WSJ: The Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Founder Recounts ‘Big Idea’ That Led to Creation of Theranos

Jury duty can sometimes be interesting. Out-the-corner-of-an-eye, I have been watching some news reports about the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos trial. I have previously commented on the leadership and innovation characteristics of Theranos leaders. Today, I watched a news report about how a hedge fund investor claimed to have been deceived by the Theranos story.  I also found a WSJ article published today titled “The Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Founder Recounts ‘Big Idea’ That Led to Creation of Theranos” which has the very interesting by-line “Holmes says early feedback from scientists fueled her optimism about startup’s blood-testing technology.” At least, it’s interesting to me.

So I am thinking and wondering:

1. Miniaturization can be a very compelling direction in technology innovation. We generally love personal products that are compact and sometimes even almost invisible. Thinking “nano” as a favored buzz word. The result isn’t always a success and can be the cause of new problems. But anyone who has studied analytical chemistry should be able to tell you that miniaturizing sampling lowers accuracy. The margin of error in the blood draw, contamination issues, preservation requirements and eventual sample handling all detrimentally affect sample integrity and analyte detectability. This is understood of even simple samples and as being even more difficult in a blood media matrix. The basic knowledge one needs is that scaling down pushes uncertainty up…and in chemical analysis, unbridled uncertainty leads to useless data. It’s reality, not skepticism. Lesson for YCISL: Manage uncertainty with divergent-convergent thinking with a fail early, fail fast attitude.

2. So where were the scientists? The WSJ news report mentions scientists inside and outside Theranos, and uses the words “dismissed” and “unimpressed” which reflects negative views, but that still does not reflect a clear and thorough scientific understanding of analytical detection limits. Was there any robust & rigorous scholarly communication and discussion? Where are the science publications, reviews and commentaries?  And where were the hedge fund manager’s scientists and science advisors? How did the science of this get so distorted and mis-aligned? Lesson for YCISL: Make sure your team communicates really well.

3. Most of the news reports mention what was said and what people thought was said. What were the questions asked and what was the path of enquiry that these questions developed? For leadership, the questions are as important as the answers. Did anyone perform a check-for-understanding? What were the body language and other hints that accompanied the Q&A? Lesson for YCISL: Practice active listening and make sure you support your critical thinking with questions.