Entrepreneurship – Page 6 – artdiamondblog.com

The Ingenuity of Scientists and Entrepreneurs Can Find New Uses for the Previously Useless or Underutilitized

(p. D2) It may be unpleasant to contemplate the ultimate fate of all the material from your own body that you flush down the pipes. But it’s time we talk about biosolids — the disinfected leftovers from the water treatment process.

This sandy material contains nutrient-rich organic content that’s good for agriculture. But it also makes nice bricks, according to Abbas Mohajerani, a civil engineer at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University in Australia. He’s talking about the kind we use for building.

“Biosolids bricks look the same, smell the same and have similar physical and mechanical properties as normal fired clay bricks,” he said.

For the full story see:

JoAnna Klein. “Ultimate Recycling: When You Flushed The Toilet, They Made A Few Bricks.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 5, 2019 [sic]): D2.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 31, 2019 [sic], and has the title “You Flushed the Toilet. They Made Some Bricks.” Where the versions differ, the passages quoted above are from the more detailed online version.)

Mohajerani’s co-authored academic article proposing that human manure can usefully be turned into bricks for buildings is:

Mohajerani, Abbas, Aruna Ukwatta, Tristan Jeffrey-Bailey, Michael Swaney, Mohtashim Ahmed, Glen Rodwell, Simon Bartolo, Nicky Eshtiaghi, and Sujeeva Setunge. “A Proposal for Recycling the World’s Unused Stockpiles of Treated Wastewater Sludge (Biosolids) in Fired-Clay Bricks.” Buildings 9, no. 1 (2019): article #14.

Bioprospecting Tweaks Venom to Cure Diseases

(p. C3) One of the earliest treatments for ailments from gout to baldness was apitherapy, the medical application of bee venom, which was used in ancient Greece, China and Egypt. The ancient Greeks associated snakes and their venoms with medicine through the god Asclepius, whose followers prescribed venoms as cures and whose staff had a snake wrapped around it—the inspiration for the well-known symbol of medicine today.

Even so, scientists have only recently started to intensively explore the healing powers of venom. “In the 1980s and ’90s, people weren’t saying, ‘We should use venoms as a drug source,’ ” says Glenn King, a biologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. That changed at the beginning of this century: Scientists started to look at venoms as “complex molecular libraries,” he says. The bodily mechanisms that venoms derail often turn out to be the same ones that we need to manipulate to cure deadly diseases.

. . .

Chemical engineers have taken to mining living organisms, fine-tuning their chemicals to be more potent and precise. This process, known as bioprospecting, has had increasing appeal for scientists eager to tackle incurable diseases. Bioprospecting involves selecting a species with a type of venom known to have a specific effect on the human body—say, a snake with venom that causes a steep drop in blood pressure. The scientists will adjust the level of the toxin or tweak it biochemically so that it becomes not harmful but therapeutic.

. . .

Cancer is a natural target, and treatments may be lurking not just in scorpion venom but in the venoms of bees, snakes, snails, and even mammals. A compound derived from venomous shrews concluded a Phase I trial last year. This innovative peptide blocks a calcium channel called TRPV6, which is abundant in cancer cells, starving them of an essential element needed to grow and divide.

. . .

Each venomous animal is an artisanal mixologist, crafting chemical cocktails that can contain thousands of ingredients. The wealth of potential in venoms—each with its unique recipe—is hard to overstate.

For the full commentary see:

Christie Wilcox. “The Healing Powers of Venom.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, July 23, 2016 [sic]): C3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated July 25, 2016 [sic], and has the title “The Healing Power of Venom.”)

The commentary quoted above is related to the author’s book:

Wilcox, Christie. Venomous: How Earth’s Deadliest Creatures Mastered Biochemistry. New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016.

In Middle Ages the Less Credentialed Offered “Daily Care,” While “Experts” Theorized

(p. 12) A new book about medieval views on medicine helps explain the Oby nuns’ contentment with the cheapness of their lives. In “Medieval Bodies: Life and Death in the Middle Ages,” the British art historian Jack Hartnell tackles a difficult phenomenon: the medieval embrace of medical “theories that have since been totally disproven to the point of absurdity but which nevertheless could not have seemed more vivid or logical in the Middle Ages.”

