2024-10-20

three reflections on the past year

1. Storytelling is an art. There’s a certain craft in synthesizing discrete units of information to assert an argument. I’ve spent the past year sharpening this blade with an eye toward various audiences - both for the general public as a Science & technology writer at The Economist, and for biopharma operators as a life sciences consultant.

   A key takeaway for me is that good storytelling is driven by building clarity on the two to three most critical questions to a given topic. Because I work at a consulting firm, the questions are usually very clear - our biopharma clients pay us substantial professional fees to have them answered, often in order to assess a business opportunity (i.e., which indications should we pursue in light of commercial attractiveness and development feasibility?).

   But even though clients may come to us with a defined set of objectives, new areas of investigation often emerge through analysis. Prioritizing the most critical questions (which will constantly evolve), and answering them in the form of a clear but nuanced story, ultimately helps our partners make good business decisions.

   One effective way to practice storytelling is to reflexively ask yourself how the audience will react to a data point. The key is to (a) understand the questions that are top of mind for a stakeholder (b) iterate on preliminary answers to these questions. Having early hypotheses and pressure-testing them helps us see how the story is shaping up.

   I think this ties well to what a mentor at The Economist once told me: good storytelling really comes down to structuring an argument such that it is intriguing to the reader and convinces them it is worth reading. So intentionally outlining your answers early on and arranging them like jigsaw pieces on paper is a good idea.

2. Aim to develop a stance when possible. This is important for two reasons.

   First, you learn a lot faster when you shift from being a passive absorber of information, to an active thinker constructing a view of how things should be. It is nice to learn that immunology and inflammation (I&I) is a rapidly emerging space, but it’s even better to develop a thesis on the key “need-to-believes” for a biotech to pursue I&I trials. It’s also nice to read that energy constraints may be a key bottleneck to the AI revolution - but one learns even faster by taking a stance on what investors are getting wrong about solving energy demand.

   Second, when you develop a perspective and write about it, you start picking out the shallow points in your argument and addressing them. It’s a forcing function to ensure you are pressure-testing your beliefs - which extends beyond one’s current job and into personal life, career aspirations, and more. You learn to become a better thought partner and riff off on interesting perspectives, rather than always quoting Sam Altman or Marc Andreessen. You become a more original thinker.

   What I need to work on is developing a thesis for the future. How do I think specific industries or sub-sectors will change in the next 3-5 years? Do I believe a dramatic shift in the status quo is emerging in particular sub-sectors? And what can I do to capitalize on new opportunities driven by this change? One quote resonated with me in Schwarzman’s biography, as he was describing a young leader at Blackstone:

   “Once Jon feels confident in a thesis, he articulates it clearly, sets an objective, and sprints ahead. He decided, for example, that online shopping would spark a boom in demand for warehouses, and over several years he made Blackstone the second biggest owner of warehouses in the world. By 2018, Jon’s real estate team had returned $83 billion to investors, and managed $136 billion investor capital plus over $250 billion worth of buildings and real estate businesses. It is now the largest business at Blackstone. Jon’s extraordinary record as an investor, with virtually no losses, is the foundation for his rise at Blackstone.”

   I don’t think it’s enough to develop a thesis that everyone agrees with. True value stems from nontrivial, hard-won pieces of insight that not everyone can see. The thesis needs to be right, or we can’t capitalize on the opportunity. And ultimately, we need a bias to action, to operate on that thesis. Aligning my short- and long-term goals to these theses, both on the timescale of days and decades, is something I need to work on.

3. I remain a firm believer in the value of staying intellectually curious. It has become difficult to read up on interesting topics across industries, like I once did as a college student. Time is always a constraint, and it is tough to have the energy to stay curious in a 70-hour work week.

   But I’m certain it will only become more important to leverage content knowledge across multiple fields. Particularly because I interact solely with biopharma clients, I find it ever more critical to push against a narrow view of the world and learn more about other sectors. My thought is that there will always be interesting analogs and learnings to draw from seemingly disparate fields. There is utility in staying curious, beyond personal enjoyment.

   A few words of advice to myself: pound the pavement every day. Wake up hungry and eager to learn. Enjoy the game of life and the various twists and turns that come with it. In the past few months, I’ve thought a lot about the mentors in my life who have invested their time and gone out of their way to support me. I’m grateful to my family and friends who continue to inspire me, and for the opportunity to make my run in this world.

Full speed ahead until 2025 - see you on the other side!

Special thanks to Arri Eisen, Anson Shyu, and Rahil Mahmood for feedback on initial drafts.