Category: Entrepreneurship

Affordable Methods for Countering CO2 in Atmosphere

(p. A13) A new study partly funded by Bill Gates has dramatically cut the estimated cost of removing CO2 directly from the air to as little as $100 a ton. According to the study, much of this expense could be recaptured by converting the CO2 into low-carbon motor fuel.
Assume California recovered 80% of its costs. For $500 billion a year, or 20% of state gross domestic product, California could solve the alleged problem for the whole world, reducing global emissions by half and meeting the widely touted goal of holding warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius according to prevailing climate models.
Too speculative? Too expensive? Many classic studies suggest that, at a cost as low as $2 billion a year, any highly motivated actor, even one with pockets less deep than California’s, could offset the entire warming effect of excess CO2 by distributing enough high-altitude sulfates or other aerosol particles to limit by 1% the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface. Indeed, experts quietly acknowledge that, by reducing such particulates, our clean-air efforts have actually made our climate problem worse.

For the full commentary, see:
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “If California Was Serious About Climate; Its pockets are deep enough to cool the planet if politicians believe their doom-mongering.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Sept. 1, 2018): A13.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Aug. 31, 2018.)

The study, partly funded by Bill Gates, that is mentioned above, is:

Keith, David W., Geoffrey Holmes, David St. Angelo, and Kenton Heidel. “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere.” Joule 2, no. 8 (Aug. 15, 2018): 1573-94.

Cancer Cure Progress Has Been “Painfully Incremental”

(p. A15) Hopes were high in 1971 when President Richard M. Nixon called for a War on Cancer. The disease was as pernicious as it was mysterious, claiming more American lives each year in the 1960s than had perished in combat during all of World War II. Still, it wasn’t hard to imagine medical experts coming up with a cure. After all, hadn’t the country just put a man on the moon?
Almost 50 years later, the war rages on. Decades of hard work and grand promises have yielded more disappointments than breakthroughs. Reliable treatments remain elusive, and researchers still aren’t sure why some people get the disease and others don’t, why some die while others survive. In “Cancerland: A Medical Memoir,” David Scadden offers a personal account of the inspiring but often exasperating hunt for solutions to the profound problem of cancer.
. . .
. . . moving science forward “to create better clinical approaches,” Dr. Scadden writes, “is an almost painfully incremental affair.” This puts physicians in the awkward position of having to explain the slow pace of research to dying patients, many of whom hope that a miraculous new drug or therapy awaits them if they can just hold on for another year or two. This is not a crazy idea. Dr. Scadden’s own mother, who died of colon cancer in 1985, might have survived if certain studies were completed five years sooner. But most clinical trials come to nothing, particularly in cancer. Many patients are stuck with the same interventions that have been around for decades: surgery, radiation and toxic chemotherapy. The miserable side effects can sometimes make life only marginally better than death.

For the full review, see:
Emily Bobrow. “BOOKSHELF; Reason to Hope.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Aug. 2, 2018): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Aug. 1, 2018, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; ‘Cancerland’ Review: Reason to Hope.”)

The book under review, is:
Scadden, David, and Michael D’Antonio. Cancerland: A Medical Memoir. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2018.

Carl Reiner Says Having a Project Motivates Vibrant Longevity

(p. 6B) LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ask 12-time Emmy Award winner Carl Reiner how it feels to be nominated again, and he fires back a wisecrack.
. . .
Reiner is nominated as host-narrator of “If You’re Not in the Obit, Eat Breakfast,” a documentary about how perennial high achievers, including Mel Brooks and Tony Bennett, both 92, stay vibrant.
. . .
Reiner, the oldest-ever Emmy nominee, is willing to look in the rearview mirror, but only to fuel new work.
“When I finish anything, I have to start a new project or I have no reason to get up. Most people are that way — if they have something to do, they hang around,” said Reiner.

For the full story, see:
LYNN ELBER for the Associated Press. “Comedy Legend Carl Reiner Turns His Emmy Shot into a Punchline.” Omaha World-Herald (Monday, Aug. 27, 201): 6B.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Self-Driving Cars Would Give Amazing Autonomy to the Blind

Self-driving car YouTube video mentioned in the article quoted below.

(p. 1A) In 2012, Steve Mahan, who is blind, climbed into the driver’s seat of a self-driving car and rolled up to the drive-thru of a Taco Bell in a video that’s been viewed more than 8 million times online.
The piece, produced by Google, captured the potential of autonomous-car technology to change the lives of the visually impaired.
“It was my first time behind the steering wheel in seven years and was absolutely amazing,” Mahan said.
Self-driving-car advocates say that in addition to helping the disabled, the vehicles will allow people to do other tasks while driving and make roadways safer by removing human error.

