A detailed insider look at Phase I clinical drug trials, revealing how the system's structure encourages participants to routinely lie about their medical history and symptoms to continue participating. Longer summary

This review explores Phase I clinical pharmaceutical trials from a participant's perspective, detailing the process, the people involved, and systemic issues. The author explains how participants are recruited, screened, and monitored during trials, then describes the peculiar demographics of regular trial participants. A key focus is how the system's incentives encourage dishonesty: participants routinely lie about medical history and symptoms because being truthful often leads to disqualification from future trials. The author concludes that while this systemic dishonesty probably doesn't catastrophically compromise drug safety, it does make the research pipeline less effective than it could be. Shorter summary

Scott proposes using prediction markets to fund investigative journalism, potentially solving the issue of funding quality reporting in the digital age. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes using prediction markets to fund investigative reporting, inspired by Hindenburg Research's model of profiting from exposing corporate fraud. He argues that this could solve the problem of funding investigative journalism in the age of unbundled media. The post explores how this might work for political reporting and even for less quantifiable issues like exposing discrimination in institutions. Scott acknowledges potential challenges but suggests that creating more specific prediction markets could address these. He concludes that this system, while unusual, could incentivize truthful reporting and separate serious journalism from 'infotainment'. Shorter summary