It is interesting. Theranos appointed high-profile people who were incapable of doing due diligence on their product. I wonder if this is another one of those.

A CEO of a phrmaceutical company ought to be able to do diligence on an FDA-trajected company in a way that a former secretary of state would not be able to evaluate a diagnostics company.

I could be lead to that conclusion, but I see this another way. Running the business of a multinational pharma company doesn't qualify you to judge primary literature in microbiology, methods, or data science of the results. It also doesn't help you differentiate claims from hot air in this emerging space. Considering the maturity of this field I think these are the skills required for due diligence. I think a pharma CEO as well as you and I are at the mercy of pop-sci reporting.

From what I read, he came by the board seat through his involvement with one of the VC that participated in this round.