Technology – artdiamondblog.com

Policy Reform, Such as Smaller Research Teams, Needed for Faster Big Breakthroughs

(p. D3) Miracle vaccines. Videophones in our pockets. Reusable rockets. Our technological bounty and its related blur of scientific progress seem undeniable and unsurpassed. Yet analysts now report that the overall pace of real breakthroughs has fallen dramatically over the past almost three-quarters of a century.

This month in the journal Nature, the report’s researchers told how their study of millions of scientific papers and patents shows that investigators and inventors have made relatively few breakthroughs and innovations compared with the world’s growing mountain of science and technology research. The three analysts found a steady drop from 1945 through 2010 in disruptive finds as a share of the booming venture, suggesting that scientists today are more likely to push ahead incrementally than to make intellectual leaps.

“We should be in a golden age of new discoveries and innovations,” said Michael Park, an author of the paper and a doctoral candidate in entrepreneurship and strategic management at the University of Minnesota.

. . .

The new method looks at citations more deeply to separate everyday work from true breakthroughs more effectively. It tallies citations not only to the analyzed piece of research but to the previous studies it cites. It turns out that the previous work is cited far more often if the finding is routine rather than groundbreaking. The analytic method turns that difference into a new lens on the scientific enterprise.

The measure is called the CD index after its scale, which goes from consolidating to disrupting the body of existing knowledge.

Dr. Funk, who helped to devise the CD index, said the new study was so computationally intense that the team at times used supercomputers to crunch the millions of data sets. “It took a month or so,” he said. “This kind of thing wasn’t possible a decade ago. It’s just now coming within reach.”

The novel technique has aided other investigators, such as Dr. Wang. In 2019, he and his colleagues reported that small teams are more innovative than large ones. The finding was timely because science teams over the decades have shifted in makeup to ever-larger groups of collaborators.

In an interview, James A. Evans, a University of Chicago sociologist who was a co-author of that paper with Dr. Wang, called the new method elegant. “It came up with something important,” he said. Its application to science as a whole, he added, suggests not only a drop in the return on investment but a growing need for policy reform.

“We have extremely ordered science,” Dr. Evans said. “We bet with confidence on where we invest our money. But we’re not betting on fundamentally new things that have the potential to be disruptive. This paper suggests we need a little less order and a bit more chaos.”

For the full story see:

William J. Broad. “What Happened to All of Science’s Big Breakthroughs?” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 24, 2023 [sic]): D3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 17, 2023 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

For Nature paper mostly discussed in the passages quoted above is:

Park, Michael, Erin Leahey, and Russell J. Funk. “Papers and Patents Are Becoming Less Disruptive over Time.” Nature 613, no. 7942 (Jan. 2023): 138-44.

The paper on team size, and co-authored by Wang, is:

Wu, Lingfei, Dashun Wang, and James A. Evans. “Large Teams Develop and Small Teams Disrupt Science and Technology.” Nature 566, no. 7744 (Feb. 2019): 378-82.

Regulations Slow the Creation and Adoption of Healthcare Breakthroughs

CPR is “cardiopulmonary resuscitation.” ECPR is “extracorporeal CPR.” The ATTEST randomized double-blind clinical trial (RCT) provided dramatic evidence of the efficacy of ECPR. But the INCEPTION RCT seemed to provide equally strong evidence of a lack of efficacy. The key difference is the high level of experience and dedication of those implementing the ATTEST RCT, and the lack of experience, and likely lower dedication of those in the INCEPTION RCT. Dr. Demetris Yannopoulos has improved his techniques through trial and error, probably in some ways that he can articulate and in other ways that are harder to articulate. Gary Klein with his naturalistic decision-making research, writes that experience gives emergency workers a quick “recognition” of what needs to be done in different situations.

At what point in the development of a therapy do you perform the canonical RCT? In the case of Emil Freireich’s four drug chemo-cocktail for curing childhood leukemia, he continually improved the ingredients and doses of the cocktail. If an RCT had been performed too early in that process, the result would have been a lack of efficacy, and a therapy would have been abandoned that had the potential to be developed into a useful efficacious therapy. Ditto for Vince DeVita’s development of his chemo-cocktail for curing Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Ditto also for the development of the drug that eventually proved efficacious in the For Blood and Money book, where Stanford cancer doctor and Pharmacyclics co-founder acquired and developed cancer therapy Imbruvica, but abandoned it after an RCT of it failed. But Miller was ousted by major Pharmacyclics stock-holder, and entrepreneurial non-scientist, Bob Duggan, who did not want to give up on Imbruvica. Duggan persevered, overseeing its further development, until a later RCT was performed that proved efficacy.

