Author: Art Diamond

Environmentalism Is a “Substitute Religion” Offering “Purpose and Transcendence”

(p. A13) There is a recurring puzzle in the history of the environmental movement: Why do green activists keep promoting policies that are harmful not only to humans but also to the environment? Michael Shellenberger is determined to solve this problem, and he is singularly well qualified.

He understands activists because he has been one himself since high school, when he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network. Early in his adult career, he campaigned to protect redwood trees, promote renewable energy, stop global warming, and improve the lives of farmers and factory workers in the Third World. But the more he traveled, the more he questioned what Westerners’ activism was accomplishing for people or for nature.

He became a different kind of activist by helping start a movement called ecomodernism, the subject of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.” He still wants to help the poor and preserve ecosystems, but through industrialization instead of “sustainable development.” He’s still worried about climate change, but he doesn’t consider it the most important problem today, much less a threat to humanity’s survival—and he sees that greens’ favorite solutions are making the problem worse.

. . .

Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.” He realizes, though, that rational arguments alone won’t convince devout environmentalists. “I was drawn toward the apocalyptic view of climate change twenty years ago,” he writes. “I can see now that my heightened anxiety about climate reflected underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.”

For him and so many others, environmentalism offered emotional relief and spiritual satisfaction, giving them a sense of purpose and transcendence. It has become a substitute religion for those who have abandoned traditional faiths, as he explains in his concluding chapter, “False Gods for Lost Souls.” Its priests have been warning for half a century that humanity is about to be punished for its sins against nature, and no matter how often the doomsday forecasts fail, the faithful still thrill to each new one.

For the full review, see:

John Tierney. “BOOKSHELF; False Gods for Lost Souls.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 22, 2020): A13.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date June 21, 2020, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; ‘Apocalypse Never’ Review: False Gods for Lost Souls.”)

The book under review is:

Shellenberger, Michael. Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. New York: HarperCollins Books, 2020.

Viruses Mutate More Nimbly Than Therapies Hobbled by FDA Regulations

(p. A7) In a laboratory in New York City, researchers coaxed a key piece of the coronavirus — its infamous outer “spike” — to mutate so that it became invisible to disease-fighting antibodies, according to a new study that has not yet been published in a scientific journal.

The provocative finding should not set off alarm bells, experts said. The altered spikes were not attached to the real coronavirus, which mutates at a much slower pace than most laboratory viruses. But the study does underscore the need for treatments and vaccines that attack the virus in different ways, so that if the pathogen manages to evade one approach, another will be waiting in the wings.

“It’s an old story for virology,” said Dr. Sallie Permar, a virologist and pediatrician at Duke University who was not involved in the study. “If you only target one little region, that virus is going to find a way to get away from it. It’s why viruses are so successful in this world.”

. . .

Several types of monoclonal antibodies are now in clinical trials. If all goes well, such concoctions might not only treat coronavirus infections but also prevent them. That could help millions of people, especially as the world awaits a vaccine, said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who was not involved in the study.

But the new findings also hint that single-antibody formulations “may not be as successful,” Dr. Taylor said, at least in the long term. Developing a cocktail containing a diverse blend of antibodies could be a safer bet.

Such mixtures would also more accurately mimic the body’s natural response to the coronavirus. In the study, viruses flushed with samples of convalescent plasma — fractions of blood donated by people who have recovered from Covid-19 — struggled to infect cells.

Some scientists, including those at American biotechnology company Regeneron, are already attempting this combo approach, mixing two potent types of monoclonal antibodies into a single treatment.

But Dr. Iwasaki pointed out that antibody cocktails might be tougher to bring to market. “Every time you make a drug, you get approval for each component separately,” she said. . . .

The lesson of diversity might be even more powerful for vaccines, which can marshal a multifaceted immune response. Some immune cells and molecules will be tailored to home in on the spike, whereas others might prefer other parts of the virus. Vaccines that present the body with many pieces of the coronavirus, rather than the spike alone, could have a better shot at triggering a suite of these defenses, said Dr. Taia Wang, an immunologist at Stanford University who was not involved in the study.

