Category: Books

Innovative Project Entrepreneur Mike Wood Helped Children Leapfrog the Reading Skills Taught at School

In my Openness book I argue that the kind of entrepreneurs who matter most in changing the world are what I call “project entrepreneurs,” those who are on a mission to bring their project into the world. Mike Wood, discussed in the obituary quoted below was a project entrepreneur.

I sometimes wonder how much formal education would be desirable in a world, unlike our world, that lacked creeping credentialism. Samuel Smile’s biography of George Stephenson says that he had zero formal education, but early-on paid someone from his meagre wages in the mines, to teach him to read. After that, the inventor and innovative entrepreneur read prodigiously to became an exemplary autodidact.

Today, Stephenson could learn to read through phonics technology like the LeapFrog pads developed by Mike Wood.

[By the way, Mike Wood, like Danny Kahneman recently, committed suicide at Dignitis in Switzerland in anticipation of declining health, in Wood’s case Alzheimer’s. As a libertarian, I believe they had a right to do this, but were they right to exercise this right? Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert cites (2006, pp. 166-168) research showing that people generally underestimate their resilience in the face of major health setbacks. They can often recalibrate to their new more limited capabilities, continuing to find challenges they find fulfilling to overcome. If so, then maybe Wood and Kahneman were wrong to exercise their right to end their lives. (More than most of my claims, I very readily admit this one could be wrong.)]

(p. A21) Mike Wood was a young father when his toddler’s struggles to read led him to develop one of a generation’s most fondly remembered toys.

Mr. Wood’s 3-year-old son, Mat, knew the alphabet but couldn’t pronounce the letter sounds. A lawyer in San Francisco, Mr. Wood had a new parent’s anxiety that if his child lagged as a reader, he would forever struggle in life.

So on his own time, Mr. Wood developed the prototype of an electronic toy that played sounds when children squeezed plastic letters. He based the idea on greeting cards that played a tune when opened.

Mr. Wood went on to found LeapFrog Enterprises, which in 1999 introduced the LeapPad, a child’s computer tablet that was a kind of talking book.

The LeapPad was a runaway hit, the best-selling toy of the 2000 holiday season, and LeapFrog became one of the fastest-growing toy companies in history.

. . .

Former colleagues recalled Mr. Wood as a demanding entrepreneur who was driven by a true belief that technology could help what he called “the LeapFrog generation” gain an educational leg up.

He had “famously fluffy hair,” Chris D’Angelo, LeapFrog’s former executive director of entertainment, wrote of Mr. Wood on The Bloom Report, a toy industry news site. “When stressed, he’d unconsciously rub his head — and the higher the hair, the higher the stakes. We (quietly) called them ‘high-hair days.’ It was funny, but also telling. He felt everything deeply — our work, our mission, our audience.”

. . .

A shift in reading pedagogy in the 1990s toward phonics — helping early readers make a connection between letters and sounds — drove interest in LeapFrog’s products among parents and teachers.

. . .

In 2023, his daughter-in-law, Emily Wood, posted a TikTok video of Mr. Wood teaching her daughter to use a forerunner of the LeapPad. The video received 391,000 likes and thousands of comments.

“I owe him my entire childhood,” one viewer wrote. “I spent hours on my LeapFrog with my ‘Scooby-Doo’ and ‘Shrek’ books.”

“I sell books now because of him,” another viewer wrote.

“I’m learning disabled and have a stutter,” wrote a third. “This man helped me learn to speak.”

“I’m 25 and I loved my LeapFrog,” a fourth commented. “Coming from an immigrant family, reading made me have so much imagination. I never stopped reading.”

For the full obituary, see:

Trip Gabriel. “Mike Wood, 72, Dies; Taught a Generation With LeapFrog Toys.” The New York Times (Monday, April 21, 2025): A21.

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

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date April 19, 2025, and has the title “Mike Wood, Whose LeapFrog Toys Taught a Generation, Dies at 72.”)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

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

Smiles’s biography of Stephenson is:

Smiles, Samuel. The Locomotive: George and Robert Stephenson. New and Revised ed, Lives of the Engineers. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1879.

