4 ms·

And then there's Theranos.

by aqme28 8y ago

fastball 8y ago
Theranos wasn't bad because they skirted regulation, they were bad because they outright lied about the efficacy of their (non)product.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Theranos was bad for both reasons. Even if you remove the fraud, they were skirting all sorts of regulations around patient safety and the operation of laboratories.
  - fastball 8y ago
    Not sure I agree. If you're skirting regulation but your product actually works, I don't personally think you've done anything morally wrong. The law cares, but realistically those regulations are in place to prevent fraud or dysfunctional products. If Theranos' machine actually did what they said it could, it would've been a victimless crime and I wouldn't have a problem with it. It was possible to make products which benefited humanity before those regulations existed, and it's possible to do the same while skirting those regulations.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      I'd encourage you to read Bad Blood. A lot of the regulations around laboratories exist because people have died or been injured as a result of lab screwups. Theranos hid entire labs from inspectors, let uncertified people run laboratories, and a lot more that wasn't fraud, but definitely violated regulatory requirements.
      - fastball 8y ago
        I actually did read Bad Blood, and thought it was a very interesting book! But again, I think it's morally fine for an uncertified person to run a laboratory as long as they are running it correctly. But the Theranos labs were not being run correctly, and they were lying about the results that their machines could deliver. You can build a medical product that has a higher sensitivity and/or specificity than the other products on the market without regulatory oversight. But the Edison had neither of those and they were pretending it did. That was the problem.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > But again, I think it's morally fine for an uncertified person to run a laboratory as long as they are running it correctly. How do you determine if they're "running it correctly"? The whole point of certification is to require a minimum set of skills/knowledge to do so.
        fastball 8y ago
        > You can build a medical product that has a higher sensitivity and/or specificity than the other products on the market without regulatory oversight. But the Edison had neither of those and they were pretending it did. That was the problem. Insert "faster" or "cheaper" as well, but that is my point. There are very clear ways to measure if your medical device is effective.

And then there's Theranos.

by aqme28 8y ago

And then there's Theranos.

Theranos wasn't bad because they skirted regulation, they were bad because they outright lied about the efficacy of their (non)product.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Theranos was bad for both reasons. Even if you remove the fraud, they were skirting all sorts of regulations around patient safety and the operation of laboratories.
- fastball 8y ago
  Not sure I agree. If you're skirting regulation but your product actually works, I don't personally think you've done anything morally wrong. The law cares, but realistically those regulations are in place to prevent fraud or dysfunctional products. If Theranos' machine actually did what they said it could, it would've been a victimless crime and I wouldn't have a problem with it. It was possible to make products which benefited humanity before those regulations existed, and it's possible to do the same while skirting those regulations.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    I'd encourage you to read Bad Blood. A lot of the regulations around laboratories exist because people have died or been injured as a result of lab screwups. Theranos hid entire labs from inspectors, let uncertified people run laboratories, and a lot more that wasn't fraud, but definitely violated regulatory requirements.
    - fastball 8y ago
      I actually did read Bad Blood, and thought it was a very interesting book! But again, I think it's morally fine for an uncertified person to run a laboratory as long as they are running it correctly. But the Theranos labs were not being run correctly, and they were lying about the results that their machines could deliver. You can build a medical product that has a higher sensitivity and/or specificity than the other products on the market without regulatory oversight. But the Edison had neither of those and they were pretending it did. That was the problem.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        > But again, I think it's morally fine for an uncertified person to run a laboratory as long as they are running it correctly. How do you determine if they're "running it correctly"? The whole point of certification is to require a minimum set of skills/knowledge to do so.
        fastball 8y ago
        > You can build a medical product that has a higher sensitivity and/or specificity than the other products on the market without regulatory oversight. But the Edison had neither of those and they were pretending it did. That was the problem. Insert "faster" or "cheaper" as well, but that is my point. There are very clear ways to measure if your medical device is effective.