Episode 81
Safi Bahcall | Loonshots: Crazy Ideas that Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries
Episode 81
Safi Bahcall
Safi Bahcall | Loonshots: Crazy Ideas that Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Safi Bahcall, a physicist, biotech entrepreneur, and the author of “Loonshots,” a book about how to nurture the types of crazy ideas that win wars, cure diseases, and transform industries.
In the early days of World War II, the Third Reich’s commander of submarines Karl Dönitz submitted a memorandum to the German Navy, advocating for a system of submarine warfare that would devastate allied supply lines, merchant vessels, and warships. For a nation with a second-rate navy, this was asymmetrical warfare at its finest. With the implementation of the plan, known as “Rudeltaktik,” allied losses began to rise rapidly, from 750,000 tons of cargo lost in 1939 to 7.8 million in 1942. Every month, U-boats were sinking ships faster than the Allies could build them, and the losses kept mounting. By early 1943, food supplies to Britain had dwindled to two-thirds of normal levels. Less than three months of commercial oil reserves remained: The British were on the verge of defeat.
At just the time when all hope seemed lost in the Battle for the Atlantic, an American physicist by the name of Alfred Loomis appointed to assemble and lead a team of the country’s best engineers and physicists, presented the Army with the first of two timely innovations. When mounted on Americas’ B-24 Liberator bombers these tiny boxes with their microwave antennas could detect the periscopes of surfaced submarines, through daytime cloud cover or fog of night. By the spring of 1943, these long-range bombers, equipped with Loomis’ microwave radar and pulsed-radio navigation were fully operational and actively patrolling the Atlantic. What ensued was a massacre.
In the month of May alone, Allied bombers operating through fog and darkness and who could now see the once invisible German submarines lighting up their oscilloscope screens, sank 41 U-boats nearly one-third of the German commander’s total operational fleet and more in one month than in any of the first three years of the war. Allied shipping losses, in 90 days, decreased by 95 percent: from 514,000 tons in March to 22,000 tons in June. The lanes to resupply Europe had been opened making way for the ground invasion at Normandy only a year later. The Allies turned what had appeared by all accounts to be an imminent loss into the first great Allied victory of the War, all because a small group of scientists working out of an anonymous building at MIT, had the crazy idea to use an unproven technology to turn a German hunting ground into a turkey shoot for the allies and their microwave configured, B-24 bombers that were busy lighting up the Atlantic.
This week, on Hidden Forces, we explore how to nurture the types of crazy ideas that win wars, cure disease, and transform industries, with our guest Safi Bahcall.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Safi Bahcall is a physicist, biotech entrepreneur, and the author of “Loonshohts,” a book about how to nurture the types of crazy ideas that win wars, cure diseases and transform industries. Safi received his BA summa cum laude from Harvard and his Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, where he worked with renowned theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind and Nobel laureate Bob Laughlin. He was a Miller Fellow in physics at UC Berklee and worked for three years as a consultant for McKinsey before going on to co-found Synta Pharmaceutical, a biotechnology company that specialized in developing new drugs to treat cancer, leading its 2007 IPO and serving as its President & CEO for 13 years.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis;
Et quod est munus, quod opus sapientiae? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Sunt enim prima elementa naturae, quibus auctis vírtutis quasi germen efficitur.
Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; At multis se probavit. Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Erat enim Polemonis. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Quaero igitur, quo modo hae tantae commendationes a natura profectae subito a sapientia relictae sint. Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Tanti autem aderant vesicae et torminum morbi, ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere.
Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Sed venio ad inconstantiae crimen, ne saepius dicas me aberrare; Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Quod quidem nobis non saepe contingit. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Quid sequatur, quid repugnet, vident.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Tum ille timide vel potius verecunde: Facio, inquit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes.
Addidisti ad extremum etiam indoctum fuisse. Ut pulsi recurrant? Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest.
Ostendit pedes et pectus. Quod autem meum munus dicis non equidem recuso, sed te adiungo socium. Non potes, nisi retexueris illa. Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Quare conare, quaeso. Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis.
Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Est autem a te semper dictum nec gaudere quemquam nisi propter corpus nec dolere. Quo modo? Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; His similes sunt omnes, qui virtuti student levantur vitiis, levantur erroribus, nisi forte censes Ti. Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Nisi autem rerum natura perspecta erit, nullo modo poterimus sensuum iudicia defendere. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Quem si tenueris, non modo meum Ciceronem, sed etiam me ipsum abducas licebit. Illa argumenta propria videamus, cur omnia sint paria peccata. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum.
Non modo carum sibi quemque, verum etiam vehementer carum esse? Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae; Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Graccho, eius fere, aequalí? Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Scaevolam M.
Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Qui potest igitur habitare in beata vita summi mali metus? Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. Hoc enim identidem dicitis, non intellegere nos quam dicatis voluptatem. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti.
Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Similiter sensus, cum accessit ad naturam, tuetur illam quidem, sed etiam se tuetur; Num quid tale Democritus?
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Atque ab isto capite fluere necesse est omnem rationem bonorum et malorum. Est autem etiam actio quaedam corporis, quae motus et status naturae congruentis tenet; Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Sed quoniam et advesperascit et mihi ad villam revertendum est, nunc quidem hactenus; Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Quid ait Aristoteles reliquique Platonis alumni? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt.
Equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? Age, inquies, ista parva sunt. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere.
Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Quid ergo attinet dicere: Nihil haberem, quod reprehenderem, si finitas cupiditates haberent? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Sed quamquam negant nec virtutes nec vitia crescere, tamen utrumque eorum fundi quodam modo et quasi dilatari putant.
Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? Putabam equidem satis, inquit, me dixisse.