Category: Technology

Development of IVF Took 10 Years of Trial and Error

If the Joy television movie accurately reflects the history of the development of IVF (in vitro fertilization) then it illustrates a couple of themes that are important. One is the frequent fruitfulness of trial-and-error experimentation. The other is that some medical entrepreneurs are motivated by having some form of ‘skin-in-the-game,’ in this case nurse Jean Purdy. (Support for the second theme is more speculative than for the first, since the evidence that the real Jane Purdy experienced endometriosis and infertility is circumstantial.)

(p. A10) “Joy,” . . . begins in 1968 and charts the 10-year journey of trial, error and more trial and error by an odd trio of pioneers: Bob Edwards (James Norton), a biologist and true-believer in the possibilities of IVF; Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy), a surgical obstetrician who is less than convinced but can be; and Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), a nurse who signs on as Bob’s assistant and, as we learn, has her own agenda regarding infertile women. (Edwards received the 2010 Nobel Prize in Medicine, his partners having passed away.)

Jack Thorne’s screenplay massages the IVF medical story into a personal one, mostly about Jean, who is portrayed as a critical member of the team and the one whose life reflects the social uproar over the mission—giving childless women a choice about becoming mothers.

For the full television review see:

John Anderson. “The Birth of a Medical Miracle.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Nov 22, 2024): A10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the television review has the date November 21, 2024, and has the title “‘Joy’ Review: The Birth of a Medical Miracle on Netflix.”)

It May Take a “Thorny Character” to Be “Willing to Challenge Entire Establishment Belief Systems”

The obituary quoted below misidentifies Richard Bernstein’s main contribution. Yes, it is noteworthy that he was probably the first diabetes sufferer to effectively and continually monitor his own blood glucose level. But his main contribution was that by careful self-monitoring and trial-and-error experimentation he discovered that his health improved when he cutback on both carbs and insulin.

The obituary writer quotes Gary Taubes, but either didn’t read his book or disagrees with it, because Taubes is clear about Bernstein’s main contribution.

I am halfway through Taubes’s book. It is long and sometimes deep in the weeds, but comes highly recommended by Marty Makary and Siddhartha Mukherjee, both of whom I highly respect. The book sadly highlights how mainstream medicine can be very slow to reform clinical practice to new knowledge.

(p. C6) Richard Bernstein was flipping through a medical trade journal in 1969 when he saw an advertisement for a device that could check blood-sugar levels in one minute with one drop of blood. It was marketed to hospitals, not consumers, but Bernstein wanted one for himself. He had been sick his entire life and was worried he was running out of time.

. . .

Since he wasn’t a doctor, the manufacturer wouldn’t even sell him a device. So, he bought one under the name of his wife, Dr. Anne Bernstein, a psychiatrist.

He experimented with different doses of insulin and the frequency of shots. He eased off carbohydrates. He checked his blood sugar constantly to see how it was reacting.

After experimenting for several years, he figured out that if he maintained a low-carb diet, he didn’t need as much insulin and could avoid many of the wild swings in his blood-sugar levels. By checking his blood sugar throughout the day, he learned how to maintain normal levels. It changed his life.

. . .

With his diabetes under control, he tried to spread the word and change the way the disease is treated. In the early years, he was dismissed by much of the medical establishment. His ideas went against accepted wisdom and he was, after all, not a doctor. In 1979, at the age of 45, he enrolled at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where he received his M.D.

“I never wanted to be a doctor,” he told the New York Times in 1988. “But I had to become one to gain credibility.”

Bernstein went into private practice in Mamaroneck, N.Y., where he treated diabetics and continued to advocate for his ideas—to his patients, in articles, YouTube videos, letters to the editor, and writing books, including “Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution.”

. . .

