This week, I attended the screening of “You Can See Everything,” a revealing documentary focused on the controversial figure of Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of the biotech company Theranos. Entering the theater, I had deliberately avoided any spoilers, curious about what fresh insights the film could provide on a story that has captivated the public for years. The narrative surrounding Theranos has been extensively covered, from the bestseller “Bad Blood” to the Hulu series “The Dropout.” Yet, after watching the documentary, I left feeling a profound sense of unease—not only about Holmes’s deceit but also about the broader implications of how we cover scientific advancements.
Holmes, who dropped out of Stanford at just 19 to launch Theranos, claimed her company could conduct a multitude of medical tests using only a few drops of blood. At its peak, Theranos was valued at $9 billion, and Holmes was heralded as a self-made billionaire. However, the facade began to crumble in 2015 when a Wall Street Journal investigation raised serious questions about the efficacy of Theranos’s technology. Reports revealed that the company’s blood-testing devices were inadequately validated and, at times, relied on traditional lab equipment for analysis. What followed was a cascade of legal troubles, culminating in Holmes being charged with fraud and ultimately sentenced to over 11 years in prison.
The documentary provides an intimate look at Holmes’s life, capturing her interactions with her partner and their young children while she grapples with the impending consequences of her actions. Directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, the film features close-up shots that make the viewer feel deeply engaged in the characters’ emotional turmoil. It poses challenging questions about trust and manipulation, as Holmes attempts to reshape her narrative through the lens of the camera. Even as someone well-versed in the facts of the Theranos case, I found myself questioning her motives and feeling a certain empathy for her plight as a mother facing incarceration. This emotional complexity highlights a significant issue in the realm of scientific journalism: the challenge of discerning truth in a landscape where not everything is visible or verifiable.
One of the critical takeaways from both the documentary and the Theranos saga is the importance of peer review in science. Holmes’s claims were largely unsubstantiated by published studies, which raises concerns about accountability in scientific research. While the peer review process serves as a cornerstone for validating scientific work, there are instances where results are manipulated or exaggerated, leading to misleading conclusions. Recent trends have seen scientists opting for preprint servers to share their findings before peer review, which can present its own challenges. As a journalist, I strive to uphold rigorous standards by cross-verifying scientific claims and consulting experts before publishing. However, the Theranos case serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls in our pursuit of truth, emphasizing the necessity for transparency and scrutiny in scientific communication.
Source: In the biotech world, you can’t see everything via MIT Technology Review