The doctors of Europe and the Mediterranean were not practical specialists but rather scholars of Greek and Roman natural philosophy, which taught a theory of nature composed of four basic elements (fire, water, earth, air). Each was associated with differing levels of moisture and heat. The human body contained four viscous liquids or “humors”: phlegm, blood, yellow bile and black bile. A doctor’s job was to correct an uneven humoral balance, drying up perceived wetness with spices or relieving an excess of heat with cooling herbs.

While experts promulgated theory, daily care was mostly administered by midwives, apothecaries, dentists and the odd entrepreneurial carpenter. A local barber might puncture your neck to drain three pints of blood if you complained of a headache.

For the full review see:

Josephine Livingstone. “Death by a Thousand Cuts.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, January 5, 2020 [sic]): 12.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Nov. 19, 2019 [sic], and has the title “Bad Bishops, Bloodletting and a Plague of Caterpillars.”)

The book under review is:

Hartnell, Jack. Medieval Bodies: Life and Death in the Middle Ages. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Formal and Tacit Knowledge Are Located in Different Parts of the Brain

Brenda Milner turned 106 on July 15, 2024.

(p. D5) At 98, Dr. Milner is not letting up in a nearly 70-year career to clarify the function of many brain regions — frontal lobes, and temporal; vision centers and tactile; the left hemisphere and the right — usually by painstakingly testing people with brain lesions, often from surgery. Her prominence long ago transcended gender, and she is impatient with those who expect her to be a social activist. It’s science first with Dr. Milner, say close colleagues, in her lab and her life.

Perched recently on a chair in her small office, resplendent in a black satin dress and gold floral pin and banked by moldering towers of old files, she volleyed questions rather than answering them. “People think because I’m 98 years old I must be emerita,” she said. “Well, not at all. I’m still nosy, you know, curious.”

. . .

Dr. Milner changed the course of brain science for good as a newly minted Ph.D. in the 1950s by identifying the specific brain organ that is crucial to memory formation.

She did so by observing the behavior of a 29-year-old Connecticut man who had recently undergone an operation to relieve severe epileptic seizures. The operation was an experiment: On a hunch, the surgeon suctioned out two trenches of tissue from the man’s brain, one from each of his medial temporal lobes, located deep below the skull about level with the ears. The seizures subsided.

But the patient, an assembly line worker named Henry Molaison, was forever altered. He could no longer form new memories.

. . .

In a landmark 1957 paper Dr. Milner wrote with Mr. Molaison’s surgeon, she concluded that the medial temporal areas — including, importantly, an organ called the hippocampus — must be critical to memory formation. That finding, though slow to sink in, would upend the accepted teaching at the time, which held that no single area was critical to supporting memory.

Dr. Milner continued to work with Mr. Molaison and later showed that his motor memory was intact: He remembered how to perform certain physical drawing tests, even if he had no memory of learning them.

The finding, reported in 1962, demonstrated that there are at least two systems in the brain for processing memory: one that is explicit and handles names, faces and experiences; and another that is implicit and incorporates skills, like riding a bike or playing a guitar.

“I clearly remember to this day my excitement, sitting there with H. M. and watching this beautiful learning curve develop right there in front of me,” Dr. Milner said. “I knew very well I was witnessing something important.”

. . .

For Dr. Milner, after a lifetime exploring the brain, the motive for the work is personal as well as professional. “I live very close; it’s a 10-minute walk up the hill,” she said. “So it gives me a good reason to come in regularly.”

For the full story see:

Benedict Carey. “At 98, ‘Still Nosy’ About the Brain.” The New York Times (Tuesday, May 16, 2017 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 15, 2017 [sic], and has the title “Brenda Milner, Eminent Brain Scientist, Is ‘Still Nosy’ at 98.”)

The “landmark 1957 paper” mentioned above is:

Scoville, William Beecher, and Brenda Milner. “Loss of Recent Memory after Bilateral Hippocampal Lesions.” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 20, no. 1 (Feb. 1957): 11-21.