For the full story, see:
JASON DEAREN for the Associated Press. “Driverless Cars Give Hope to Blind, but Are Automakers Onboard Yet?” Omaha World-Herald (Monday, Apr. 16, 2018): 8A.

“I’d Rather Be Optimistic and Wrong than Pessimistic and Right”

(p. A17) There is no question that Tesla’s culture is different from that of conventional automakers or even other Silicon Valley companies — . . . . That is largely by Mr. Musk’s design, and certainly reflects his outsize presence. His web appearance late Thursday [Sept. 6, 2018] was the latest evidence.
He was the guest of the comedian Joe Rogan, an advocate for legalizing marijuana, and the repartee included an exchange over what Mr. Musk was smoking.
“Is that a joint, or is it a cigar?” Mr. Musk asked after his host took out a large joint and lit it up.
“It’s marijuana inside of tobacco,” Mr. Rogan replied, and he asked if Mr. Musk had ever had it.
“Yeah, I think I tried one once,” he replied, laughing.
The comedian then asked if smoking on air would cause issues with stockholders, to which Mr. Musk responded, “It’s legal, right?” He then proceeded to take a puff. Marijuana is legal for medical and recreational use in California, where the interview was recorded.
After Mr. Musk announced on Aug. 7 that he intended to take Tesla private at $420 a share, there was speculation that the figure was chosen because “420” is a code for marijuana in the drug subculture.
In an interview with The New York Times while the gambit was still in play, Mr. Musk didn’t deny a connection. But he did try to clarify his state of mind in hatching the plan — and the shortcomings of mind-altering.
“It seemed like better karma at $420 than at $419,” he said. “But I was not on weed, to be clear. Weed is not helpful for productivity. There’s a reason for the word ‘stoned.’ You just sit there like a stone on weed.”
. . .
If he is feeling any insecurity, it was not reflected in his webcast with Mr. Rogan. He appeared at ease, sipping whiskey, and spoke, at one point, about artificial intelligence and how it could not be controlled.
“You kind of have to be optimistic about the future,” Mr. Musk said. “There’s no point in being pessimistic. I’d rather be optimistic and wrong than pessimistic and right.”

For the full story, see:
Neal E. Boudette. “‘Tesla Stock Dips As Musk Puffs On … What?” The New York Times (Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018): A1 & A17.
(Note: ellipses in quotes, and bracketed date, added; ellipsis in title, in original.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 7, 2018, and has the title “‘Tesla Shaken by a Departure and What Elon Musk Was Smoking.”)

Uncredentialed Entrepreneur Innovated to Save Babies

(p. 1A) He showed up in Omaha 120 summers ago, another unknown showman hoping to make a name for himself at this city’s biggest-ever event, its world’s fair.

He gave his name as Martin Couney, or sometimes Martin Coney. It wasn’t, at least not yet.
He said he was a doctor, a European doctor, a protégé of the world’s finest doctors. He was none of these things.
And yet in Omaha, Dr. Couney set up shop in a little white building on the east midway, not far from the Wild West Show, the Middle Eastern dancers, the roaming fortune tellers and the Indian Congress starring a Native American chief named Geronimo.
The fair, officially known as the Trans-Mississippi and International (p. 2A) Exposition, showcased all manner of things seen as strange, exotic and otherworldly to the 2 million Nebraskans and visitors paying the 50-cent admission to have their minds blown in the summer of 1898.
Couney thought he had just the thing to blow their minds.

“Infant Incubators with Living Infants” read the sign above the entrance.

“A Wonderful Invention … Live Babies” said another.
. . .
Usually the experts are right. That’s why they are experts,” says Dawn Raffel, author of the “The Strange Case of Dr. Couney,” a new biography seeking to save this once-famed faux doctor from history’s trash bin. “But occasionally you get an outlier like this. Someone who is extraordinarily inventive. Who brings us something incredible.”
What Dr. Couney gave us, through decades of work and tireless promotion, was an understanding that we could save babies that since the beginning of time had died before they crawled. We could save them using a piece of equipment designed by a French engineer who realized that if an egg could be nurtured in an incubator, then so could a newborn.
. . .
Newspapers, including The World-Herald, largely ignored the exhibit, Raffel says. The public didn’t seem particularly bothered that a “doctor” had decided to house anonymous newborns on the fairgrounds and put them on public display.
They also didn’t seem particularly interested, either.
. . .
Raffel estimates that Couney and his doctors and nurses saved between 6,500 and 7,000 premature babies all on their own during decades of midway work. But they saved countless thousands more by raising the profile of premature babies. By raising the hope that they could grow into healthy, happy adults.
. . .
“I find him fascinating because he was such a complicated man,” Raffel says. “He deserves more credit.”