Daniel Gilbert’s book that I mention in my opening comments is:

Gilbert, Daniel. Stumbling on Happiness. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Fraudulently Doctored Images and “Suspect Data” in Many Leading Cancer Research Papers

Charles Piller in his Doctored paints a damning picture of doctored images and suspect data rampant in the leading scientific literature on Alzheimer’s disease. Not only were leading scientists guilty of fraud, but the key institutions of scientific research (journals, universities, and government grant-making agencies) failing their oversight duty, and when outsiders stepped in to provide oversight, delayed and minimized their responses. Practicing and turning a blind eye to fraud matters, since Alzheimer’s patients are depending on this research. And researchers who do not commit fraud suffer because they appear to have worse research records than those compiled by the fraudsters. So the honest get worse academic appointments and fewer grants.

After reading Doctored I was depressed, but I at least hoped that this pathology was limited to this one (albeit an important one) area of medical research. But in the article quoted below, evidence is presented that there is substantial similar doctored images and suspect data in the field of cancer research.

A side issue in the quoted article is worth highlighting. In the absence of credible oversight from the institutions tasked with oversight, oversight is being done by competent volunteers, with the aid of A.I. These volunteers do not receive compensation for their work, and in fact are probably pay a price for it, since they alienate powerful scientists and scientific institutions. But if science is a search for truth, and truth matters for cures, they are doing a service to us all, and especially to those who suffer from major diseases such as Alsheimer’s and cancer.

On the connection with the Doctored book, it is worth noting that the article quotes Dr. Matthew Schrag, who is the most important source in Doctored. The article also quoted Elisabeth Bik, who does not have an MD like Schrag but has a PhD in microbiology, and who is another important source in Doctored.

(p. A1) The stomach cancer study was shot through with suspicious data. Identical constellations of cells were said to depict separate experiments on wholly different biological lineages. Photos of tumor-stricken mice, used to show that a drug reduced cancer growth, had been featured in two previous papers describing other treatments.

Problems with the study were severe enough that its publisher, after finding that the paper violated ethics guidelines, formally withdrew it within a few months of its publication in 2021. The study was then wiped from the internet, leaving behind a barren web page that said nothing about the reasons for its removal.

As it turned out, the flawed study was part of a pattern. Since 2008, two of its authors — Dr. Sam S. Yoon, chief of a cancer surgery division at Columbia University’s medical center, and a more junior cancer biologist — have collaborated with a rotating cast of researchers on a combined 26 articles that a British scientific sleuth has publicly flagged for containing suspect data. A medical journal retracted one of them this month after inquiries from The New York Times.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where Dr. Yoon worked when much of the research was done, is now investigating the studies. Columbia’s medical center declined to comment on specific allegations, saying only that it reviews “any concerns about scientific integrity brought to our attention.”

Dr. Yoon, who has said his research could lead to better cancer treatments, did not answer repeated questions. Attempts to speak to the other researcher, Changhwan Yoon, an associate research scientist at Columbia, were also unsuccessful.

The allegations were aired in recent months in online comments on a science forum and in a blog post by Sholto David, an independent molecular biologist. He has ferreted out problems in a raft of high-profile cancer research, including dozens of papers at a Harvard cancer center that were subsequently referred for retractions or corrections.

From his flat in Wales, Dr. David pores over published images of cells, tumors and mice in his spare (p. A17) time and then reports slip-ups, trying to close the gap between people’s regard for academic research and the sometimes shoddier realities of the profession.

. . .

Armed with A.I.-powered detection tools, scientists and bloggers have recently exposed a growing body of such questionable research, like the faulty papers at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and studies by Stanford’s president that led to his resignation last year.

But those high-profile cases were merely the tip of the iceberg, experts said. A deeper pool of unreliable research has gone unaddressed for years, shielded in part by powerful scientific publishers driven to put out huge volumes of studies while avoiding the reputational damage of retracting them publicly.

The quiet removal of the 2021 stomach cancer study from Dr. Yoon’s lab, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, illustrates how that system of scientific publishing has helped enable faulty research, experts said. In some cases, critical medical fields have remained seeded with erroneous studies.

