On a recent flight, I watched the HBO documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. It chronicles the dramatic rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of a start-up, Theranos, that claimed to have revolutionised blood testing.
There is a good article in the New Republic
What the Theranos Documentary Misses
Instead of examining Elizabeth Holmes’s personality, look at the people and systems that aided the company’s rise.
In spite of the weaknesses described in that article, the documentary made me think about a range of issues at the interface of science, technology, philosophy, and social justice.
The story underscores Kauzmann's maxim, ``people will often believe what they want to believe rather than what the evidence before them suggests they should believe.''
Truth matters. Eventually, we all bounce up against reality: scientific, technological, economic, legal, ... It does not matter how much hype and BS one can get away, eventually, it will all come crashing down. It is just amazing that some people seem to get away with it for so long...
This is why transparency is so important. A bane of modern life is the proliferation of Non-Disclosure Agreements. Although, I concede they have a limited role is certain commercial situations, they seem to be now used to avoid transparency and accountability for all sorts of dubious practises in diverse social contexts.
The transition from scientific knowledge to a new technology is far from simple. A new commercial device needs to be scalable, reliable, affordable, and safe. For medicine, the bar is a lot higher than a phone app!
Theranos had a board featuring ``big'' names in politics, business, and military, such as Henry Kissinger, George Shulz, Daniel Mattis,.. All these old men were besotted with Holmes and more than happy to take large commissions for sitting on the board. Chemistry, engineering, and medical expertise were sorely lacking. However, even the old man with relevant knowledge Channing Robertson was a true believer until the very end.
Holmes styled herself on Steve Jobs and many wanted to believe that she would revolutionise blood testing. However, the analogy is flawed. Jobs basically took existing robust technology and repackaged and marketed it in clever ways. Holmes claimed to have invented a totally new technology. What she was trying to do was a bit like trying to build a Macintosh computer in the 1960s.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
“This should be a real cautionary tale,” Keller adds. “How on Earth could we have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars studying pure noise?”
ReplyDeletethe above extract from the following web site.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/waste-1000-studies/589684/
A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers
Decades of early research on the genetics of depression were built on nonexistent foundations. How did that happen?
Luxury journals must also be blamed for this.
Book worth reviewing.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030123253
The Rise of the Scientist-Bureaucrat
Survival Guide for Researchers in the 21st Century
Authors: Perez Velazquez, Jose Luis
The author was a former Prof of Biology at University of Toronto. His details below
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030123253#aboutAuthors