Absolutely not. Start-ups are supposed to fail early and fail often but when you're in the medical space you simply can't act entirely like a technology start-up. People's lives depend on many of these tests; you can't just go "well let's ignore the FDA and we'll take the slap on the wrist" like in other industries. Here they might deliver inaccurate test results that are then used to treat someone for a medical issue.
That can be deadly. Yeah many people are going crazy from the valuation and secrecy but there is plenty of legitimate scrutiny here especially if you read this article (I'm assuming you didn't because of your very generic Theranos comment versus addressing the issues in the article itself which sound grossly negligent, IMHO).
But the attention is because people can't stand high valuations?
All the way. It's not there. At all.
Nobody really gives a fuck about the valuation except valuation wonks. But a lot of people care a lot about this woman being a complete charlatan who is endangering public health.
There is a reason why certain industries are scrutinized so closely because of the effect they can have on people. Being in those industries, even as a startup, means you must follow the rules.
Or are you fine with your doctor using some "unauthorized" random equipment the next time you need critical tests or surgery?
Hm. In that case I guess we would have to ask the question -- how legitimate does the eBay site look?
If we as software engineers want to work on problems that matter, and not just dating apps and ad networks, we can't have a work ethic that encourages us to ignore troublesome laws and regulations and launch half-baked MVPs with a plan to maybe fix problems as they arise in future iterations. Sure, work smart, automate all the boring shit, but your automation has to be correct. Sure, focus on a MVP to get off the ground -- but make sure your product is viable, and correct across the minimum set of features.
Even when we are working quickly, sparsely, we should be laying good foundations for the future. We shouldn't be lazy conmen selling poisonous snake-oil.
Theranos is NOT a new company. They've been around for more than a decade.
This isn't the latest and greatest dating app. This is medical tests that have a very real impact on the treatment provided to patients.
All of the critiques I see don't seem even close to show stoppers. No public peer reviewed studies? Some lab updates to match FDA regulations? Using some "unauthorized" third party equipment? This is a new company, why should these be the doomsday callings?
I have no idea if Theranos will succeed, but I can't shake the feeling that this media response is inflated due to the high valuation, and journalists are falling victim to the hype as much as the public, whereas this is a fairly normal health startup otherwise. It probably was a mistake to accept such a high valuation, so I don't think Theranos is totally innocent here.
It's also strange that a paywall article made it to the front page? I wouldn't guess there's a big overlap of WSJ subscribers and HN readers (lol conspiracy).