“The journals do the bare minimum,” said Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and image expert who described Dr. Yoon’s papers as showing a worrisome pattern of copied or doctored data. “There’s no oversight.”

. . .

Dr. Yoon, a stomach cancer specialist and a proponent of robotic surgery, kept climbing the academic ranks, bringing his junior researcher along with him. In September 2021, around the time the study was published, he joined Columbia, which celebrated his prolific research output in a news release. His work was financed in part by half a million dollars in federal research money that year, adding to a career haul of nearly $5 million in federal funds.

. . .

The researchers’ suspicious publications stretch back 16 years. Over time, relatively minor image copies in papers by Dr. Yoon gave way to more serious discrepancies in studies he collaborated on with Changhwan Yoon, Dr. David said. The pair, who are not related, began publishing articles together around 2013.

But neither their employers nor their publishers seemed to start investigating their work until this past fall, when Dr. David published his initial findings on For Better Science, a blog, and notified Memorial Sloan Kettering, Columbia and the journals. Memorial Sloan Kettering said it began its investigation then.

. . .

A proliferation of medical journals, they said, has helped fuel demand for ever more research articles. But those same journals, many of them operated by multibillion-dollar publishing companies, often respond slowly or do nothing at all once one of those articles is shown to contain copied data. Journals retract papers at a fraction of the rate at which they publish ones with problems.

. . .

“There are examples in this set that raise pretty serious red flags for the possibility of misconduct,” said Dr. Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt University neurologist who commented as part of his outside work on research integrity.

. . .

Experts said the handling of the article was symptomatic of a tendency on the part of scientific publishers to obscure reports of lapses.

“This is typical, sweeping-things-under-the-rug kind of nonsense,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which keeps a database of 47,000-plus retracted papers. “This is not good for the scientific record, to put it mildly.”

For the full story, see:

Benjamin Mueller. “Cancer Doctor Is in Spotlight Over Bad Data.” The New York Times. (Fri., February 16, 2024): A1 & A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version has the date Feb. 15, 2024 [sic], and has the title “A Columbia Surgeon’s Study Was Pulled. He Kept Publishing Flawed Data.”)

Piller’s book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Piller, Charles. Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2025.

Health Freedom Is a Right AND Can Yield More and Faster Therapies

The headline of the article on the front page of the NYT says “No Evidence for Healing Powers,” and goes on to slam unsophisticated right-wingers as irresponsibly pushing ivermectin as a therapy for cancer. In the article the NYT publishes a ludicrous picture from a right-winger’s Facebook page where he has spread veterinary ivermectin cream on his tongue and says “tastes like dead cancer.”

But this is unfair and tendentious caricature. A friend recently sent me an Instagram post by a chiropractor suffering from glioblastoma who has taken ivermectin and mebendazole. He briefly sketches the hypothesized mechanisms for activity of the two drugs, consistent with research published in scientific papers.

Glioblastoma is a serious, often fatal, brain cancer. He had surgery, but knows that surgery often does not cure, so he threw a Hail Mary and took ivermectin and mebendazole. These drugs have long track-records for safety, having been tested and approved for other uses. Doctors can, and have, prescribed drugs for off-label uses for decades.

Decades ago minoxidil was approved as an blood pressure medicine. I asked my then-doctor to prescribe it for me for its rumored effects as a hair loss cure. He did, so I crushed the tablets and somehow applied them to my scalp, which proceeded to itch, but not grow hair. It was a low-risk, modest-chance-of-success experiment. I think I had a right to try it, and that no government or expert had a right to forbid it. (Eventually minoxidil was approved for hair loss and branded Rogaine–which still didn’t work for me.)

In a free country adults should have wide latitude to make decisions about what risks they take; to scuba dive, to drive NASCAR, to go into space, and yes to take ivermectin and mebendazole. And the ludicrous right-winger? Hey, maybe even he has rights.

The NYT headline says there is “no evidence” for ivermectin. Below I cite a survey article that identifies 24 articles published in scientific journals identifying mechanisms by which ivermectin may be effective against cancer. There’s plenty of evidence, just not from randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs). But as long-time readers of this blog may remember, I have posted many entries giving useful actionable evidence that takes forms other than RCTs.