In an earlier entry, I documented a much simpler and cheaper CPR innovation that also promises to improve heart failure therapy, called “neuroprotective CPR” (NCPR). Which one, if either, of ECPR or NCPR should we endorse? Ideally, in a fully function medical marketplace, we could comfortably say: “let the market decide.” Entrepreneurial scientists and physicians could develop the therapies and see how many willing patients would be willing to pay for each. Maybe the more expensive ECPR therapy would initially only be bought by the better-off. But as Yannopoulos improves it, as he is already working to do, making it simpler and cheaper, it would eventually be appealing to a broader customers. In Openness, I claim that this is the common path of a great many breakthrough innovations in areas outside of medicine.

Notice that the ECPR was heavily funded by the Helmsley Trust, a private foundation. This is consistent with my claim that medical innovation benefits from a diversity of funding sources, especially of private funding sources that are more likely to fund a diversity of methods and to take chances with heterodox ideas, partly motivated by private funders’ greater mission-orientation due to having more ‘skin-in-the-game.’

Notice also that Yannopoulos’s implementation of ECPR was constrained by a scarcity of trained personnel. Yannopoulos could not act as a nimble entrepreneur because massive regulations limit nimble entrepreneurship in healthcare. This is especially try on labor market issues where massive labor market regulations pile on top of massive healthcare regulations. Breakthrough innovations are usually implemented by small nimble start-ups. To create Disneyland, Walt Disney created WED Enterprises, instead of try to created it with the large incumbent The Walt Disney Company. Jonathan Bush tried nimble labor market innovation in healthcare, but was stymied by regulations. So in the ECPR case, Yannopoulos had the beds to care for more cardiac arrest patients, but could not fill those rooms because of a lack of trained healthcare workers. He could not simply offer higher pay. He was part of a larger organization where he had limited decision-rights that reduced his nimble control. (On the importance of decision-rights, see Koch 2007.)

(p. 27) In reality, by the time a patient without a pulse arrives in the E.R., we know what the outcome is going to be. We continue CPR and shock the patient if we can. We insert a breathing tube and connect it to a ventilator. We inject medications: adrenaline, heart-rhythm drugs. But these treatments almost always fail.

. . .

Demetris Yannopoulos, an interventional cardiologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who created its Center for Resuscitation Medicine, refused to accept that this was the best doctors could do. In 2014, he began performing ECPR, a treatment that was starting to catch on in a few places, mostly in Asia and Europe. To his surprise, patients he didn’t expect to survive ended up doing well.  . . .

When a patient in cardiac arrest is placed on an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine, as Sauer was, the treatment is called ECPR. The type of ECMO intervention used in ECPR provides full life support, which means it does the work of both lungs and heart. (Another type of ECMO, used on Covid-19 patients, helps just with breathing.) ECMO evolved from the heart-lung machines that started being used during heart surgery in the 1950s.

. . .

ECPR by itself doesn’t actually cure anything. But by providing fresh blood flow to the brain and other organs, it lets the body rest and gives doctors time to fix the underlying problem, if it’s fixable.  . . .  After patients are hooked up to ECMO, angiograms of their hearts are typically performed to determine whether they have clogged arteries — as about 85 percent do. In Sauer’s case, Yannopoulos found a blockage in his largest heart vessel, the left anterior descending artery, also known as “the widow maker.” He inserted a stent to open it back up.

. . .

(p. 28) Several years after the program started, Yannopoulos, Bartos and their team conducted the first randomized, controlled trial of ECPR. The results were published in The Lancet in 2020 as the ARREST trial.  . . .

After enrolling just 30 patients, the ARREST trial was stopped early by an N.I.H. board because the patients who got ECPR did so much better than the control-group subjects who received standard resuscitation, and it would have been unethical to continue the study. After six months, 43 percent of the 14 patients who got ECPR were alive with good brain function, compared with zero in the control group.

. . .

The Helmsley Trust gave Yannopoulos grants totaling $19.4 million, which enabled him to add this “hub and spoke” mobile component to his program: The university hospital would be the hub, and a truck and some local hospitals would be the spokes. “It was a real big bet,” Panzirer told me.

To reach patients in areas that were more suburban and rural, Yannopoulos first had to team up with surrounding health systems. Competition is more often the norm among health systems, rather than collaboration, but he persuaded his chief executive, James Hereford, to gather his counterparts from other institutions. Eventually, they were willing to work together. But they had to sort out a lot more than simply agreeing to collaborate. How would insurers pay for what they were doing? Would the initial hospital get the money, or would the university hospital? Would malpractice coverage protect doctors outside their own institutions? What about transport?

Every question could be turned into a reason for hospital administrators and lawyers to say no.

. . .

(p. 29) The economics of ECPR are in line with those of other established lifesaving interventions, like dialysis and heart transplants. And if patients don’t survive, ECPR may perfuse their bodies with enough oxygen to keep their organs eligible for donation. The program in Minnesota costs about $3.2 million a year to operate, which is covered by its revenue. This doesn’t include the start-up funding from the Helmsley Trust, however, or the significant groundwork Yannopoulos laid before that — or his personal sacrifices. “When I started, I had hair and my beard was black,” says Yannopoulos, who is mostly bald and gray. For seven years, he was not paid for his ECPR work; some years, he was on call every day. Today, he still spends about 6,500 hours on call annually. “It’s the force of his will more than anything,” Hereford says when explaining why the program has succeeded.