For the full story, see:
Hansen, Matthew. “Tech Costs Force Honda To Let Go of Engineering Legacy.” Omaha World-Herald (Friday, Aug. 3, 2018): 1A-2A.
(Note: ellipses between paragraphs, added; ellipsis internal to sentence, in original.)

The Raffel book on which the passages quoted are partially based, is:
Raffel, Dawn. The Strange Case of Dr. Couney: How a Mysterious European Showman Saved Thousands of American Babies. New York: Blue Rider Press, 2018.

Soichiro Honda Rushed Prototype Car “in Defiance of a Planned Japanese Law”

(p. A10) For many Japanese, Honda reflected the originality and self-confidence that turned the country into an industrial powerhouse after World War II.
. . .
The company was founded in 1946 by Soichiro Honda, a tinkerer who loved to battle the giants with his own innovations. He and a dozen workers took engines intended for small electric generators and attached them to bicycles, the first Honda product. Within 15 years, a Honda motorcycle was beating European rivals at the Isle of Man motorcycle race.
Around that time, Mr. Honda rushed out a prototype automobile despite having almost no experience in building them, in defiance of a planned Japanese law that would have restricted entry in the market.

For the full story, see:
Sean McLain. “Tech Costs Force Honda To Let Go of Engineering Legacy.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Aug. 6, 2018): A1 & A10.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 5, 2018, and has the title “Honda Took Pride in Doing Everything Itself. The Cost of Technology Made That Impossible.”)

Ridiculed Nathan Myhrvold Perseveres on Asteroids and Is Vindicated

Nathan Myhrvold has also been ridiculed on his entrepreneurial patent clearinghouse (called Intellectual Ventures), and on his geoengineering solution to global warming.

(p. D1) Thousands of asteroids are passing through Earth’s neighborhood all the time. Although the odds of a direct hit on the planet any time soon are slim, even a small asteroid the size of a house could explode with as much energy as an atomic bomb.

So scientists at NASA are charged with scanning the skies for such dangerous space rocks. If one were on a collision course with our planet, information about how big it is and what it’s made of would be essential for deflecting it, or calculating the destruction if it hits.
For the last couple of years, Nathan P. Myhrvold, a former chief technologist at Microsoft with a physics doctorate from Princeton, has roiled the small, congenial community of asteroid scientists by saying they know less than they think about these near-Earth objects. He argues that a trove of data from NASA they rely on is flawed and unreliable.
. . .
(p. D4) Dr. Myhrvold’s findings pose a challenge to a proposed NASA asteroid-finding mission called Neocam, short for Near-Earth Object Camera, which would likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars. A congressional committee that controls NASA’s purse strings just included $10 million more in a budget bill for the development of Neocam.
. . .
When Dr. Myhrvold made his initial claims, the Neowise scientists made fun of a few errors like an equation that mixed up radius and diameter.
“It is too bad Myhrvold doesn’t have Google’s bug-finding bounty policy,” Dr. Wright told Scientific American. “If he did, I’d be rich.”
Dr. Mainzer also said at the time, “We believe at this point it’s best to allow the process of peer review — the foundation of the scientific process — to move forward.”
. . .
Earlier this year, Icarus published Dr. Myhrvold’s first paper on how reflected sunlight affects measurements of asteroids at the shorter infrared wavelengths measured by WISE. It has now accepted and posted a second paper last month containing Dr. Myhrvold’s criticisms of the NASA asteroid data.
. . .
When the scientists reported their findings, they did not include the estimates produced by their models, which would have given a sense of how good the model is. Instead they included the earlier measurements.
Other astronomers agreed that the Neowise scientists were not clear about what numbers they were reporting.
“They did some kind of dumb things,” said Alan W. Harris, a retired NASA asteroid expert who was one of the reviewers of Dr. Myhrvold’s second paper.
Dr. Myhrvold has accused the Neowise scientists of going into a NASA archive of planetary results, changing some of the copied numbers and deleting others without giving notice.
“They went back and rewrote history,” he said. “What it shows is even this far in, they’re still lying. They haven’t come clean.”
Dr. Harris said he did not see nefarious behavior by the Neowise scientists, but agreed, “That’s still weird.”
. . .
Dr. Myhrvold said NASA and Congress should put planning for the proposed Neocam spacecraft on hold, because it could suffer from the same shortfalls as Neowise. “Why does it get to avoid further scrutiny and just get money directly from Congress?” he asked.

For the full story, see:
Kenneth Chang. “A Collision Over Asteroids.” The New York Times (Tuesday, June 19, 2018): D1 & D4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 14, 2018, and has the title “Asteroids and Adversaries: Challenging What NASA Knows About Space Rocks.”)