“No evidence”? Maybe the NYT was seeking plausible deniability by running its article on April 1st.

Oh, and by the way, allowing health freedom might sometimes result in better and faster therapies. I am currently reading Rethinking Diabetes by Gary Taubes. He tells the story (pp. 346-356) of Richard K. Bernstein, an engineer with Type 1 diabetes who was suffering from various serious ailments from his diabetes, in spite of the doctors saying it was being well-controlled by insulin. In his 40s, he was only expected to live another 10 years. Well he bought a new device that was not supposed to be bought by patients. The medical profession thought patients could not handle the information. (His wife was an MD, so he ‘bought’ it by asking her to buy it for him.) The device allowed him to get frequent readings of his blood sugar, and thereby to better control it, ultimately through changes in diet. When he tried to share what he had learned, he had trouble finding anyone who would take him seriously, so in his 40s he enrolled in medical school, and started publishing papers and books describing his results.

Richard K. Bernstein died on April 15, 2025 at age 90.

[Below are some relevant quotations from a NYT companion piece to the front-page article. The companion piece provides only slightly less tendentious background information on ivermectin.]

(p. A21) . . . there is not evidence to support people taking ivermectin to treat cancer.

. . .

Scientists do not dispute that ivermectin is powerfully effective — against parasites. The drug was such a breakthrough in the fight against tropical parasitic diseases that two scientists who studied it won the Nobel Prize in 2015.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ivermectin tablets to treat certain parasitic infections, and the agency has authorized ivermectin lotions to kill lice and creams to help with rosacea. Veterinarians also use the drug to prevent and treat parasitic diseases in animals.

. . .

Studies in human cells suggest that the drug may kill certain types of cancer cells in a way that triggers the immune system, said Dr. Peter P. Lee, chair of the department of immuno-oncology at Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. In mouse studies, Dr. Lee has seen that the drug, on its own, does not shrink breast tumors. But it’s possible that the drug may have benefits for breast cancer when used alongside existing cancer immunotherapy, he said. Researchers are studying a combination of ivermectin and an investigational cancer drug in people with breast cancer.

While some inaccurate social media posts claim that ivermectin can treat cancer because tumors themselves are parasitic, the promise of ivermectin for cancer has nothing to do with its anti-parasitic effect, Dr. Lee said. Rather, it seems that the drug may be able to modulate a signal involved with cancer growth.

But doctors still need larger, randomized clinical trials to better understand whether ivermectin could treat cancer. Just because a drug seems to work in animals doesn’t mean those results will translate into real-world outcomes, Dr. Johnson noted. There are “hundreds of medications that look to be promising in a preclinical setting” every year, he said, adding, “The vast majority of those will never be shown to be effective in humans.”

. . .

Doctors generally view ivermectin as safe at the doses prescribed to treat parasitic infections.

For the full story, see:

Dani Blum. “What Ivermectin Can and Can’t Do, and What the Dangers Are.” The New York Times (Tues., April 1, 2025): A21.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version has the date March 31, 2025, and has the title “What Ivermectin Can (and Can’t) Do.” In the first quoted sentence, the print version says “no evidence” and the online version says “not evidence.”)

The Blum article that I just quoted and cited, is a secondary companion article to a longer front-page article, also on ivermectin:

Richard Fausset. “No Evidence for Healing Powers, but ‘Tastes Like Dead Cancer’.” The New York Times (Tues., April 1, 2025): A1 & A21.

(Note: the online version has the date March 31, 2025, and has the title “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin.”)

The paper cited below reviewed the published scientific literature as of 2020 on the mechanisms through which ivermectin could have anti-cancer effects, finding 24 articles documenting one or more mechanisms.

Tang, Mingyang, Xiaodong Hu, Yi Wang, Xin Yao, Wei Zhang, Chenying Yu, Fuying Cheng, Jiangyan Li, and Qiang Fang. “Ivermectin, a Potential Anticancer Drug Derived from an Antiparasitic Drug.” Pharmacological Research 163 (Jan. 2021): 105207.