. . .

Yannopoulos has invited physicians from all over to visit his program; afterward, he often hears from them that replicating his work at their home institutions — getting health and E.M.S. systems to collaborate, finding institutional support and start-up funding, coordinating 24/7 staffing — seems too daunting. For these reasons, Yannopoulos regards his ECPR program as “an administrative and political achievement, rather than a scientific or technological one.”

. . .

(p. 30) The trial, called INCEPTION, compared ECPR with standard care across 10 medical centers in the Netherlands. It was the first randomized, controlled trial to look at ECPR across multiple facilities, and unlike the ARREST trial, it found that ECPR resulted in similar survival as standard treatments.  . . .

Yet there are reasons to interpret the study as saying more about the real-world challenges of developing and implementing ECPR programs than it does about the treatment itself. In the INCEPTION trial, it took roughly a half-hour longer for patients to get on an ECMO machine once they arrived at the hospital than it did in the ARREST study. Of the patients who got ECPR, 12 percent were not successfully connected to the machines, compared with zero in ARREST. Several Dutch hospitals handled only a couple of ECPR cases a year, which means they hadn’t yet acquired the right skills. “I think they were destined for failure because of that rollout, with no experience up front,” Bartos says.

Experience matters profoundly: According to a 2022 paper based on data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, an international nonprofit that Robert Bartlett founded, patients treated at centers that perform fewer than 10 ECPR procedures yearly have 64 percent lower odds of survival; for every 10-case increase, the odds go up 11 percent. (The Minnesota program treats about 150 every year.)

Not only does the procedure itself require mastery, but so, too, does the care in the I.C.U. afterward — an ineffable art as much as a precise science.

. . .

(p. 45) . . . it’s not much of a surprise to hear Yannopoulos ask, “What does INCEPTION have to do with what we’re doing?” His program was carefully developed, with deep expertise, over years, to achieve the best outcomes; INCEPTION studied what would happen if a lot of hospitals started doing ECPR tomorrow.

Engineering the ideal ECPR program can feel like a maddening calculus involving experience, availability and distance — all to beat time. To treat patients faster, maybe doctors should go directly to the scene. For more than a decade, doctors in France have been doing just that, performing ECPR on the streets of Paris, in Métro stations, even on the oak parquet floors of the Louvre. Early on, Lionel Lamhaut, the head of Paris’s ECMO team, was told that he was “a cowboy to try to do something outside the hospital.” But as he and his colleagues persisted, they “started a new way of thinking.”

. . .

. . . as much money as the Helmsley Trust has given, it is not enough to overcome some of the structural limitations in the American health care system. The organization funded a multimillion-dollar expansion of the cardiovascular I.C.U. at Yannopoulos’s hospital to add 12 more spacious rooms specifically designed to accommodate patients on ECMO. But on a weekend in January when I visited, the I.C.U. was closed to new ECPR patients: Not enough nurses were available to work, so four beds in the unit were kept empty.

Even as Yannopoulos and his team hit administrative roadblocks like these, they are still trying to redefine what is medically possible. Recently, a 74-year-old man collapsed on the streets of St. Paul and went into cardiac arrest. Forty-two minutes after the first 911 call, the man was already on ECMO and had regained his pulse. Yannopoulos was optimistic about the case, given how quickly ECMO was started, even though the patient had not been shocked with a defibrillator — which meant he technically fell outside the protocol and should not have received ECPR at all. (After a week in the I.C.U., the man died when his family decided to stop all treatment.)

The man’s heart was almost certainly in pulseless electrical activity (P.E.A.), which many experts think should not be treated with ECPR. Of the three published ECPR randomized, controlled trials, only one did not limit the intervention to people with shockable rhythms. That ambitious trial, in Prague, included patients whose hearts were in the same P.E.A. pattern as the St. Paul man’s. The study was stopped early when it appeared that ECPR wasn’t saving significantly more people than standard care was. These enigmatic cases that lack shockable rhythms are vexing: When the Prague data was reanalyzed without these patients, the findings were favorable for ECPR.

Yannopoulos is undeterred by the Prague results. “You have to decide what’s more important: your survival rate” — what is often used in studies and by institutions to justify support for a program — “or the number of patients you actually save.” Because its program is now well established, Yannopoulos’s team is starting to treat patients with less promising rhythms, even though that may drive down its overall survival rate.  . . .

