3 ms·
If they're going to ban her from operating labs for two years, does that mean they think she'll be, in some way, rehabilitated and capable of soundly running la
by sndean 10y ago
If they're going to ban her from operating labs for two years, does that mean they think she'll be, in some way, rehabilitated and capable of soundly running labs after that?
Maybe there is little precedent, but that length of time seems a bit arbitrary (and too short?).
- tamana 10y agoIt's a time out in the corner , with two years of lost revenue, to think about what she did wrong and make a plan to build a proper lab
- ben_jones 10y agoRevocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation I think it's a case where the company had a certificate revoked as part of that process is a direct ban on the person in charge of said lab, which bubbled up to Holmes. I would've supported a direct levy on her but this just seems to be aimed at the company.
- atarian 10y agoDoubt she'll have much impact if she decides to return after two years. Her reputation is beyond repair at this point.
- mikeash 10y agoThat was my first reaction to the headline. Banning her from running a lab for two years feels like banning a murderer from owning a gun for two years, or banning a corrupt politician from holding office for two years. Seems like it ought to be a lot longer!