Tang and co-authors are optimistic in their summary section quoted below. [In this quote IVM is “ivermectin” and MDR is “multidrug resistance”.]

. . ., the broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug IVM, which is widely used in the field of parasitic control, has many advantages that suggest that it is worth developing as a potential new anticancer drug. IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors. Importantly, IVM is an established drug used for the treatment of parasitic diseases such as river blindness and elephantiasis. It has been widely used in humans for many years, and its various pharmacological properties, including long- and short-term toxicological effects and drug metabolism characteristics are very clear. (Tang et al. Jan. 2021, pp. 7-8)

The paper cited below reviewed the published scientific literature as of 2019 on the effect of mebendazole on cancer, and found 26 in vitro studies showing anti-cancer biological effects, 14 in vivo studies showing anti-tumor effects, and six Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Guerini, Andrea Emanuele, Luca Triggiani, Marta Maddalo, Marco Lorenzo Bonù, Francesco Frassine, Anna Baiguini, Alessandro Alghisi, Davide Tomasini, Paolo Borghetti, Nadia Pasinetti, Roberto Bresciani, Stefano Maria Magrini, and Michela Buglione. “Mebendazole as a Candidate for Drug Repurposing in Oncology: An Extensive Review of Current Literature.” Cancers 11, no. 9 (Aug. 2019): article #1284.

Gary Taubes’s book, praised by Marty Makary and Siddhartha Mukherjee, and mentioned by me near the end of my commentary, is:

Taubes, Gary. Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments. New York: Knopf, 2024.

[I thank Ivette Locay for sending me a link useful for my commentary.]

Mark Twain “Dared to State Things That Others Only Thought”

I have read three of Ron Chernow’s massive biographies, the ones on Rockefeller, Washington, and Hamilton. Because they are massive, reading them takes a long time, at least for a slow reader like me. But I learned a lot that is important or useful from them, especially the ones on Rockefeller and Hamilton. Because I am an admirer of both Chernow and Twain, I look forward to also reading Chernow’s biography of Twain.

(p. C7) More than a century after his death, Mark Twain remains one of the most recognizable voices in American literature—the author of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” (1876), “Life on the Mississippi” (1883) and “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” (1884), the latter among the most consequential novels ever written in English and possibly (if you believe Ernest Hemingway) the source of American literature itself.

. . .

In his biography of the famed satirist, Ron Chernow tracks, with patience and care, Twain’s journey over nearly eight tumultuous decades. Mr. Chernow’s tale is enlivened by blazing quotes from Twain’s prodigious interviews, diaries and letters.  . . .  The quotes tend to burn a hole in the page, and it’s difficult for a biographer to recover. Mr. Chernow, whose lives of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Ulysses S. Grant are revered for their sound scholarship, clear writing and strong narrative drive, weaves Twain’s sizzling remarks almost seamlessly into his own narrative.

We watch as Twain lunges from coast to coast, rolling up and down the Mississippi (as a riverboat pilot in his early days), moving from country to country, writing books and articles, investing large sums in various hair-brained schemes.

. . .

This was, in Twain’s own phrase, the Gilded Age. He admired, even idealized, those who made huge sums of money through their entrepreneurial energy and acumen. He had the same energy, but he didn’t have the right vehicles for speculation nor the business sense to make his investments pay off. As Mr. Chernow observes, Twain could well have enjoyed an easy life of writing and giving lectures, having married a wealthy woman and published several bestsellers. “Instead, he had started a publishing house and financed a typesetter”—the Paige Compositor, which was supposed to replace manual typesetting but failed spectacularly because of engineering flaws—“before he had the expertise or requisite fortune to bring them to completion.” His expenses soon dwarfed his income and he was forced to abandon his Hartford mansion, never to return.

. . .

Twain was “a man who professed to be chronically lazy,” says Mr. Chernow, yet he left behind him a vast portfolio of writings that included 30 books, several thousand magazine articles and some 12,000 letters. “Mark Twain had not only moved people to laughter and tears with his books,” Mr. Chernow writes, “but had challenged them with unorthodox views as he ventured out from his safe cubbyhole as the avuncular humorist. He had dared to state things that others only thought.” It’s because of this bravery, and his peerless gift for expression, that we still value him and will never stop reading his books, which never grow old.