Gary Taubes, the author of “Rethinking Diabetes,” said that it was Bernstein’s work that eventually led to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, a landmark study that demonstrated that diabetics could blunt the destructive effects of the disease by keeping their blood-sugar levels nearer normal. Released in 1993, the results led to the kind of self-monitoring and frequent shots of insulin that remains part of the standard treatment plan for Type 1 diabetes today—part of what Bernstein had been pushing for years.

This was only partial vindication for Bernstein. The medical establishment never fully embraced Bernstein or the strict low-carb diet that he prescribed, which some considered unrealistic.

Taubes said that Bernstein was a bit of a “thorny character” who was easy for the establishment to dislike. He also noted that’s something that comes with the territory when you spend your career telling people they’re wrong and you’re right.

“But often it’s the people who are not easy to like,” Taubes said, “who are the ones who are willing to challenge entire establishment belief systems.”

For the full obituary see:

Chris Kornelis. “A Diabetic Who Pioneered Self-Monitoring for Blood Sugar.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 10, 2025): C6.

(Note: the online version of the WSJ obituary has the date May 9, 2025, and has the title “Richard Bernstein, Who Pioneered Diabetics’ Self-Monitoring of Blood Sugar, Dies at 90.”)

Bernstein’s book mentioned above is:

Bernstein, Richard K., MD. Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2011.

Taubes’s book mentioned above is:

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

“If She Ever Had a Clever Thought, It Died Alone and Afraid”

I still smile whenever I see a Tesla Cybertruck. Boldly audacious–its mere existence gives me hope for the future. If I could charge its battery as fast as I can fill a tank of gas, I would buy one tomorrow. I still worry that Musk will implode or cave. But right now he looks like a genuine hero, defending free speech by buying Twitter, taking on the deep state by creating DOGE, solving the engineering challenges to make the dream of Mars a reality!

(p. B1) When Jennifer Trebb first pulled into her driveway two years ago with her sleek Tesla Model Y, it was — as she put it — “kind of like a ‘Back to the Future’ moment.”

She was helping the environment, she said, but driving a Tesla also had cachet. “It was definitely a little bit of a cool moment to have something that was innovative and different,” she said.

But Ms. Trebb recently made a U-turn, joining the ranks of Tesla owners in the United States and overseas — some well known, including the singer Sheryl Crow — who are selling their vehicles because the values and politics of the company’s billionaire chief executive, Elon Musk, are alienating them, they say.

. . .

(p. B6) In the United States, perhaps the most notable rebuke of the car brand was lodged by Ms. Crow, the singer-songwriter, who posted an Instagram video in February [2025] showing her waving goodbye as her electric vehicle was driven away on a flatbed truck.

. . .

In an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, mocked Ms. Crow’s protest.

“I think she means well, but if she ever had a clever thought, it died alone and afraid,” Mr. Kennedy said.

For the full story see:

Neil Vigdor. “Tesla for Sale: Buyer’s Remorse Sets In For E.V. Owners Who’ve Soured on Musk.” The New York Times (Friday, March 7, 2025): B1 & B6.

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

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 5, 2025, and has the title “Tesla for Sale: Buyer’s Remorse Sinks In for Elon Musk’s E.V.-Owning Critics.”)

Once You Experience Entrepreneurship “Everything Else Is Boring”

(p. B12) C. Richard Kramlich, an early investor in Silicon Valley who co-founded the investment giant New Enterprise Associates, helping to fuel the booming tech industry, died on Saturday [Feb. 1, 2025] at his home in Oakville, Calif., in the Napa Valley. He was 89.

. . .

He co-founded his own firm, New Enterprise Associates, or NEA, building it from an initial $16 million fund in the 1970s to one that now oversees investments of nearly $26 billion.

But he stood out among Silicon Valley’s sea of swashbuckling financiers because of his grace and kindness, said Scott Sandell, the chief investment officer and executive chairman of NEA.

. . .

When he was 13, Dick followed in his father’s entrepreneurial footsteps, starting his own “little lightbulb company,” he said in a 2015 interview with the Computer History Museum. “My father encouraged me to do it if I used my own money, and so I bought half a train car worth of lightbulbs from Sylvania Corporation” and resold them from his bedroom.