Allowing Entrepreneurial Physicians to Improvise Can Save Patient Lives, Especially for Rare Conditions

The article quoted below makes the case, by example, that drugs that would be rejected based on early randomized double-blind clinical trials, can be revived by clever trial-and-error adjustments. Such improvisations saved the life of Magglio Boscarino, whose body began to develop antibodies that attacked the medicine that had been successfully treating his rare Pompe disease. Emil Freireich used trial-and-error adjustments to develop the chemo cocktail that cured many of childhood leukemia. He mentored Vincent DeVita who used trial-and-error adjustments to develop the chemo cocktails that cured many of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Another approach, advocated by Dr. Ridker in a passage below, is to learn which patients will be able to take the drug with developing resistance to it–a form of personalized medicine that does not seem easily compatible with the oft-claimed “gold standard” of randomized double blind clinical trials.

(p. D1) The miracle treatment that should have saved Becka Boscarino’s baby boy almost killed him.

Doctors diagnosed her newborn son, Magglio, with Pompe disease, a rare and deadly genetic disorder that leads to a buildup of glycogen in the body. Left untreated, the baby would probably die before his first birthday.

There is just one treatment: a series of infusions. But after the boy received his fifth dose, he turned blue, stopped breathing and slipped into anaphylactic shock.

The problem? Eventually doctors discovered that Magglio’s body was producing antibodies to the very drug saving his life.

. . .

In a paper published in March [2017] by The New England Journal of Medicine, Pfizer reported that in the final phase of testing a new drug to lower cholesterol, many of the 30,000 patients taking it had stopped re-(p. D6)sponding to it.

Their cholesterol levels, which had plunged when they began taking the drug, were rising again. As it turned out, the subjects had begun making antibodies to the drug.

Pfizer was forced to stop the trial and pull the drug after investing billions of dollars.

. . .

By the time Magglio was 6 months old, he was weak and lacked muscle tone. Then came the diagnosis of Pompe disease and the beginning of his treatments, infusions with an enzyme his body was failing to make.

At first, Magglio improved. Within a few months, he was learning to sit up and to use his arms. His enlarged heart was shrinking. But his fifth treatment was a disaster.

He fell into anaphylactic shock and stopped breathing.

. . .

Magglio was hardly alone: Most babies with Pompe disease who received the only available treatment soon produced antibodies that rendered it useless.

“We tried everything, but these babies did not make it,” said Dr. Priya Kishnani, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University.

Dr. Kishnani realized she had to find a way to trick the immune system so it would leave the infused protein alone. Her idea was to give the babies a chemotherapy drug, rituximab, that wipes out cells that develop into antibody producers.

Along with it, she tried giving the children methotrexate, which destroys many of the body’s white blood cells, and infusions of antibodies from pooled donors’ serum so the children would have a way to fight off infections.

And for babies like Magglio, who already were making antibodies that blocked the drug they need, she added another drug — bortezomib — to eliminate those antibody-producing cells.

As the children’s immune systems were brought under control, the treatments began to work again. “It was breathtaking,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We were able to rescue these babies.”

. . .

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, cardiologist Dr. Paul Ridker, who directed the Pfizer study, is taking a different tack.

He wants to do a large genetic study to see if he can predict which patients will develop antibodies to the Pfizer drug and perhaps to other drugs that the immune system might see as foreign.

“We probably have the best opportunity ever afforded to understand the cause of these antibodies,” Dr. Ridker said. “That would be very valuable for the development of future drugs if you could say, ‘This one patient out of 20 should not take this drug.’”

It would mean, too, that drugs that might have been abandoned could be developed for the patients who can tolerate them.

For the full story see:

Gina Kolata. “When the Body Rejects the Treatment.” The New York Times (Tuesday, May 16, 2017 [sic]): D1 & D6.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 15, 2017 [sic], and has the title “When the Immune System Thwarts Lifesaving Drugs.”)

The 2017 paper reporting the failed Pfizer clinical trial and mentioned above is:

Ridker, Paul M, Jean-Claude Tardif, Pierre Amarenco, William Duggan, Robert J. Glynn, J. Wouter Jukema, John J.P. Kastelein, Albert M. Kim, Wolfgang Koenig, Steven Nissen, James Revkin, Lynda M. Rose, Raul D. Santos, Pamela F. Schwartz, Charles L. Shear, and Carla Yunis. “Lipid-Reduction Variability and Antidrug-Antibody Formation with Bococizumab.” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 16 (April 20, 2017): 1517-26.

