevin Smith, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska who studies the intersection of political attitudes, biology, and evolution. In 2019, he and colleagues published a study that found almost 40% of Americans reported experiencing stress over politics, 11.5% thought their physical health had been affected, and 4% reported suicidal thoughts. They talked about political anxiety, tribalism, and how much our political attitudes might be driven by biology rather than environment.

This close to Nov. 5, we are being battered with promises that this race will determine the future of the country.

But Christine Dehlendorf wants people to remember that as important as Election Day is, it won’t be the end of discussions about reproductive health. Dehlendorf is a family physician and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and directs the Person-Centered Reproductive Health Program. Recently, she co-authored a First Opinion arguing that primary care providers and family physicians should have more training in providing abortion care.

Medicare policy has been conspicuously absent from the 2024 presidential race. Health policy scholar Paul Ginsburg thinks this is because both Democrats and Republicans understand that the reforms needed in the Medicare system are not going to be popular.

Mark Cuban, co-founder of Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, joins the podcast along with STAT's Matthew Herper. They talk with Torie about pharmacy benefit managers, the 2024 presidential campaign, and how the health care industry should work. "This is literally the easiest industry to interrupt, to disintermediate, that I’ve ever been involved with, Cuban said.

For several years now, newspapers have been moving away from a longstanding tradition: endorsing candidates for political office. But Scientific American is bucking the trend. In 2020, for the first time, the 179-year-old magazine endorsed Joe Biden for president. They followed suit this year, endorsing Kamala Harris. Both times, the move spurred a great deal of discussion about scientific objectivity, journalistic objectivity, and the point of endorsements. To learn more about the decision to endorse and the process behind it, Torie spoke with Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth and opinion editor Megha Satyanarayana (formerly of STAT).

Every four years, someone says “This is the most important election ever.” But it’s hard to question the long-term impact Election Day 2024 will have — from the top of the ballot on down.

So the first five episodes of the fall 2024 season of the “First Opinion Podcast” will grapple with the campaign and its intersection with health, medicine, and the life sciences. I’ll speak with experts on issues that have come up on the campaign trail, topics that candidates should focus on, and what a second Trump or first Harris administration might hold. Think of it as “First Opinion Podcast Hits the Trail,” perhaps, except I’m staying home in the swing state of Pennsylvania fending off campaign texts.

For the debut episode, I spoke with Kathleen Kelly Daughety, vice president of campaigns and civic engagement for Inseparable, a mental health advocacy organization with a strong focus on policy.

For scientists and medical professionals well versed in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, it is often too easy to write off the concerns of people who fear them, or feel they have been injured by them. But vaccine expert Kizzmekia S. Corbett-Helaire argues that professionals should be more empathetic when it comes to listening to these concerns, and that understanding them may help developers make better vaccines.

Corbett-Helaire, an assistant professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and a Freeman Hrabowski Scholar at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, joins "The First Opinion Podcast" this week to discuss her experience helping roll out the first Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of the pandemic. She also addresses her desire to close the gap between public health experts trying to end disease and people who genuinely fear harm from vaccines.

In a special edition of the "First Opinion Podcast," STAT executive editor Rick Berke and senior writer Helen Branswell interviewed the country’s former top infectious disease expert about some of the insights and revelations from his new memoir, "On Call: A Doctor's Journey in Public Service." Conversation topics include when Fauci knew that Covid-19 was a real threat; when AIDS activist Larry Kramer called him "the consummate manipulative bureaucrat" in an interview with STAT; how quickly national health risk can skyrocket when it comes to pathogenic viruses; and which former president Fauci has the most affection for.

While the bogus science of eugenics — the idea that the idea that the human race can be improved through selective reproduction — has been nearly universally discredited, remnants of this belief system are still alive and well in modern research. One of the most glaring examples of this is the work of academic psychologist Richard Lynn. Two recent First Opinion authors, Rebecca Sear and Dan Samorodnitsky,  join the podcast this week to talk about Lynn’s explicitly racist research, how it is still being cited in medical journals to this day, and their efforts to get his papers and those citing them, retracted from the scientific literature.