The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley

I don't know if in more than 10 years I ever had a documentary on my blog. Maybe I can't remember it, but it would break my principle of going for "escape from reality", which I try to keep, and which is already messed up a lot by the rain of biopics that pour especially in the pre-Oscar season. It's enough real life in the real life - that's why we need movies. That's a reason why I didn't want to write this entry. But the alternative would have been another "sleeping pill" made in Hong Kong, and one much worse than the one of last time. So, here we are...

This documentary is one produced by HBO, out of the many media released in the last months over the Theranos case, or more precisely Elizabeth Holmes. She had an "attempt" to change the blood tests industry, which started around 2003. In brief, no needles, 200 tests only with a drop of blood from your finger. Cool, nu? Only that it didn't work. Maybe it wouldn't have been a problem if everything would have stopped in time, but the details are scary... From the amplitude of the fake image built on nothing, the invested money, the lies in the end, the pressure over the employees and the consequences (probably it would seem ironic to kill yourself with paracetamol when you're a lead chemist researcher... unless it's something real), the impact (fortunately sort of limited at time) that a "fake" test could have on sick people, and even the behavior of the CEO during the last days of the company, which if was as reported by the media seems like a page from a psychiatric clinic's file... Just Google search Elisabeth Holmes + husky + wolf.

I won't give a rating, because I don't want to do that for a documentary. But the one here is a weak one. There's way, way too gentle and "misses" lots of details in all what happened (including some of the above). Again... it's somehow ironical... considering how gritty the HBO series usually are. There's enough additional material however, including on YouTube, if you really want to know more. I got to this one after watching a while ago something that lasted around 30 minutes and a couple of other short clips, much more "on the facts". Honestly, that was "horror" enough and I don't think I would've needed any extra info. Somehow I can say that it's comforting that the HBO stuff didn't bring more to the story.

That gets me to the other reason why I didn't want to write this entry. Something like this is very disturbing for somebody who works in research. It makes you wonder where are the limits you could go for when trying something new, and where should you stop. There's another side of it also. I'd be very tempted now to write a long digression of what means "real research" and "fake research". The problem with Theranos is that everything was closed, there was no scientific analysis from outside, and there's still a mystery up to what point the lady in the poster trusted the nothing she marketed, and from what point she was aware it was nothing (if she became aware...). Unfortunately, and that's scary, Theranos is just one case. I think what's going on in the blockchain/distributed ledgers/ICOs area at this moment, although the boom took some rest, is another good example (I cannot explain how some names are still in top 20 on CoinMarketCap, but I prefer not telling which...). Fortunately in academics the "fake research" is not as damaging as in the industry - you won't test your stuff directly in production. Unfortunately there still are many dumb situations that lead you too often involuntarily towards "fake research". Still, at least in academics you have third-party reviews in conferences and journals on what you do to keep you where you should be (well, as long as these are not "fake" too...). Essentially remains for you to be able to self-assess your level and discern between "fake" and "real", and more important, the implications. As long as you can do it, you won't hurt anybody, and that's what matters first...