Noncredentialled Intense Outsider Duggan Brings Two Blockbuster Cancer Drugs to Market

(p. B11) There is a myth that making money in biotechnology stocks requires an advanced degree. But Bob Duggan, an avid surfer who never graduated from college, has proven that notion wrong. Twice.

Duggan’s latest investment, Summit Therapeutics SMMT 9.25%increase; green up pointing triangle, has become one of the industry’s greatest bets in recent years. The stock is up more than 1,000% in the past 12 months thanks to data from a late-stage trial that showed that its drug, Ivonescimab, beat Merck’s blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda in patients with a form of lung cancer. Duggan, who was already a billionaire before the Summit investment, is now worth about $16 billion, according to Forbes data.

There is much still to be worked out with the drug, which Summit licensed from Chinese biotech Akeso in 2022. For starters, investors are eager to see how it performs in global trials outside of China. What is remarkable about Summit’s success so far, though, is that this isn’t even Duggan’s first time making billions in biotech.

About 20 years ago, Duggan, a member of the Church of Scientology, began acquiring shares in a little-known biotech company called Pharmacyclics. He was drawn to the company’s cancer drug Xcytrin because of a personal loss: his son’s death from brain cancer. Pharmacyclics ultimately dropped the development of Xcytrin after multiple setbacks but went on to develop leukemia blockbuster Imbruvica. In 2015, AbbVie paid $21 billion for the company.

. . .

Nathan Vardi, author of “For Blood and Money,” which chronicles the development of Imbruvica and a competitor molecule, says that during his research he noticed that many people in biotech circles thought Duggan simply got lucky. While luck certainly plays a big role in the binary world of drug development, few would stick to that argument now.

So what is his secret? One thing Vardi points to is the ability to know when to retreat and when to go all in on an investment. “Duggan has a lifetime of experience making big bets with his own money on the line and figuring out when to hold or fold,” he wrote in an email. “Nobody gets these things completely right, but I think we have to admit he’s doing really well.”

Duggan, who built successful businesses in baking and robotics before jumping into biotechnology, suggests that the naivete of an outsider, combined with the intensity he brings to whatever he does, allowed him to try unconventional things. Nathan Vardi, author of “For Blood and Money,” which chronicles the development of Imbruvica and a competitor molecule, says that during his research he noticed that many people in biotech circles thought Duggan simply got lucky. While luck certainly plays a big role in the binary world of drug development, few would stick to that argument now.

So what is his secret? One thing Vardi points to is the ability to know when to retreat and when to go all in on an investment. “Duggan has a lifetime of experience making big bets with his own money on the line and figuring out when to hold or fold,” he wrote in an email. “Nobody gets these things completely right, but I think we have to admit he’s doing really well.”

Duggan, who built successful businesses in baking and robotics before jumping into biotechnology, suggests that the naivete of an outsider, combined with the intensity he brings to whatever he does, allowed him to try unconventional things.

For the full commentary see:

David Wainer. “Heard on the Street; An Outsider Crashes the Biotech Party.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Sept. 24, 2024): B11.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date September 23, 2024, and has the title “Heard on the Street; How a Surfer Who Never Finished College Became a Biotech Billionaire.” The sentence starting with “Léon Bottou” appears in the online, but not the print, version. Where there are small differences between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

The book by Vardi mentioned above is:

Vardi, Nathan. For Blood and Money: Billionaires, Biotech, and the Quest for a Blockbuster Drug. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2023.

Refrigeration Preserves Three-Quarters of Food Americans Eat

(p. 10) Consider the improbable fact of the supermarket banana. In “Frostbite,” an exploration of the vast system known as the cold chain, the journalist Nicola Twilley follows the banana through a “seamless network of thermal control.” This series of refrigerated trucks, rail cars, shipping containers and warehouses ends in the ripening room, with its temperature gauges and gas immersion baths, all to meet our demand for ripe tropical fruit in all seasons. “Produce is a labor of love,” a warehouse owner tells her. “I tell people that working here is like a face tattoo — you’ve got to be really sure you want it.”

Twilley is a food and health reporter who has studied cold and refrigeration for many years.

. . .