Technologies Can Offer “Extraordinary Learning” Where “Children’s Interests Turn to Passion”

(p. B1) The American Academy of Pediatrics once recommended parents simply limit children’s time on screens. The association changed those recommendations in 2016 to reflect profound differences in levels of interactivity between TV, on which most previous research was based, and the devices children use today.
Where previous guidelines described all screen time for (p. B4) young children in terms of “exposure,” as if screen time were a toxic substance, new guidance allows for up to an hour a day for children under 5 and distinguishes between different kinds of screen use–say, FaceTime with Grandma versus a show on YouTube.
. . .
Instead of enforcing time-based rules, parents should help children determine what they want to do–consume and create art, marvel at the universe–and make it a daily part of screen life, says Anya Kamenetz, a journalist and author of the coming book “The Art of Screen Time–How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life.”
In doing so, parents can offer “extraordinary learning” experiences that weren’t possible before such technology came along, says Mimi Ito, director of the Connected Learning Lab at the University of California, Irvine and a cultural anthropologist who has studied how children actually use technology for over two decades.
“Extraordinary learning” is what happens when children’s interests turn to passion, and a combination of tech and the internet provides a bottomless well of tools, knowledge and peers to help them pursue these passions with intensity characteristic of youth.
It’s about more than parents spending time with children. It includes steering them toward quality and letting them–with breaks for stretching and visual relief, of course–dive deep without a timer.
There are many examples of such learning, whether it is children teaching themselves to code with the videogame Minecraft or learning how to create music and shoot videos. Giving children this opportunity allows them to learn at their own, often-accelerated pace.

For the full commentary, see:
Christopher Mims. “KEYWORDS; Not All Screen Time Is Equal Screen Time Isn’t Toxic After All.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Jan. 22, 2018): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary was last updated Jan. 22, 2018, and has the title “KEYWORDS; What If Children Should Be Spending More Time With Screens?”)

The book mentioned above, is:
Kamenetz, Anya. The Art of Screen Time: How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life. New York: PublicAffairs, 2018.

Cancer Five-Year Survival Rates Still Discourage

I quote the discouraging cancer survival numbers below because too often “Cancer Inc.” allies itself with government regulators to slow the disruptive medical entrepreneurs who who would otherwise quickly make those numbers less discouraging.

(p. A15) Cancer Treatment Centers of America– . . . –has long raised eyebrows with its marketing. Currently, the group touts its “genomic testing,” which guides patient-specific chemotherapy. Unmentioned is the dismal success rate of such tests in trials: Only 6.4% of patients were successfully matched with a drug, according to a 2016 article in Nature.
Here, from the American Cancer Society, are five-year survival statistics for various cancers: cervical, 69%; leukemia, 63%; ovarian, 46%; brain and nervous system, 35%; lung, 19%; liver, 18%; pancreatic, 9%.
One wonders how such numbers justify the blue sky seen in today’s advertising.
. . .
. . . the war on cancer is not the place for pep talks and poetic license. We could do with more disclosure, less delusion.
Nor is this a question of depriving patients of hope. On the contrary, it’s about depriving Cancer Inc. of the ability to exploit false hope.

For the full commentary, see:
Steve Salerno. “In the War on Cancer, Truth Becomes a Casualty; The multibillion-dollar treatment industry appeals to emotion in misleading ads.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, April 21, 2018): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 20, 2018.)

Chobani Entrepreneur Ulukaya Seeks “to Reclaim Near-Total Control”

(p. B3) The Greek yogurt maker Chobani is parting ways with TPG — the private equity firm that gave the company a financial lifeline in 2014 — and bringing on a new investor, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan.
TPG, which lent Chobani $750 million four years ago through its private equity and credit funds and received warrants that could have converted into a 25 to 35 percent stake in the company, will leave with a handsome profit but no remaining stake in the yogurt maker.
. . .
“It’s about long-term thinking, having a long-term partner and getting more control back,” Chobani’s founder, Hamdi Ulukaya, said in a recent interview. “That’s the heart of it.”
Mr. Ulukaya will also gain a path to reclaim near-total control of the company he founded in 2007. Under the terms of the deal, Chobani can buy back about half of Hoopp’s equity over time.
Should that occur, Mr. Ulukaya, the company and its more than 2,000 employees would control about 90 percent of Chobani’s stock, an unusual dynamic for such a large company.
“We’re trying to protect what we’ve built, and make sure we’re going in the right direction,” Mr. Ulukaya said.

For the full story, see:
David Gelles. “Chobani, With New Investor on Board, Sees Path to Financial Control.” The New York Times (Thursday, June 28, 2018): B3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story also has the date June 28, 2018, and has the title “Chobani, the Greek Yogurt Maker, Reclaims Control of Its Finances.”)