Yannopoulos wonders if, in a decade or perhaps less, ECPR science will still require the same specially trained teams using the same high-tech equipment — at least before patients get to the hospital. Instead, he imagines small cannulas that will be easy to place in the patient’s neck and attached to compact, simple machines that provide some blood flow to the brain. In his vision, which he is currently working to realize, medics could be trained to start people on this, and then doctors could transition them to regular ECMO once they reach the hospital. If the brain is protected, the rest of the body can eventually recover.

. . .

“There is this idea that people in cardiac arrest, you cannot harm them,” Yannopoulos says. For some doctors, that means cycling relentlessly through chest compressions and medications, so they feel as if they did everything they could. For others, it means briefly going through the motions, so they feel as if they did something. And for still others, it has always seemed kindest to do nothing at all, to let their patients die peacefully. Because almost none of them lived — no matter what the doctors did. “But now we know what is possible,” Yannopoulos says. “So if you’re not achieving that, then you are harming them in a way, right?”

For the full story see:

Helen Ouyang. “Reinventing CPR.” The New York Times Magazine (Sunday, March 31, 2024): 22-31 & 45.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated June [sic] 19, 2024, and has the title “The Race to Reinvent CPR.”)

Some references relevant to my discussion at the start of this entry are:

Bush, Jonathan, and Stephen Baker. Where Does It Hurt?: An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Fixing Health Care. New York: Portfolio, 2014.

DeVita, Vincent T., and Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn. The Death of Cancer: After Fifty Years on the Front Lines of Medicine, a Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why the War on Cancer Is Winnable–and How We Can Get There. New York: Sarah Crichton Books, 2015.

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

Klein, Gary A. Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2013.

Klein, Gary A. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. 20th Anniversary ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017.

Klein, Gary A. Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009.

Koch, Charles G. The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

Silberner, Joanne. “How a Plunger Improved CPR.” The New York Times (Tues., June 27, 2023): D5.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life. New York: Random House, 2018.

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

Cloud Brightening Could Counter Global Warming

If the costs of global warming become large enough, we can brighten clouds to reverse global warming.

(p. A1) A little before 9 a.m. on Tuesday [April 2, 2024], an engineer named Matthew Gallelli crouched on the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in San Francisco Bay, pulled on a pair of ear protectors, and flipped a switch.

A few seconds later, a device resembling a snow maker began to rumble, then produced a great and deafening hiss. A fine mist of tiny aerosol particles shot from its mouth, traveling hundreds of feet through the air.

It was the first outdoor test in the United States of technology designed to brighten clouds and bounce some of the sun’s rays back into space, a way of temporarily cooling a planet that is now dangerously overheating. The scientists wanted to see whether the machine that took years to create could consistently spray the right size salt aerosols through the open air, outside of a lab.

If it works, the next stage would be to aim at the heavens and try to change the composition of clouds above the Earth’s oceans.

. . .

(p. A14) Brightening clouds is one of several ideas to push solar energy back into space — sometimes called solar radiation modification, solar geoengineering, or climate intervention. Compared with other options, such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, marine cloud brightening would be localized and use relatively benign sea salt aerosols as opposed to other chemicals.

. . .

“I hope, and I think all my colleagues hope, that we never use these things, that we never have to,” said Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington and the manager of its marine cloud brightening program.

. . .

But it’s vital to find out whether and how such technologies could work, Dr. Doherty said, in case society needs them. And no one can say when the world might reach that point.

In 1990, a British physicist named John Latham published a letter in the journal Nature, under the heading “Control of Global Warming?,” in which he introduced the idea that injecting tiny particles into clouds could offset rising temperatures.

Dr. Latham later attributed his idea to a hike with his son in Wales, where they paused to look at clouds over the Irish Sea.

“He asked why clouds were shiny at the top but dark at the bottom,” Dr. Latham told the BBC in 2007. “I explained how they were mirrors for incoming sunlight.”

Dr. Latham had a proposal that may have seemed bizarre: create a fleet of 1,000 unmanned, sail-powered vessels to traverse the world’s oceans and continuously spray tiny droplets of seawater into the air to deflect solar heat away from Earth.

The idea is built on a scientific concept (p. A15) called the Twomey effect: Large numbers of small droplets reflect more sunlight than small numbers of large droplets. Injecting vast quantities of minuscule aerosols, in turn forming many small droplets, could change the composition of clouds.

“If we can increase the reflectivity by about 3 percent, the cooling will balance the global warming caused by increased C02 in the atmosphere,” Dr. Latham, who died in 2021, told the BBC. “Our scheme offers the possibility that we could buy time.”

A version of marine cloud brightening already happens every day, according to Dr. Doherty.

As ships travel the seas, particles from their exhaust can brighten clouds, creating “ship tracks,” behind them. In fact, until recently, the cloud brightening associated with ship tracks offset about 5 percent of climate warming from greenhouse gases, Dr. Doherty said.

Ironically, as better technology and environmental regulations have reduced the pollution emitted by ships, that inadvertent cloud brightening is fading, as well as the cooling that goes along with it.

