Bad Blood

While visiting a friend she fished a hefty book out of her living room, handed it to me, and said she hadn’t seen her wife for two days so engrossing had the book been.  That sort of endorsement is, for me, as seductive as a dirty martini at Friday Happy Hour. 

I settled into the book right away: Bad Blood Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. It details the foundation, building, and ultimate downfall of the company Theranos.  A medical device was promised to revolutionize blood-testing.  People bought in.  There were millions invested.  Publicity ensued.

The engineers of the company told the founder, Elizabeth Holmes, the promise of this technology could not be kept.  Her solution was to hide the malfunctions and continue to promise the technology.  Eventually, the truth surfaced.  The blood-testing device produced false results and the consequences, if left unchecked, could have been dire.  Medications, diagnosis, and procedures hinge on the veracity of a blood test result. 

Three things come to mind as I reflect on this book. 

1. There was a genuine desire to report on and see the success of a young woman in the tech industry.  But because the media interest focused on Elizabeth Holmes the actual integrity of the blood-testing device was either overshadowed or nonexistent.  The very notion of ambition must be revisited here and I yield to the writings of Aristotle for clarity.  Ambition as such should be in conjunction with excellence.  It is the practice of contemplation and a steady work of character.  It cannot be obfuscated with notions of power and domination.  Holmes’s handling of investments and empty guarantees were spawned not by ambition but by greed.  In Aristotle’s terms this constitutes an excess of character or a vice.  Financial gain and power are not in and of themselves problematic, but they can be when in lieu of excellence rather than the result of excellence.  
2. The unraveling and deceit of Theranos is an important story to tell.  It also highlights the gravity of journalism in a day when the field finds itself under attack and called “fake” or “enemy of the people.”  In truth, many people could have suffered from this poorly designed tool; yet, quality journalism unearthed the magnitude of the company’s flaws and outright false claims.  Indeed, one woman spent a Thanksgiving evening in the ER due to a false blood test result from this Theranos device.  After undergoing a deluge of further testing that ultimately cost her $3,000 out of pocket, she learned there was nothing wrong with her.  What if she had been ill and the blood test came back clean?  That was just one of the many incidents reported.
3. I cannot help but draw parallels between Theranos and the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster (1986). In both cases the engineers informed management of serious difficulties.  With the case of the Challenger the O-ring was a vulnerable part of the shuttle and in cold temperatures would fail.  This was explained to the business side of the launch and ignored. Seven astronauts lost their lives.  Why would the Challenger launch when on the eve before the engineers told management it was doomed to fail?  Why would Holmes ignore her own engineers?  Scheduling.  Business.  Because management told too many people it was ready.  The essence of the failures underscoring both cases looks eerily similar, namely, the image of the company and possible profits drowned out the very purpose of these endeavors: human excellence, knowledge, and innovation.