For the full story, see:

Katherine J. Wu. “Experiment on Spike Protein Shows Obstacles of Mutation.” The New York Times (Wednesday, July 29, 2020): A7.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 28, 2020, and has the title “The Coronavirus Could Dodge Some Treatments, Study Suggests.” The online version has an extra paragraph that does not appear in the print version. In my quotations above, I stick to the print version.)

Tough Advice from Experienced Advisers Helps Us Acquire Skills

(p. R6) Recent studies suggest that people tend to favor advisers who are positive, cheerleader-types over tough talkers and voices of experience. But such preferences, the researchers also say, often lead to detrimental results, a finding with wide-ranging implications for companies and managers.

A paper published in March [2020] in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General summarized the findings of six connected studies. Subjects of inquiry included: what characteristics people predict they will use when selecting an adviser; those people’s actual adviser selections; and the potential consequences of these decisions.

. . .

And when researchers looked at the outcomes of these decisions, they noted a disturbing pattern. Those who relied primarily on cheerleader-types generally underperformed those who were guided more by expertise.

Catherine Shea, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business who focuses on organizational behavior and theory, says that choosing an experienced mentor who may be rough around the edges can be like taking cough medicine.

“It tastes awful, but it works,” she says. “Sometimes you really do need the skill set, and sometimes the nice person is not going to give it to you.”

For the full story, see:

Cheryl Winokur Munk. “People Want Mentors Who Are Their Cheerleaders. That May Not Be Wise.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 15, 2020): R6.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 14, 2020, and has the title “People Like Their Mentors to Be Cheerleaders. That May Be a Mistake.”)

The March 2020 paper mentioned above is:

Hur, Julia D., Rachel L. Ruttan, and Catherine T. Shea. “The Unexpected Power of Positivity: Predictions Versus Decisions About Advisor Selection.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (published online in advance of print on March 16, 2020).

“Hell No”: Goya’s Bob Unanue, When Asked to Apologize

(p. A15) It’s come to this: They want to cancel black beans.

The target is Goya Foods, America’s largest Hispanic-owned food company. Within hours after its CEO, Bob Unanue, said at a Rose Garden event that America was “blessed” to have “a leader like President Trump who is a builder,” #BoycottGoya started trending on Twitter. Naturally Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) jumped out in front.

“Oh look, it’s the sound of me Googling ‘how to make your own adobo,’ ” the Queens congresswoman tweeted. That’s a popular Goya seasoning she wants people to go without. But Goya’s CEO isn’t backing down. When asked the next day on Fox News if he’d apologize, Mr. Unanue was succinct: “Hell no.”

For the full commentary, see:

William McGurn. “MAIN STREET; AOC’s Hill of Beans.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, July 14, 2020): A15.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 13, 2020, and has the same title as the print version.)

Oppenheim Recommends Diamond’s “Well-Researched,” “Well-Written,” and “Fascinating” Openness to Creative Destruction

Charles Oppenheim is an Information Science expert whose recent focus has been intellectual property. He is currently a visiting professor at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland. (I do not remember ever meeting him.) Oppenheim has written a gracious, though mixed, review of my book Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. Although mixed, what he likes outweighs what he dislikes. Below I quote his first and his final paragraphs.

(p. 82) The author is a well-known professor of economics in the United States. In this book, well researched and supported by numerous references, his philosophy of life is made clear – and a rather worrying philosophy it is, as we shall see. The book addresses the question of how to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in an advanced economy such as that of the United States.

. . .

(p. 83) This is a well-written book with an easy style that will appeal to economists, students and perhaps the general public. It is supported by a large number of references, as well as figures and tables. It has an exemplary index. Diamond covers interesting ground and provides some fascinating histories of the development of many of the inventions we now take for granted. Such a pity that Diamond’s argument is so one-sided, and that he fails to take into account moral, ethical and environmental concerns in his optimistic vision of how innovation can make economies thrive. The book is recommended, but treat its contents with caution.

