On the other hand, out of the top 5 pharma companies, only 3/5 CEOs have science degrees: (Edit: was 1, wasn't counting medical degrees before)

  #1: Novartis: Economics, MBA
  #2: Pfizer: BS chemical engineering, chartered accountancy
  #3: Roche: economics, law
  #4: Sanofi: MD
  #5: Merck: veterinary medicine, PhD

So a person who didn't know any better might not assume a science degree was necessary.

Do you think it's fair to compare a startup with established multinational companies that have profits and a serious track record? These investors are presumably investing in something, not writing a blank cheque. I could go start a space mining company tomorrow, with a view towards building a space shuttle that was powered by a single drop of oil but I would assume that I would have some trouble raising capital without some kind of verification of my claims.

I don't see one with a science degree. I see two with science degrees -- both in the same social science, each of which also has a professional degree in addition -- one with an engineering degree, and two with professional degrees in medicine (one if which is veterinary).

I count at least 3/5. Last I checked chemical engineering, MD and veterinary medicine are all science degrees, two are terminal degrees (MD, PhD.)

What does running a company have to do with science? I'm being serious here. It's not like the Ceo of a company is going to personally check on lab results.

The CEO needs to have an idea of what conditions are for workers. If I change the work-at-home policy, will we still be able to get work done, while attracting the right people? If someone comes up with a suggestion like "let's make such-and-such a molecule, it will cure the common cold", the boss needs to know what questions to ask. It's about have a prior that's better informed than a non-science person would have.

Lately there's been a trend towards thinking that management is somehow separate from doing things. It's a somewhat anglo-saxon thing, you'll find it less in the Germanic world.

Because it was a science startup company. The underlying proprietary technology that the entire company is supposed to be based on is a fraud.

It doesn't matter if their tech may one day only require a microlitre of blood to do a blood test. It doesn't work today. They were trading in the market as if it did. That can't be handwaved away. That fact isn't under dispute. That's according to several of Theranos's own current and former employees.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Scientists know this. The fact that Theranos's board lost all it's scientific leadership in July 2013 has been widely cited as a major contributing factor to this debacle. The judgement to not make those false claims is what running the company has to do with science.

> #5: Merck: veterinary medicine, PhD

I'm really curious what sort of path takes someone from training to be a vet to heading up a global pharmaceuticals company.

Animal models of disease are very important for drug development.

If anything, veterinary medicine is more often more scientific that human clinical medicine due to the greater ease with which experimental approaches can be performed on animals compared to humans.

I'd say a PhD from vet school is just as relevant as a PhD in med school. You are dealing with the same problems, just with a much wider patient type.

Yeah, I don't know if this has anything to do with a science degree. Folks with science degrees can end up managing things in a suboptimal manner, and so can folks without science degrees.