What are your views on insider vs outsider strategy for someone who wants to have an impact on biosecurity/āpandemic preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR) policies at the European Union level? - More specifically, how would you compare potential impact between landing a pivotal position in the EU where you could influence policy implementation directly versus for instance creating a think tank focused on advocating for a specific intervention (such as far-UVC)?
I know the short answer is probably āit dependsā (of oneās skill set, desires, luck, need for financial security, etc.), but Iām looking for insights on the insider versus outsider strategy discussion, as Iām wary that I might myself prioritize the former because of a lack of agency, thus missing on the possibility of doing work on more highly neglected/āhighly promising things.
Iāve talked to people who have opposite views on this matter, and I find it very important for me (and anyone maybe) to form a personal opinion. I love the work done at Blueprint Biosecurity for instance, and I know many EAs who do very cool advocacy/āresearch work without relying on professional opportunities offered by already-in-place institutions. I admire them, and Iād be proud to showcase the same kind of commitment, but I really want to understand what path would lead me to a most impactful career, and iām looking for advice on how to go about thinking about this.
Or maybe both strategies are not mutually exclusive? Maybe we need everyone doing cool stuff everywhere? Yeah, sure, but still, if you have strong opinions, please share (and not only regarding biosec) :)
Iām less familiar with the EU, but I can give my big picture overview of the ābe in the room to shape decisionsā theory of change versus āprepare great policy proposals to have ready on the shelfā theory of change. I think both are valuable and are sometimes two sides of the same coin. (In my experience) legislative staffers and key decision makers are busy, putting out five different fires at once and moving between various portfolios. Theyāre really sharp generalists who pull from outside expertise- sometimes from think tanks with capacity to do the deeper research and find the policy levers. Both are important, but to assess the need you might ask yourself ādo we have a dearth of excellent policy proposals in a well-communicated package? or do we have many of them, but they arenāt breaking through to key decision makers?ā
Also, a lot of this should come down to your personal fit: do you have more of a comparative advantage in generalist quick decision making, writing succinct action-relevant memos, acting as a ānode in a networkā of other experts, using lots of social stamina, etc? If so, maybe working within established legislative/āgovernment role makes sense for you. Or do you think youād be better at longer horizon research, deep wonky details, communicating technical insights to a broader audience, etc? Then maybe think tanks might be the right fit. Iād recommend looking at the job postings for roles in both areas and checking where your skills fit in.
I should note there can often be overlap and this is just a general pictureāmany civil servants are deep researchers, some legislative staffersā jobs are different from how I described, etc. I really like this ātesting your fit for policyā guide from EmergingTechPolicy.org to assess where your skills might best fit.
Hi! Thanks for this thread <3
What are your views on insider vs outsider strategy for someone who wants to have an impact on biosecurity/āpandemic preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR) policies at the European Union level? - More specifically, how would you compare potential impact between landing a pivotal position in the EU where you could influence policy implementation directly versus for instance creating a think tank focused on advocating for a specific intervention (such as far-UVC)?
I know the short answer is probably āit dependsā (of oneās skill set, desires, luck, need for financial security, etc.), but Iām looking for insights on the insider versus outsider strategy discussion, as Iām wary that I might myself prioritize the former because of a lack of agency, thus missing on the possibility of doing work on more highly neglected/āhighly promising things.
Iāve talked to people who have opposite views on this matter, and I find it very important for me (and anyone maybe) to form a personal opinion. I love the work done at Blueprint Biosecurity for instance, and I know many EAs who do very cool advocacy/āresearch work without relying on professional opportunities offered by already-in-place institutions. I admire them, and Iād be proud to showcase the same kind of commitment, but I really want to understand what path would lead me to a most impactful career, and iām looking for advice on how to go about thinking about this.
Or maybe both strategies are not mutually exclusive? Maybe we need everyone doing cool stuff everywhere? Yeah, sure, but still, if you have strong opinions, please share (and not only regarding biosec) :)
Iām less familiar with the EU, but I can give my big picture overview of the ābe in the room to shape decisionsā theory of change versus āprepare great policy proposals to have ready on the shelfā theory of change. I think both are valuable and are sometimes two sides of the same coin. (In my experience) legislative staffers and key decision makers are busy, putting out five different fires at once and moving between various portfolios. Theyāre really sharp generalists who pull from outside expertise- sometimes from think tanks with capacity to do the deeper research and find the policy levers. Both are important, but to assess the need you might ask yourself ādo we have a dearth of excellent policy proposals in a well-communicated package? or do we have many of them, but they arenāt breaking through to key decision makers?ā
Also, a lot of this should come down to your personal fit: do you have more of a comparative advantage in generalist quick decision making, writing succinct action-relevant memos, acting as a ānode in a networkā of other experts, using lots of social stamina, etc? If so, maybe working within established legislative/āgovernment role makes sense for you. Or do you think youād be better at longer horizon research, deep wonky details, communicating technical insights to a broader audience, etc? Then maybe think tanks might be the right fit. Iād recommend looking at the job postings for roles in both areas and checking where your skills fit in.
I should note there can often be overlap and this is just a general pictureāmany civil servants are deep researchers, some legislative staffersā jobs are different from how I described, etc. I really like this ātesting your fit for policyā guide from EmergingTechPolicy.org to assess where your skills might best fit.