He added: “I come from three generations of entrepreneurs, and once you get it in your DNA, everything else is boring.”

. . .

. . . Mr. Kramlich met a pair of entrepreneurs who were both named Steve (Jobs and Wozniak). Their company, Apple Computer, was not as good as two other personal computer companies in the market, Mr. Kramlich said in 2015. But their sense of design and entrepreneurial spark were impressive. “They had pizazz,” he said, “where the other two companies were more engineering oriented.”

. . .

Venture capital investing is designed to absorb many losses in pursuit of one home-run deal, leaving a graveyard of failed start-ups along the way. But Mr. Kramlich was known for sticking with struggling investments long after others had abandoned them.

“He used to say, ‘Never say die,’” Mr. Sandell said.

In the early 1980s, Forethought, the start-up behind PowerPoint software, was about to run out of money, and NEA’s partners refused to pony up more. So Mr. Kramlich convinced his wife that they should pause work on the house they were building on Stinson Beach and use the cash to keep the company alive instead. The gamble paid off: In 1987, Microsoft bought Forethought for $14 million, and PowerPoint went on to become one of the world’s best-known software programs.

For the full obituary see:

Erin Griffith. “Richard Kramlich, 89, A Silicon Valley Investor Revered for Humaneness.” The New York Times (Wednesday, February 8, 2025): B12.

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

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date Feb. 6, 2025, and has the title “C. Richard Kramlich, Early Investor in Silicon Valley, Dies at 89.”)

Regulations Discourage Search for Magic Bullet Cures

The so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” mandates that several of the biggest blockbuster drugs must have prices negotiated between Medicare and Pharma firms. As the commentary quoted below suggests, this creates an incentive for Pharma firms to develop many middling drugs rather than a couple of blockbuster drugs. Paul Ehrlich’s “magic bullet” may be impossible, but we will never know if no-one is trying to discover it.creates an

(p. B10) A true home run in the drug industry is when a company develops a mega-blockbuster that transforms its finances for years.

But with Medicare trying to bring costs down by targeting the industry’s most expensive drugs, a portfolio of medium-size moneymakers that can keep your name off the U.S. government’s naughty list can be a wise strategy.

That is at least one reason why big pharma is investing heavily in biotech companies developing antibody-drug conjugates. Known as ADCs, these treatments work like a guided missile by pairing antibodies with toxic agents to fight cancer. In short, they enable a more targeted form of chemotherapy that goes straight into the cancer cells while minimizing harm to healthy cells.

. . .

One reason most ADCs aren’t likely to become mega-blockbusters like Keytruda, a cancer immunotherapy that has earned 35 approvals across 16 types of cancer, is that they aren’t one-size-fits-all drugs. Instead, they are designed to target a specific protein that is expressed on the surface of a cancer cell. That means that each drug is made with an antibody targeting a subset of cancer. There are more than 100 ADCs being tested in humans by pharma and biotech companies.

For the full commentary see:

David Wainer. “Heard on the Street; Drug Industry’s Secret Weapon: ‘Guided Missiles’.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Oct. 27, 2023 [sic]): B10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date October 26, 2023 [sic], and has the title “Heard on the Street; ‘Guided Missile Drugs’ Could Be Big Pharma’s Secret Weapon.”)

Ozempic Profits Poured into Massive Supercomputer Meant to Power AI for Future Drug Development

I think AI is currently being oversold. But I am very ignorant and could be wrong, so I favor a diversity of privately-funded bets on what will work to bring us future breakthrough innovations.

(p. B2) Two of the world’s most important companies are now in a partnership born from the success of their most revolutionary products. The supercomputer was built with technology from Nvidia—and money from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The charitable organization has become supremely wealthy as the largest shareholder in Novo Nordisk, which means this project was made possible by the breakthrough drugs that have sent the Danish company’s stock price soaring.

