In an era where media often chases the loudest headlines, Works in Progress offers a quiet but radical alternative: a manifesto for the unglamorous, the technical, and the deeply specific. The piece argues that the most transformative ideas are often hiding in plain sight, buried under layers of bureaucratic inertia or dismissed as too niche for mass consumption. "If you find that a really good article already exists on one of these topics below, please send it to us," the editors invite, signaling a hunger for substance over sensation. This is not a list of hot takes; it is a roadmap for understanding the machinery of modern progress, from the genetic engineering of mosquitoes to the architectural shifts that defined European cities.
The Architecture of Progress
The editors begin by challenging the assumption that certain problems are too entrenched to solve. They point to the mosquito, specifically Aedes aegypti, as a target for elimination rather than just management. "One mosquito species is responsible for most cases of dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and chikungunya," the piece notes, highlighting a biological bottleneck that has plagued humanity for centuries. The argument here is that we now possess the tools—gene drives and Wolbachia bacteria—to finally break this cycle. This reframes public health from a game of containment to one of eradication.
"The mosquito we should just get rid of."
This bold assertion lands because it strips away the fatalism that usually surrounds vector-borne diseases. However, critics might note that the ecological ripple effects of removing a species, even a harmful one, remain a subject of intense debate among ecologists. The piece acknowledges the controversy but leans into the potential for a clean slate.
The editors also turn their gaze to the built environment, asking why some cities are dense with apartments while others sprawl with single-story homes. "In 1700, purpose-built flats were rare in most Western cities, and row houses were dominant everywhere," they observe, tracing a shift that accelerated in the 19th and 20th centuries. By connecting this to the Pontine Marshes—a region near Rome where malaria haunted the peninsula for millennia until its mid-20th-century elimination—the editors suggest that human settlement patterns are not just cultural choices but responses to environmental and health constraints. The argument implies that solving modern housing crises requires understanding these deep historical and biological drivers.
The Mechanics of Society
Moving from biology to economics, the piece tackles the looming crisis of aging populations with a focus on policy success stories. "Australia successfully moved its population to a retirement savings plan (‘Superannuation’) in the early 1990s," the editors report, citing a model that shifted risk from the state to the individual. They also look to Japan, where reforms under the Koizumi government in 2004 helped stabilize the country's fiscal position despite having the worst old-age dependency ratio in the developed world. "What can other states learn from these experiences to reduce their own future retirees’ dependence on working age populations?" they ask.
This section is compelling because it avoids the usual doom-and-gloom narrative of pension collapse, instead offering a forensic look at what actually worked. The editors suggest that the solution lies not in magic bullets but in specific, often painful, structural adjustments. "We’d like pitches on all kinds of pension reforms," they state, emphasizing a desire for granular detail over broad generalizations. Critics might argue that these models rely on specific cultural or economic contexts that may not translate to the United States or other nations with different social safety nets. Yet, the core insight remains: the data exists to solve the problem; the will to implement it is the missing variable.
The piece also interrogates the rising cost of electricity, a topic often mired in ideological battles. "Some people blame renewables, others blame data centers, but neither of these explanations are wholly satisfying," the editors write. They call for a definitive explanation that accounts for state-by-state differences, suggesting that the answer lies in the complex interplay of infrastructure, regulation, and market design rather than simple villainy. This approach cuts through the noise of partisan talking points to focus on the engineering and economic realities of the grid.
The Future of Technology and Health
In the realm of technology, the editors express skepticism about the hype surrounding artificial intelligence. "We recently ran a piece on why AI hasn’t replaced radiologists," they note, calling for similar case studies in other fields where capability exists but impact is stalled. "What are similar stories in other fields?" they ask, urging a move away from speculation about future abilities to an analysis of current blockers. This is a crucial distinction; it demands evidence of why progress is slow, rather than accepting the narrative that AI is either a savior or a threat.
"We’re not that interested in speculation based on abilities that models may have in the future."
The editors also highlight the potential of long-acting drugs and RNA therapies. "A new generation of long-acting drugs like lenacapavir points to a different approach to prevention: take one dose, stay protected for half a year," they report. This shift from daily adherence to long-term protection could revolutionize public health, particularly in resource-poor settings. The piece connects this to the broader decline in genome sequencing costs, noting that what was once a multi-billion dollar project is now achievable for around $500. "What technological and economic pushes made this possible, and who made them happen?" they ask, seeking the human stories behind the exponential curves.
Bottom Line
The strongest part of this argument is its refusal to accept stagnation as inevitable; it treats every problem, from malaria to pension reform, as an engineering challenge with a solvable path. Its biggest vulnerability is the sheer breadth of its ambition, which risks glossing over the political friction that often blocks these technical solutions. Readers should watch for the upcoming deep dives on these topics, as the editors promise to move beyond the list and into the details that actually change the world.
"If you are the right person to write one of these pieces, please email us... and summarize how you would like to approach the story as though it was one of our normal pitches."
The editors are not just asking for articles; they are asking for a new kind of journalism—one that values the quiet, complex work of building a better future over the loud, simple narratives of the day. This is a call to action for the curious, the technical, and the hopeful.