For the full review, see:

Oppenheim, Charles. “Openness to Creative Destruction, Arthur M. Diamond Jr. (2019), Oxford University Press.” Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation 36, no. 1 (March 2020): 82-83.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

My book, reviewed by Oppenheim, is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

“The Last Bastion of Freedom in the Chinese-Speaking World”

(p. A14) The new security rules for Hong Kong that China passed this week — without input from the city’s Beijing-backed leadership — have made Mr. Xi’s promise of autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework seem hollow. And it has raised fears that China will move more aggressively to bring Taiwan, too, under its control.

. . .

In recent weeks, China has buzzed Taiwan’s territorial airspace almost daily. It accused Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, of carrying out a “separatist plot” by speaking at an international democracy forum. It has warned the Taiwan government to stop providing shelter to Hong Kong political activists, who are flocking to what they call the last bastion of freedom in the Chinese-speaking world.

For the full story, see:

Javier C. Hernández and Steven Lee Myers. “Taiwan Sees Ominous Signs for Its Own Autonomy.” The New York Times (Thursday, July 2, 2020): A14-A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 1, 2020, and has the title “As China Strengthens Grip on Hong Kong, Taiwan Sees a Threat.”)

Paper Towels Spread Fewer Germs Than Hot-Air Drying

(p. R1) In the age of coronavirus, handwashing can save lives. But proper hand-drying matters, too.

“It might sound pedantic, but it’s actually critical,” says John Gammon, professor of infection prevention and control at Swansea University in the U.K.

Prof. Gammon was the lead author of a review of hand-drying research and published his findings in the March 2019 issue of the Journal of Infection Prevention. His paper, “The Neglected Element of Hand Hygiene,” examined the effectiveness of paper towels, cloth towels and dryers that use hot air or high-velocity air.

In a clinical situation, such as a hospital, disposable paper towels are generally the quickest, most efficient and hygienic method of hand drying. “The mechanical action of rubbing with paper towels has an effect on reducing microorganisms on hands,” Prof. Gammon says. Paper towels are also less likely to spread germs into the surrounding environment than hot-air and high-velocity air dryers, he adds.

For the full story, see:

Beth DeCarbo. “The Best Way to Dry Your Hands.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, April 3, 2020): R1.

(Note: the online version of the story was updated April 2, 2020, and has the title “You’ve Perfected Your Handwashing Technique. Here’s How to Dry Them.” Where there is a slight difference in wording between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

Gammon’s academic paper, mentioned above, is:

Gammon, John, and Julian Hunt. “The Neglected Element of Hand Hygiene – Significance of Hand Drying, Efficiency of Different Methods and Clinical Implication: A Review.” Journal of Infection Prevention 20, no. 2 (March 2019): 66-74.

Disney Will Only Re-Open a Park When It Can “Cover Its Variable Costs”

(p. B14) Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek has maintained that the company wouldn’t reopen a park without at least the ability to cover its variable costs, but analysts expect more will be needed to get parks fully back into the black. Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger estimates Disney’s parks would need to be at 60% of their “normal run-rate attendance” to reach break-even on a pretax basis.

. . .

On Thursday, [June 25, 2020] UBS reported results of a survey of 2,000 U.S. consumers conducted earlier this month. In that survey, among the respondents who had cited worries about social distancing as keeping them from visiting, nearly two-thirds said they would only consider attending a Disney park once a vaccine is available.

For the full story, see:

Dan Gallagher. “The Magic Kingdom Is Losing Its Spell.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, June 27, 2020): B14.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 26, 2020, and has the title “Disney’s Parks Need a Cure.”)

After Age 65, Men Lose More “Antibody-Producing B Cells” Than Women Lose

(p. B5) By examining gender-based distinctions in the immune system, cell structure, brain and other systems, researchers are discovering how and why men and women grow older in clearly different ways.

Their findings could help explain why Covid-19 has had a greater impact on older men than older women. A recent study found that men, after the age of 65, lost important antibody-producing B cells in the blood, while women didn’t.

“It was surprising,” said Duygu Ucar, an associate professor who led the study at the Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine in Farmington, Conn. The research team also found that men, as they age, experience greater inflammation in their blood, which has been associated with severe cases of Covid-19.

. . .

Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, looked at the blood of men and women between the ages of 65 and 95 and found protein levels changed at different rates. Less change means more stability, he said. Men’s levels changed far more than women’s, with 600 significant changes versus 277 for women, according to the study, published in December.

“The female biology seems to be more stable than men’s,” says Dr. Barzilai, the author of “Age Later” who specializes in geroscience.

For the full story, see:

Clare Ansberry. “Women and Men Age Differently—-And in More Ways Than Just Longevity.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, July 15, 2020): A13.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 14, 2020, and has the title “Women and Men Age Differently—in More Ways Than Just Longevity.” The last couple of paragraphs quoted above, appeared in the online, but not the print, version of the article.)

The “recent study” mentioned above is:

Márquez, Eladio J., Cheng-han Chung, Radu Marches, Robert J. Rossi, Djamel Nehar-Belaid, Alper Eroglu, David J. Mellert, George A. Kuchel, Jacques Banchereau, and Duygu Ucar. “Sexual-Dimorphism in Human Immune System Aging.” Nature Communications 11, Article #751 (Feb. 6, 2020): 1-17.

The book by Barzilai, mentioned above, is:

Barzilai, Nir. Age Later: Health Span, Life Span, and the New Science of Longevity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2020.

Politically Incorrect Research Is Cancelled from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

(p. A15) Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

. . .

My June 3 [2020] Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

The authors don’t say how I misused their work.

. . .

This retraction bodes ill for the development of knowledge. If scientists must disavow their findings because they challenge reigning orthodoxies, then those orthodoxies will prevail even when they are wrong.

For the full commentary, see:

Heather Mac Donald. “I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, July 9, 2020): A15.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 8, 2020, and has the same title as the print version.)

The PNAS article co-authored by Cesario, Johnson, and others is:

Johnson, David J., Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario. “Officer Characteristics and Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 32 (Aug. 6, 2019): 15877-82.

Reduce Spread of COVID-19 “With Plenty of Fresh Air” in Buildings

(p. B5) One way to reduce the spread of coronavirus is to maintain ventilation .

. . .

Modifications from equipment manufacturers such as Trane Technologies PLC, Carrier Global Corp. and Johnson Controls International PLC include filtering indoor air more thoroughly, drawing more outdoor air into buildings and deploying ultraviolet light against the virus inside ventilation systems.

“More fresh air and cleaner air are the direction that customers are going. This is top-of-mind for building owners and contractors,” said Jeff Williams, president of global products for Johnson Controls, maker of York-brand heating and air-conditioning equipment.

. . .

Research released this spring by the Department of Homeland Security found that coronavirus particles decay faster at a room temperature of 78 degrees Fahrenheit with a relative humidity of 50% than at lower temperatures and humidity. Add in a strong dose of ultraviolet light, and the virus decays by 90% in less than seven minutes, according to the department. Humans’ immune systems also are more effective against viruses in warmer, more humid conditions, according to a Yale University study published in May 2019.

“We can minimize the spread of the virus in the summer when there is plenty of sunlight and higher humidity. They’re actually effective in a defined space,” said Luke Leung, epidemic task force leader for the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, a trade association.

. . .

Recirculated air should include about 20% outdoor air to effectively dilute coronavirus particles, the Atlanta-based engineers’ society says. Many buildings’ air handlers were set up to draw less outdoor air, to maximize energy efficiency.

“The past few years there was a lot of emphasis on energy saving and there was less outside air in buildings,” said Seth Ferriell, chief executive of SSC Services for Education, a Tennessee-based company that manages ventilation systems for schools and universities. The firm has a contract to upgrade air handlers at Texas A&M University.

Mr. Ferriell estimated that increasing the amount of outdoor air in a building by 50% would drive up natural gas or electricity costs by as much as 15% a year because that additional air has to be cooled or heated to match the desired interior temperature.

For the full story, see:

Bob Tita. “Virus Spurs Ventilation Boost.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, July 9, 2020): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 8, 2020, and has the title “Offices Try to Combat Coronavirus With More Fresh Air.” The last couple of paragraphs quoted above, appeared in the online, but not the print, version of the article.)