To put it another way, it’s the first AI supercomputer funded by Ozempic.

It was named Gefion after the goddess of Norse mythology who turned her sons into oxen so they could plow the land that would become Denmark’s largest island.

. . .

Whatever you call it, Gefion is a beast. It is bigger than a basketball court. It weighs more than 30 tons. It took six months to manufacture and install. It also required an investment of $100 million.

. . .

When it’s fully operational, the AI supercomputer will be available to entrepreneurs, academics and scientists inside companies like Novo Nordisk, which stands to benefit from its help with drug discovery, protein design and digital biology.

For the full commentary see:

Ben Cohen. “It’s a Giant New Supercomputer That Might Transform an Entire Country.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Nov. 2, 2024): B2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 1, 2024, and has the title “Science of Success; The Giant Supercomputer Built to Transform an Entire Country—and Paid For by Ozempic.”)

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.

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?”)

AI Algorithms Lack Intelligence Since They Are “Just Predicting the Next Word in a Text”

(p. B5) Yann LeCun helped give birth to today’s artificial-intelligence boom. But he thinks many experts are exaggerating its power and peril, and he wants people to know it.

. . .

On social media, in speeches and at debates, the college professor and Meta Platforms AI guru has sparred with the boosters and Cassandras who talk up generative AI’s superhuman potential, from Elon Musk to two of LeCun’s fellow pioneers, who share with him the unofficial title of “godfather” of the field. They include Geoffrey Hinton, a friend of nearly 40 years who on Tuesday was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics, and who has warned repeatedly about AI’s existential threats.

. . .

LeCun thinks AI is a powerful tool.

. . .

At the same time, he is convinced that today’s AIs aren’t, in any meaningful sense, intelligent—and that many others in the field, especially at AI startups, are ready to extrapolate its recent development in ways that he finds ridiculous.

If LeCun’s views are right, it spells trouble for some of today’s hottest startups, not to mention the tech giants pouring tens of billions of dollars into AI. Many of them are banking on the idea that today’s large language model-based AIs, like those from OpenAI, are on the near-term path to creating so-called “artificial general intelligence,” or AGI, that broadly exceeds human-level intelligence.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman last month said we could have AGI within “a few thousand days.” Elon Musk has said it could happen by 2026.

LeCun says such talk is likely premature. When a departing OpenAI researcher in May talked up the need to learn how to control ultra-intelligent AI, LeCun pounced. “It seems to me that before ‘urgently figuring out how to control AI systems much smarter than us’ we need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat,” he replied on X.

He likes the cat metaphor. Felines, after all, have a mental model of the physical world, persistent memory, some reasoning ability and a capacity for planning, he says. None of these qualities are present in today’s “frontier” AIs, including those made by Meta itself.

Léon Bottou, who has known LeCun since 1986, says LeCun is “stubborn in a good way”—that is, willing to listen to others’ views, but single-minded in his pursuit of what he believes is the right approach to building artificial intelligence.

Alexander Rives, a former Ph.D. student of LeCun’s who has since founded an AI startup, says his provocations are well thought out. “He has a history of really being able to see gaps in how the field is thinking about a problem, and pointing that out,” Rives says.

. . .

The large language models, or LLMs, used for ChatGPT and other bots might someday have only a small role in systems with common sense and humanlike abilities, built using an array of other techniques and algorithms.

Today’s models are really just predicting the next word in a text, he says. But they’re so good at this that they fool us. And because of their enormous memory capacity, they can seem to be reasoning, when in fact they’re merely regurgitating information they’ve already been trained on.

“We are used to the idea that people or entities that can express themselves, or manipulate language, are smart—but that’s not true,” says LeCun. “You can manipulate language and not be smart, and that’s basically what LLMs are demonstrating.”

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Pet Cat.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Oct. 12, 2024): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Oct. 11, 2024, and has the title “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Cat.” 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.)

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.)

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.)

The Nature paper discussed most 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 Nature 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.