|
|
|
|
|
|
by tclmeelmo
3709 days ago
|
|
|
I would predict that it depends on where the money is coming from. For VC firms that are experienced in the biomedical space, Theranos changes nothing because they were already suspicious of Theranos. For firms that are inexperienced in the biomedical space, they have hopefully learned that growth cannot compensate for flaws in science or technology. If they continue to invest in biomedical, they will be much more careful in their DD; or perhaps they lose their appetite for biomedical and leave entirely. I don't think things have changed for biomedical startups that are based on good science and technology and have an experienced team. What would be wonderful is if the media learned a lesson from this mess. As I see it, they were a passenger in the Theranos hype machine. |
|
|
Exactly, which will result in essentially a return to the status quo. The investors who understand the complexities and models of the various biomedical industries will continue to invest as they always have. The carpetbaggers will fold up their tents and move on. The result is less likely to be systemic taint or damage to biotech startups as a whole -- though this may happen in the short term -- and more likely to be a reduction in fly-by-night or sketchy biotech startups for lack of funding.
"I don't think things have changed for biomedical startups that are based on good science and technology and have an experienced team."
Yes. To paraphrase Buffett, the tide will go out, and we'll see who's been swimming naked -- but the people who've been wearing swimsuits will be just fine.
"What would be wonderful is if the media learned a lesson from this mess. As I see it, they were a passenger in the Theranos hype machine."
The media hype surrounding Theranos was truly spectacular to behold. One day, nobody's ever heard of this company that's been stealthily chugging along for nearly a decade and raising heroic amounts of capital. The next day, Holmes is on the cover of every business magazine, in full Steve Jobs attire and disposition. (I'm pretty sure one or two breathless headlines actually called her "The next Steve Jobs.") Soon she's headlining the lecture circuit and racking up more puff pieces and cover stories.
It's as if nobody took a critical eye to any of this hype, other than the WSJ. No doubt a confluence of factors was at play here: A desire to fill the "Great Tech Visionary" vibe left vacant by Steve Jobs's death. A desire to find the next great female role model. A desire to cover "hard tech," and not just the Nth food-delivery app of the week. And then there's just good old-fashioned me-tooism, which routinely plagues the business press: "Everyone else is covering this, so it must be a Thing, and now that it's a Thing, we have to cover it!"