For the full review see:

Jay Parini. “A Most American Writer.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, May 10, 2025): C7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 9, 2025, and has the title “‘Mark Twain’: The Most American Writer.”)

The book under review is:

Chernow, Ron. Mark Twain. New York: The Penguin Press, 2025.

Girls Who Are Skilled in Both STEM and Non-STEM Fields, Usually Prefer Non-STEM Fields

Gender discrimination is not the only explanation for there being more men than women in STEM jobs, according to the research summarized in the passages quoted below.

(p. C3) Scores of surveys over the last 50 years show that women tend to be more interested in careers that involve working with other people while men prefer jobs that involve manipulating objects, whether it is a hammer or a computer. These leanings can be seen in the lab, too. Studies published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in 2016, for example, found that women were more responsive to pictures of people, while men were more responsive to pictures of things.

Consistent with what men and women say they want, the STEM fields with more men, such as engineering and computer science, focus on objects while those with more women, such as psychology and biomedicine, focus on people.

Given the push to get more people—and especially more girls—interested in STEM, it is worth noting that talented students of both sexes tend to avoid a career in math or science if they can pursue something else. STEM jobs aren’t for everyone, regardless of how lucrative they may be.

A study of more than 70,000 high-school students in Greece, published in the Journal of Human Resources in 2024, found that girls on average outperformed boys in both STEM and non-STEM subjects but rarely pursued STEM in college if they were just as strong in other things. A study of middle-aged adults who had been precocious in math as teens, published in the journal Psychological Science in 2014, found that only around a quarter of the men were working in STEM and IT.

Large-scale studies around the world show that women are generally more likely than men to have skills in non-STEM areas, while men who are strong in math and science are often less skilled elsewhere. But while everyone seems to be concerned about whether girls are performing well in STEM classes, no one seems all that troubled by the fact that boys are consistently underperforming in reading and writing.

For the full essay see:

Hippel, William von. “Why Are Girls Less Likely to Become Scientists?” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, March 8, 2025): C3.

(Note: the online version of the essay has the date March 6, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Hippel’s essay, quoted above, is adapted from his book:

Hippel, William von. The Social Paradox: Autonomy, Connection, and Why We Need Both to Find Happiness. New York: Harper, 2025.

The academic study published in the Journal of Human Resources and mentioned above is:

Goulas, Sofoklis, Silvia Griselda, and Rigissa Megalokonomou. “Comparative Advantage and Gender Gap in Stem.” Journal of Human Resources 59, no. 6 (Nov. 2024): 1937-80.

Vinyl LP Records Have Been Mostly Replaced, but in Kansas Not Completely Destroyed

In my Openness book, I argue that Schumpeter’s phrase “creative destruction” misleads by overemphasizing the extent of destruction in the process of breakthrough innovation, so I prefer to call the process “innovative dynamism.” A new innovation is often better than the old in many, but not all, traits. A minority of people who put heavy weight on the traits where the old product is better, will still prefer the old product. If the minority is large enough, and willing to pay enough for their preference, then there will be enough demand for the old product to remain in production, rather than be fully replaced (i.e., destroyed).

Illustrating my point, The New York Times ran two full pages on Chad Kassem, a Kansas entrepreneur who is working hard, with some success, at making higher quality vinyl LP records. He has 114 employees and annual revenue of over $1 million.

He is even introducing incremental innovations to the old product: (p. 6) “Kassem hired veterans of the record-making business and indulged their ideas for modernizing a process that (p. 7) had barely changed since the 1970s. Among other innovations, they introduced computerized controls and found ways to regulate the fluctuating temperature of vinyl in the presses.”

The New York Times article is:

Ben Sisario. “In a Digital World, Pursuing an Ideal Of Perfect Vinyl.” The New York Times, Arts&Leisure Section (Sun., March 9, 2025): 6-7.