A deliberate program of marine cloud brightening could be done with sea salts, rather than pollution, Dr. Doherty said.

For the full story see:

Christopher Flavelle. “Salting the Clouds to Cool an Overheating Earth.” The New York Times (Thursday, April 4, 2024): A1 & A14-A15.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 2, 2024, and has the title “Warming Is Getting Worse. So They Just Tested a Way to Deflect the Sun.”)

The article by the physicist John Latham, published in the one of the top two journals in science, and mentioned above, is:

Latham, John. “Control of Global Warming?” Nature 347, no. 6291 (Sept. 27, 1990): 339-40.

The New York Times Is Open to the Possibility and Desirability of Geoengineering

In the past, The New York Times either ignored, or was dismissive of, geoengineering to reverse or mitigate the alleged future effects of global warming. A few months ago, I was pleasantly surprised to see the paper publish a page one article, quoted below, that was open to the policy of geoengineering. This is progress because the left’s standard response to the alleged effects of global warming is to advocate reduced economic growth. Geoengineering would allow economic growth, and the human flourishing it allows, to continue, even if global warming becomes as severe as the pessimists fear.

(p. 1) On a windswept Icelandic plateau, an international team of engineers and executives is powering up an innovative machine designed to alter the very composition of Earth’s atmosphere.

If all goes as planned, the enormous vacuum will soon be sucking up vast quantities of air, stripping out carbon dioxide and then locking away those greenhouse gases deep underground in ancient stone — greenhouse gases that would otherwise continue heating up the globe.

Just a few years ago, technologies like these, that attempt to re-engineer the natural environment, were on the scientific fringe. They were too expensive, too impractical, too sci-fi. But with the dangers from climate change worsening, and the world failing to meet its goals of slashing greenhouse gas emissions, they are quickly moving to the mainstream among both scientists and investors, despite questions about their effectiveness and safety.

. . . Once science fiction, today these ideas are becoming reality.

Researchers are studying ways to block some of the sun’s radiation. They are testing whether adding iron to the ocean could carry carbon dioxide to the sea floor. They are hatching plans to build giant parasols in space. And with massive facilities like the one in Iceland, they are seeking to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.

. . .

(p. 12) A plant similar to the one in Iceland, but far larger, is being built in Texas by Occidental Petroleum, the giant oil company.

. . .

The Occidental plant, being built near Odessa, Texas, and known as Stratos, will be more than 10 times more powerful than Mammoth, powered by solar energy, and have the potential to capture and sequester 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

It uses a different process to extract carbon dioxide from the air, though the goal is the same: Most of it will be locked away deep underground. But at least some of the carbon dioxide, Occidental says, will also be used to extract more oil.

In that process, carbon dioxide is pumped into the ground to force out oil that might otherwise be too difficult to reach. Techniques like this have made Occidental a company worth more than $50 billion and helped send American crude production to a new high in recent years.

Of course, it is the world’s reliance on the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that has so dangerously sent carbon dioxide levels soaring. In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat and warming the world.

Today, Occidental says it is trying to become a “carbon management” company as well as an oil producer. Last year, it paid $1.1 billion for a start-up called Carbon Engineering that had developed a way to soak up carbon dioxide from the air, and began building the Stratos project. Today, what was a barren plot of dirt less than 12 months ago is a bustling construction site.

“It’s like the Apollo missions at NASA,” said Richard Jackson, who oversees carbon management and domestic oil operations at Occidental. “We’re trying to move as quickly as we can.”

For the full story see:

David Gelles. “Can We Engineer Our Way Out of a Climate Crisis?” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, March 31, 2024): 1 & 12-13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated April 4, 2024, and has the title “Can We Engineer Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis?” The sentence above that starts “Once science fiction” appeared in the print, but not the online, version.)

Techno-Optimist Claims AI Tools “Will Help Scientists Design Therapies Faster and Better”

(p. A13) It is said that triumphant Roman generals, to ensure that the rapture of victory didn’t go to their heads, would require a companion to whisper in their ear: “Remember, you are only a man.” Jamie Metzl worries that we may have learned all too well such lessons in humility. Given remarkable recent advances in technology—and the promise of more to come—we need to lean into our emerging godlike powers, he believes, and embrace the opportunity to shape the world into a better place. In “Superconvergence,” he sets out to show us how, after first helping us overcome our hesitations.

. . .

. . . the big advances will be in medicine—and indeed are already in evidence. Mr. Metzl points to the blisteringly fast development of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, from digital file to widespread immunization in less than a year; and to gene-editing technologies like Crispr. He cites the experience of Victoria Gray, a young woman from Mississippi who was suffering from sickle-cell disease until, in 2019, researchers in Nashville, Tenn., reinfused her with her own cells, which had been Crispr-edited; the treatment worked, liberating her from the disease’s tormenting pain and crippling fatigue. For Mr. Metzl, these are just the first intimations of a revolution to come. AI tools like DeepMind’s Alphafold, he says, will help scientists design therapies faster and better.