The home refrigerator is barely a century old. Twilley is shown how simple it is to build one, and then tells us just why it took so long to figure out. Early efforts were bent toward making ice with giant and dangerous machinery; breakthroughs in the use of vacuum pumps and compressors “cut out the middleman” of the ice itself.

. . .

One story leads into another. A technology invented to dry photographic film at Eastman Kodak led first to the extraction of fish oil and, eventually, bagged salad.

. . .

. . .; I found this book hard to put down. The startling statistics — the cold chain preserves almost three-quarters of the food Americans eat; American households open the fridge door an average of 107 times a day — separate tales of unsung scientists. We meet the self-taught engineer Fred Jones, who invented the first mobile mechanical refrigeration unit, expanding the speed and size of the cold chain. Twilley also introduces the physicist Barbara Pratt, who perfected the refrigerated shipping container by traveling the world in one.

For the full review see:

Sallie Tisdale. “Freeze Frame.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, August 4, 2024): 9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date June 24, 2024, and has the title “Have Refrigerators Spoiled Everything?”)

The book under review is:

Twilley, Nicola. Frostbite: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves. New York: Penguin Press, 2024.

Charter School Founder Stood Up to “Education Bureaucrats”

The NYT ran an inspiring obituary for Joseph H. Reich last Tuesday. Reich and his wife were pioneers in the Charter School initiative. The obituary quotes them as saying that they were able to afford to send their own children to private school, but poor parents who want better for their children than what is on offer by the government public schools could not afford a similar option. They were quoted as saying “We recoil against this injustice.” They created one of the first charter schools and also donated $10 million for general support of charter schools. The obituary says that they stood up against “vigorous pushback from education bureaucrats.”

For the full obituary see:

Trip Gabriel. “Joseph H. Reich, 89, Pioneer of New York City’s Charter Schools, Dies.” The New York Times (Tuesday, October 15, 2024): A21.

In Walt Disney’s Disneyland Youth Could “Savor the Challenge and Promise of the Future”

(p. 12) President Dwight D. Eisenhower once praised Walt Disney for his “genius as a creator of folklore.” When Disney died in 1966, the line made it into his obituary, evidence of its accuracy. Folklore, defined broadly, is an oral tradition that stretches across generations. It tells people who they are, how they got here and how they should live in the future. The company Disney created appointed itself keeper of these traditions for Americans, spinning up fresh tales and (more often) deftly repackaging old ones to appeal to a new century.

It started with Mickey Mouse, but as his company turns 100, Disney’s legacy — advanced in hundreds of films and shorts and shows, mass-produced tie-in merchandise, marvelous technical advancements, gargantuan theme parks around the world — was the production of a modern shared language, a set of reference points instantly recognizable to almost everyone, and an encouragement to dream out loud about a utopian future. Walt Disney was a man who gazed backward and forward: speaking at the opening of Disneyland in 1955, he proclaimed: “Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future.” . . .

Disney told stories of folk heroes (Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan), princes and princesses, and even, occasionally, a mouse, all while leading the pack on ever-shifting technologies. (He was, among other things, the first major movie producer to make a TV show.) A sense of optimism ruled Disney’s ethos, built on homemade mythologies. The lessons of his stories were simple, uplifting and distinctly American: believe in yourself, believe in your dreams, don’t let anyone make you feel bad for being you, be your own hero and, most of all, don’t be afraid to wish upon a star. Fairy tales and legends are often disquieting, but once cast in a Disney light they became soft and sweet, their darker and less comforting lessons re-engineered to fit the Disney ideal. It was a distinctly postwar vision of the world.

And we ate it up, and we exported it, and we wanted to be part of it, too.

For the full commentary see:

Alissa Wilkinson. “The Wonderful World of Disney?” The New York Times, Arts&Leisure Section (Sunday, December 17, 2023): 12 & 14.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Dec. 18, 2023, and has the title “Disney Is a Language. Do We Still Speak It?”)

Trust Ventures Engages in “Trench Warfare” Against Regulations Binding the Firms It Finances

(p. A15) Another “Ghostbusters” movie is in theaters, but what we need are regulation busters. I spoke with Salen Churi and Brooke Fallon from Trust Ventures, a $500 million Texas-based venture-capital firm. It’s almost as if they are wearing plasma proton packs.

. . .