(Note: the online version of The New York Times article on the resilience of vinyl was updated March 7, 2025, and has the title “The Wizard of Vinyl Is in Kansas.”)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

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

Muriel Bristol Was Allowed to Act on What She Knew but Was Unable to Prove or Explain

Muriel Bristol knew that tea tasted better when the milk was poured in first, than when it was poured in after the tea. She knew it but couldn’t prove it and didn’t know why it was true. The world is better when more of us, more often, can act on what we know, but what we can neither prove nor explain. Too often regulations restrict the actions of entrepreneurs to what they can prove and explain, e.g., in the firing of employees.

This slows and reduces efficiency and innovation (not to mention freedom).

(p. C8) [Adam] Kucharski, a mathematically trained epidemiologist, says that the rigor and purity of mathematics has imbued it with extraordinary rhetorical power. “In an uncertain world, it is reassuring to think there is at least one field that can provide definitive answers,” he writes. Yet he adds that certainty can sometimes be an illusion. “Even mathematical notions of proof” are “not always as robust and politics-free as they might seem.”

. . .

. . ., proving what is “obvious and simple” isn’t always easy. Kucharski offers the delightful example of Muriel Bristol, a scientist who always put the milk in her cup before pouring her tea, because she insisted it tasted better. In the 1920s, a skeptical statistician designed a blind taste test to see if Bristol could distinguish between cups of milk-then-tea and cups of tea-then-milk. Bristol got all of them right. In 2008, the Royal Society of Chemistry reported that when milk is poured into hot tea, “individual drops separate from the bulk of the milk” and allow “significant denaturation to occur.” The result is a burnt flavor. Eighty years after Bristol was statistically vindicated, she was chemically vindicated too.

For the full review see:

Jennifer Szalai. “Proving It Doesn’t Necessarily Make It True.” The New York Times (Saturday, May 3, 2025): C8.

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

(Note: the online version of the review has the date April 30, 2025, and has the title “Just Because You Can Prove It Doesn’t Make It True.”)

The book under review is:

Kucharski, Adam. Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. New York: Basic Books, 2025.

A Rare Antibody in James Harrison’s Blood Protected the Lives of 2.4 Million Australian Babies

I recently purchased from Amazon, but have not read, Good Blood, which describes the discovery of a cure, and the struggle for acceptance of the cure, for the RH disease sketched in the passages quoted below. The disease affected my family, but I am not sure I remember exactly how. I am Rh positive and I think my mother was Rh negative. I think with each child after me, there was increasing risk and worry of possible bad health effects.

According to the Amazon summary for Good Blood, the book also describes the devotion of master blood donor James Harrison, whose recent obituary is quoted below.

Starting at least in the 1960s medical experts were often optimistic that future medical advances would come from designer chemicals enabled by scientific advances in our knowledge of chemistry and biological processes. Taxpayer funding was devoted to that approach in Nixon’s War on Cancer. But fewer medical advances have come from that approach than hoped, and more advances than expected have continued to come from the evolved usable chemicals (sometimes poisons, sometimes antibodies) of plants, animals, and exceptional human beings like Mr. Harrison.

Mao is often misquoted as saying ‘Let a thousand flowers bloom,’ but someone should say it (at least if the cost of planting the flowers is not too high).

(p. A25) James Harrison did not much care for needles. Whenever he donated plasma, he would look away as the tip went into his arm.

But Mr. Harrison was one of the most prolific donors in history, extending his arm 1,173 times. He may have also been one of the most important: Scientists used a rare antibody in his plasma to make a medication that helped protect an estimated 2.4 million babies in Australia from possible disease or death, medical experts say.

“He just kept going and going and going,” his grandson Jarrod Mellowship said in an interview on Monday [March 3, 2025]. “He didn’t feel like he had to do it. He just wanted to do it.”

. . .

Mr. Harrison’s plasma contained the rare antibody anti-D. Scientists used it to make a medication for pregnant mothers whose immune systems could attack their fetuses’ red blood cells, according to Australian Red Cross Lifeblood.

Anti-D helps protect against problems that can occur when babies and mothers have different blood types, most often if the fetus is “positive” and the mother is “negative,” according to the Cleveland Clinic. (The positive and negative signs are called the Rhesus factor, or Rh factor.)