To get smarter about human health, though, AI will need more information, and here Mr. Metzl’s ebullience edges toward the willful suspension of disbelief. His imagined future of healthcare will require “collecting huge amounts of genetic and systems biology data in massive and searchable databases.” The details will include not only medical records and the results of laboratory tests but data from the sensors he anticipates will be everywhere—“bathrooms, bedrooms, and offices”—as information is hoovered up from “toilets, mirrors, computers, phones and other devices without the people even noticing.” While acknowledging that such a scenario sounds like “an authoritarian’s dream and a free person’s nightmare,” he suggests that the chance to catch disease early may offset the risks. This trade-off promises to be a tough sell.

More than many techno-optimists, Mr. Metzl seems to grasp the intricacy of biological systems; he notes that they are beyond our full understanding right now. Even so, a time will come when “the sophistication of our tools and understanding meets and then exceeds the complexity of biology.”

For the full review, see:

David A. Shaywitz. “Getting Better, Faster.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, July 11, 2024): A13.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date July 10, 2024, and has the title “‘Superconvergence’ Review: Getting Better, Faster.”)

The book under review is:

Metzl, Jamie. Superconvergence: How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World. New York: Timber Press, 2024.

Since Wood Tools Are Rarely Preserved, “Preservation Bias Distorts Our View of Antiquity”

(p. D3) In 1836, Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, a Danish antiquarian, brought the first semblance of order to prehistory, suggesting that the early hominids of Europe had gone through three stages of technological development that were reflected in the production of tools. The basic chronology — Stone Age to Bronze Age to Iron Age — now underpins the archaeology of most of the Old World (and cartoons like “The Flintstones” and “The Croods”).

Thomsen could well have substituted Wood Age for Stone Age, according to Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist and head of research at the Department of Cultural Heritage of Lower Saxony, in Germany.

“We can probably assume that wooden tools have been around just as long as stone ones, that is, two and a half or three million years,“ he said. “But since wood deteriorates and rarely survives, preservation bias distorts our view of antiquity.” Primitive stone implements have traditionally characterized the Lower Paleolithic period, which lasted from about 2.7 million years ago to 200,000 years ago. Of the thousands of archaeological sites that can be traced to the era, wood has been recovered from fewer than 10.

Dr. Terberger was team leader of a study published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that provided the first comprehensive report on the wooden objects excavated from 1994 to 2008 in the peat of an open-pit coal mine near Schöningen, in northern Germany. The rich haul included two dozen complete or fragmented spears (each about as tall as an N.B.A. center) and double-pointed throwing sticks (half the length of a pool cue) but no hominid bones. The objects date from the end of a warm interglacial period 300,000 years ago, about when early Neanderthals were supplanting Homo heidelbergensis, their immediate predecessors in Europe. The projectiles unearthed at the Schöningen site, known as Spear Horizon, are considered the oldest preserved hunting weapons.

For the full story see:

Franz Lidz. “In the Stone Age, Wood Was Pivotal, a Study Says.” The New York Times (Tuesday, May 7, 2024): D3.

(Note: the online version of the story was updated May 6, 2024, and has the title “Was the Stone Age Actually the Wood Age?”)

Terberger’s co-authored academic paper mentioned above is:

Leder, Dirk, Jens Lehmann, Annemieke Milks, Tim Koddenberg, Michael Sietz, Matthias Vogel, Utz Böhner, and Thomas Terberger. “The Wooden Artifacts from Schöningen’s Spear Horizon and Their Place in Human Evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, no. 15 (2024): e2320484121.

The Absence of a Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Is Used as an Excuse to Ignore an Emergency Procedure That Saves Lives

In an urgent emergency the son and wife of a man with a stopped heart, improvised the use of a toilet plunger to get his heart to start pumping again. In his wonderful account of the sources of insight, Gary Klein told a different example of urgent emergency improvisation: “Wag” Dodge saved himself from a massive wildfire racing toward him by lighting a match to the grass at his feet to pre-burn a patch he could lie down in. When the wildfire reached him, it passed on both sides, avoiding the patch that now had no fuel. Neither the son-and-mother, nor Wag Dodge, got their insight from collaboration or a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

(p. D5) In 1988, a 65-year-old man’s heart stopped at home. His wife and son didn’t know CPR, so in desperation they grabbed a toilet plunger to get his heart going until an ambulance showed up.

Later, after the man recovered at San Francisco General Hospital, his son gave the doctors there some advice: Put toilet plungers next to all of the beds in the coronary unit.

The hospital didn’t do that, but the idea got the doctors thinking about better ways to do CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the conventional method for chest compressions after cardiac arrest. More than three decades later, at a meeting of emergency medical services directors this week in Hollywood, Fla., researchers presented data showing that using a plunger-like setup leads to remarkably better outcomes for reviving patients.