Trust Ventures came together, Mr. Churi said, because no one thinks “ ‘I hate innovation,’ except perhaps for incumbents. We have crises in the most human of industries—energy, healthcare, housing. Everyone thought I was nuts. They’re like, ‘Why would you invest in companies with regulatory problems?’ ” Good question.

Most venture capitalists invest and help startups with new strategies and hiring a team. Mr. Churi describes what he does as “trench warfare,” fighting with regulators and incumbents deal by deal.

. . .

Mr. Churi explains that “when you get a great new technology that’s fundamentally different, regulators just want to shove you in the old box, right? Our challenge is to say, ‘Well, actually, this needs a new box.’ Otherwise, it’s going to sit on the shelf.”

Eye exams are a great example of an old box. The American Optometric Association is powerful, and many states banned online vision tests. “Regulators don’t care about all those single mothers who have to pay three times as much or that people in Central Illinois have to drive three hours,” Mr. Churi says.

The pandemic loosened telehealth rules, providing an opening to test your eyes with your own smartphone. As lockdowns ended, Trust Ventures worked with the startup Visibly in several states to legalize online eye exams permanently. They got help from their investors network—some of their limited partners “are great American families,” Mr. Churi says. Visibly’s Food and Drug Administration-approved online eye tests, now in 36 states, cost as little as $35 instead of three times as much at LensCrafters or box-store-located optometrists.

For the full commentary see:

Andy Kessler. “Inside View; America’s New Regulation Busters.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, April 15, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 14, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

People Thinking about the Rules They Have to Obey, Are Not Thinking about the Problems They Have to Solve

(p. A18) . . . I looked into the growing bureaucratization of American life. It’s not only that growing bureaucracies cost a lot of money; they also enervate American society. They redistribute power from workers to rule makers, and in so doing sap initiative, discretion, creativity and drive.

Once you start poking around, the statistics are staggering. Over a third of all health care costs go to administration. As the health care expert David Himmelstein put it in 2020, “The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy.” All of us who have been entangled in the medical system know why administrators are there: to wrangle over coverage for the treatments doctors think patients need.

. . .

In every organization I’ve interacted with, the administrators genuinely want to serve the mission of the organization, but the nature of their jobs is to enforce compliance with this or that rule.

Their power is similar to what Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has called the “time tax.” If you’ve ever fought a health care, corporate or university bureaucracy, you quickly realize you don’t have the time for it, so you give up. I don’t know about you, but my health insurer sometimes denies my family coverage for things that seem like obvious necessities, but I let it go unless it’s a major expense. I calculate that my time is more valuable.

As Philip K. Howard has been arguing for years, good organizations give people discretion to do what is right. But the trend in public and private sector organizations has been to write rules that rob people of the power of discretion. These are two different mentalities. As Howard writes, “Studies of cognitive overload suggest that the real problem is that people who are thinking about rules actually have diminished capacity to think about solving problems.”

. . .

. . ., Mark Edmundson teaches literature at the University of Virginia. The annual self-evaluations he had to submit used to be one page. Now he has to fill out about 15 electronic pages of bureaucratese that include demonstrating how his work advances D.E.I., to make sure his every waking moment conforms to the reigning ideology.

In a recent essay in Liberties Journal, he illustrates how administrators control campus life . . .

. . .

Organizations are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits, but the whole administrative apparatus comes with an implied view of human nature. People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lives. They have to be trained never to take initiative, lest they wander off into activities that are deemed by the authorities to be out of bounds.

The result is the soft despotism that Tocqueville warned us about centuries ago, a power that “is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.” In his Liberties essay, Edmundson writes that this kind of power is now centerless. Presidents and executives don’t run companies, universities or nations. Power is now held by everyone who issues work surveys and annual reports, the people who create H.R. trainings and collect data. He concludes: “They are using the terms of liberation to bring more and more free people closer to mental serfdom. Some day they will awaken in a cage of their own devising, so harshly confining that even they, drunk on their own virtue, will have to notice how their lives are the lives of snails tucked in their shells.”

Trumpian populism is about many things, but one of them is this: working-class people rebelling against administrators. It is about people who want to lead lives of freedom, creativity and vitality, who find themselves working at jobs, sending their kids to schools and visiting hospitals, where they confront “an immense and tutelary power” (Tocqueville’s words) that is out to diminish them.