In such cases, a mother’s immune system might react to the fetus as if it were a foreign threat. That can lead babies to develop a dangerous and potentially fatal condition, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, which can cause anemia and jaundice.

. . .

In Australia, scientists from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne are working to create a synthetic version of the drug using what some have called “James in a Jar,” an antibody that can be made in a lab.

But for now, human donors are essential: The anti-D shots are made with donated plasma, and Mr. Harrison was one of about 200 donors among the 27 million people in Australia, Lifeblood said.

. . .

Mr. Harrison knew the importance of his work firsthand. At 14, he needed a lot of blood transfusions during a major lung surgery. The experience inspired him to donate and encourage others to donate, too.

For the full obituary, see:

Amelia Nierenberg. “James Harrison, Whose Rare Antibodies Helped Millions, Is Dead at 88.” The New York Times (Saturday, March 8, 2025): A25.

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

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated March 7, 2025, and has the title “James Harrison, Whose Antibodies Helped Millions, Dies at 88.”)

The Good Blood book, mentioned above, is:

Guthrie, Julian. Good Blood: A Doctor, a Donor, and the Incredible Breakthrough That Saved Millions of Babies. New York: Harry N. Abrams Press, 2020.

Private Sector Succeeds Where Public Sector Fails at Operating a Successful Passenger Train

The New York Times recently ran a surprising (for them) article highlighting the success of the privately owned Brightline passenger railroad on the east coast of Florida. The Times contrasts the private success of Brightline with the public failures of Amtrak and California’s mostly undone proposed bullet train. Amtrak ran an operating deficit of over $700 million in 2024. The long-planned, barely-begun, pared-back California bullet train is now estimated to require over $100 billion to reach completion.

Maybe Brightline succeeds because the private sector allows entrepreneurs to use what Deirdre McCloskey calls trade-tested innovation to pursue their projects.

The private sector allows innovative dynamism.

The New York Times article is:

Michael Kimmelman. “What’s So Hard About Building High-Speed Trains?” The New York Times (Sat., April 19, 2025): B4-B5.

(Note: the online version of the article was updated April 18, 2025, and has the title “What’s So Hard About Building Trains?”)

McCloskey discusses trade-tested innovation in:

McCloskey, Deirdre N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital, Transformed the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2016.

I discuss innovative dynamism in:

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

A World with No Tariffs, No Barriers, No Subsidies

Art Laffer and Stephen Moore had an op-ed a few weeks ago in which they encouraged Donald Trump to be the best version of himself on the tariff and trade issue. Trump has made inconsistent statements on tariffs and trade. Sometimes his goal seems to be to seek long-term tariffs that bring in substantial revenue. But his best version seeks a mutual reduction in tariffs to zero–a world of free trade, which when combined with deregulation and downsizing of government will allow entrepreneurs to innovate and trade so that we all flourish.

The best version of Trump is the one who spoke the following words in 2018 at a meeting of the Group of Seven in Quebec:

“No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, ‘no tariffs.’ . . . Ultimately, that’s what you want. You want tariff-free, no barriers and you want no subsidies.” (Trump as quoted in Laffer and Moore 2023, p. A17)

Source of quote:

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. “A Win-Win Exit Strategy For Trump on Tariffs.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., April 8, 2025): A17.

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 7, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

(Note: Stephen Moore wrote a nice blurb for my Openness book.

Killer Conservationists

I have not read Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation, but from its title and description it sounds like it documents an important and under-appreciated point. The point is that to “conserve” some species, so-called “conservationists” sometimes kill large numbers of the members of other species. (See, e.g., my blog entry on west coast “conservationists” killing massive numbers of one kind of brown owl in order to preserve a similar species of brown owl.)

Species ebb and flow. This was true before humanity arrived and is still true now. “Conservationists” anoint some species as “indigenous” and others as “invasive,” which can only be done if some particular arbitrary moment is taken as the one that must be preserved or returned-to.

The book that looks promising is:

Warwick, Hugh. Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation. London: Bloomsbury Wildlife, 2024.