. . .

The new procedure, known as neuroprotective CPR, has three components. First, a silicone plunger forces the chest up and down, not only pushing blood out to the body, but drawing it back in to refill the heart. A plastic valve fits over a face mask or breathing tube to control pressure in the lungs.

The third piece is a body-positioning device sold by AdvancedCPR Solutions, a firm in Edina, Minn., that was founded by Dr. Lurie. A hinged support slowly elevates a supine patient into a partial sitting position. This allows oxygen-starved blood in the brain to drain more effectively and to be replenished more quickly with oxygenated blood.

. . .

. . ., a study carried out in four states found . . . [p]atients who received neuroprotective CPR within 11 minutes of a 911 call were about three times as likely to survive with good brain function as those who received conventional CPR.

. . .

Dr. Karen Hirsch, a neurologist at Stanford University and a member of the CPR standards committee for the American Heart Association, said that the new approach was interesting and made physiological sense, but that the committee needed to see more research on patients before it could formally recommend it as a treatment option.

“We’re limited to the available data,” she said, adding that the committee would like to see a clinical trial in which people undergoing cardiac arrests are randomly assigned to conventional CPR or neuroprotective CPR. No such trials are happening in the United States.

Dr. Joe Holley, the medical director for the emergency medical service that serves Memphis and several surrounding communities, isn’t waiting for a larger trial. Two of his teams, he said, were getting neurologically intact survival rates of about 7 percent with conventional CPR. With neuroprotective CPR, the rates rose to around 23 percent.

His crews are coming back from emergency calls much happier these days, too, and patients are even showing up at fire stations to thank them for their help.

“That was a rare occurrence,” Dr. Holley said. “Now it’s almost a regular thing.”

For the full story see:

Joanne Silberner. “How a Plunger Improved CPR.” The New York Times (Tuesday, June 27, 2023 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 15, 2023 [sic], and has the title “How a Toilet Plunger Improved CPR.”)

The Gary Klein book that I praised above is:

Klein, Gary. Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2013.

The “study carried out in four states,” and mentioned above, is:

Moore, Johanna C., Paul E. Pepe, Kenneth A. Scheppke, Charles Lick, Sue Duval, Joseph Holley, Bayert Salverda, Michael Jacobs, Paul Nystrom, Ryan Quinn, Paul J. Adams, Mack Hutchison, Charles Mason, Eduardo Martinez, Steven Mason, Armando Clift, Peter M. Antevy, Charles Coyle, Eric Grizzard, Sebastian Garay, Remle P. Crowe, Keith G. Lurie, Guillaume P. Debaty, and José Labarère. “Head and Thorax Elevation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Circulatory Adjuncts Is Associated with Improved Survival.” Resuscitation 179 (2022): 9-17.

“A Pattern of Stumbles Across the World of Generative A.I.”

(p. B1) Days before gadget reviewers weighed in on the Humane Ai Pin, a futuristic wearable device powered by artificial intelligence, the founders of the company gathered their employees and encouraged them to brace themselves. The reviews might be disappointing, they warned.

. . .

(p. B5) Its setbacks are part of a pattern of stumbles across the world of generative A.I., as companies release unpolished products. Over the past two years, Google has introduced and pared back A.I. search abilities that recommended people eat rocks, Microsoft has trumpeted a Bing chatbot that hallucinated and Samsung has added A.I. features to a smartphone that were called “excellent at times and baffling at others.”

For the full story see:

Tripp Mickle and Erin Griffith. “Inside the Spectacular Flop of a Bold A.I. Device.” The New York Times (Friday, June 7, 2024): B1 & B5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated June 7, 2024, and has the title “‘This Is Going to Be Painful’: How a Bold A.I. Device Flopped.”)

Musk’s Predictions Are “Just Guesses,” Part of “a Conversation”

(p. B4) In the past, Musk has suggested that sometimes people read too much into what he says.

“People shouldn’t hold me to these things,” Musk said in 2022 during a TED Talk interview. “What tends to happen is I’ll make some like, you know, best guess, and then people in five years, there’ll be some jerk that writes an article: ‘Elon said this would happen, and it didn’t happen. He’s a liar and a fool.’”

“It’s very annoying when that happens,” Musk continued. “These are just guesses, this is a conversation.”

For the full commentary see:

Tim Higgins. “How Misunderstood Is Tesla’s Musk?” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 24, 2024): B4.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 22, 2024, and has the title “Is Elon Musk Misunderstood, or Understood All Too Well?”)

Gates’s TerraPower Breaks Ground on Small Nuclear Reactor

(p. A16) Outside a small coal town in southwest Wyoming, a multibillion-dollar effort to build the first in a new generation of American nuclear power plants is underway.

