>, but the reality is that the strongest criticisms of Theranos have more to do with business structure than their blood tests. No. The strongest criticism ha

>, but the reality is that the strongest criticisms of Theranos have more to do with business structure than their blood tests. No. The strongest criticism has been characterizing Ms Holmes as a fraud and Theranos as a sham business that took 400 million of investor money for vaporware. I don't know if they deserve such harsh characterization but those are the accusations that have been leveled at it. >I’d rather have Theranos and those like her out in the world solving these problems. On the contrary, if Ms Holmes turns out to be more showman than scientist, it may prevent other investors from investing in future legitimate biotech companies. If Theranos goes down in flames, we hope that it doesn't unfairly taint other fledgling business with real products that need capital to bring them to market. >They also reduce the price of testing dramatically and present the results in a prettier, easier to read format.[...] If all Theranos ever did was make that industry more convenient, faster, and prettier using standard tools, isn’t that impressive enough on its own? The author is mixing up the romanticized idea of a desirable end state with the actual execution by Theranos. All media outlets are totally on board with the idea. (Who doesn't want cheap and accurate blood tests?) The WSJ and others criticize the execution. There are serious questions about ethics at Theranos. Both ethics in science and ethics in business. The author does not address that at all. Time will tell if this criticism is unwarranted and Ms. Holmes will ultimately prove her doubters to be wrong.