Workers began construction on Tuesday on a novel type of nuclear reactor meant to be smaller and cheaper than the hulking reactors of old and designed to produce electricity without the carbon dioxide that is rapidly heating the planet.

The reactor being built by TerraPower, a start-up, won’t be finished until 2030 at the earliest and faces daunting obstacles. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn’t yet approved the design, and the company will have to overcome the inevitable delays and cost overruns that have doomed countless nuclear projects before.

What TerraPower does have, however, is an influential and deep-pocketed founder. Bill Gates, currently ranked as the seventh-richest person in the world, has poured more than $1 billion of his fortune into TerraPower, an amount that he expects to increase.

“If you care about climate, there are many, many locations around the world where nuclear has got to work,” Mr. Gates said during an interview near the project site on Monday. “I’m not involved in TerraPower to make more money. I’m involved in TerraPower because we need to build a lot of these reactors.”

Mr. Gates, the former head of Microsoft, said he believed the best way to solve climate change was through innovations that make clean energy competitive with fossil fuels, a philosophy he described in his 2021 book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”

Nationwide, nuclear power is seeing a resurgence of interest, with several start-ups jockeying to build a wave of smaller reactors and the Biden administration offering hefty tax credits for new plants.

. . .

In March [2024], TerraPower submitted a 3,300-page application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a permit to build the reactor, but that will take at least two years to review. The company has to persuade regulators that its sodium-cooled reactor doesn’t need many of the costly safeguards required for traditional light-water reactors.

“That’s going to be challenging,” said Adam Stein, director of nuclear innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, a pro-nuclear research organization.

TerraPower’s plant is designed so that major components, like the steam turbines that generate electricity and the molten salt battery, are physically separate from the reactor, where fission occurs. The company says those parts don’t require regulatory approval and can begin construction sooner.

For the full story see:

Brad Plumer and Benjamin Rasmussen. “Climate-Minded Billionaire Makes a Bet on Nuclear Power.” The New York Times (Thursday, June 13, 2024): A16.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 11, 2024, and has the title “Nuclear Power Is Hard. A Climate-Minded Billionaire Wants to Make It Easier.”)

Gates’s 2021 book, mentioned above, is:

Gates, Bill. How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need. New York: Knopf, 2021.

Starlink Gives Remote Tribes Voice, Information, and Fast Help in Emergencies

(p. 12) . . . Starlink, . . . has quickly dominated the satellite-internet market worldwide by providing service once unthinkable in . . . remote areas. SpaceX has done so by launching 6,000 low-orbiting Starlink satellites — roughly 60 percent of all active spacecraft — to deliver speeds faster than many home internet connections to just about anywhere on Earth, including the Sahara, the Mongolian grasslands and tiny Pacific islands.

Business is soaring. Mr. Musk recently announced that Starlink had surpassed three million customers across 99 countries. Analysts estimate that annual sales are up roughly 80 percent from last year, to about $6.6 billion.

. . .

. . . perhaps Starlink’s most transformative effect is in areas once largely out of the internet’s reach, like the Amazon. There are now 66,000 active contracts in the Brazilian Amazon, touching 93 percent of the region’s legal municipalities. That has opened new job and education opportunities for those who live in the forest. It has also given illegal loggers and miners in the Amazon a new tool to communicate and evade authorities.

One Marubo leader, Enoque Marubo (all Marubo use the same surname), 40, said he immediately saw Starlink’s potential. After spending years outside the forest, he said he believed the internet could give his people new autonomy. With it, they could communicate better, inform themselves and tell their own stories.

Last year, he and a Brazilian activist recorded a 50-second video seeking help getting Starlink from potential benefactors. He wore his traditional Marubo headdress and sat in the maloca. A toddler wearing a necklace of animal teeth sat nearby.

They sent it off. Days later, they heard back from a woman in Oklahoma.

. . .

Allyson Reneau’s LinkedIn page describes her as a space consultant, keynote speaker, author, pilot, equestrian, humanitarian, chief executive, board director and mother of 11 biological children. In person, she says she makes most of her money coaching gymnastics and renting houses near Norman, Okla.

. . .

Enoque was asking for 20 Starlink antennas, which would cost roughly $15,000, to transform life for his tribe.

. . .

[Allyson Reneau said] “One tool would change everything in their life. Health care, education, communication, protection of the forest.”

Ms. Reneau said she bought the antennas with her own money and donations from her children.

. . .

The internet was an immediate sensation.

. . .

They spend lots of time on WhatsApp. There, leaders coordinate between villages and alert the authorities to health issues and environmental destruction. Marubo teachers share lessons with students in different villages. And everyone is in much closer contact with faraway family and friends.

To Enoque, the biggest benefit has been in emergencies. A venomous snake bite can require swift rescue by helicopter. Before the internet, the Marubo used amateur radio, relaying a message between several villages to reach the authorities. The internet made such calls instantaneous. “It’s already saved lives,” he said.